All posts tagged parliament

The Gilmore damage

Aaron Gilmore has been back in Parliament just a few months, and is as low and ineffectual as National MP could be. But his drunken stupidity and his subsequent dishonest apologies and possible dishonest assurance to the Prime Minister could have a significant effect on our politics, albeit mostly negative.

Gilmore has damaged his own political career, possibly terminally.

There is also some damage to his party, reinforcing a belief by some that that all of National see themselves as privileged rich pricks. Some critics on the left are trying to inflate this damage.

And there could yet be damage to the National Government. If John Key has no choice but to have Gilmore excommunicated from National and Gilmore remains in Parliament as an independent MP (Key can’t remove him from being a list MP) that could be problematic for a Government that frequently has a majority of one.

There is also wider damage.

Many people outside politics view all MPs in the same light – dimly. Gilmore reinforces a wider impression that all MPs are arrogant and full of self importance.

Gilmore has also highlighted another problem, in two ways.

He is a symptom of the lack of depth of quality of MPs in Parliament. All parties with multiple MPs suffer from this, from NZ First and Greens to Labour and National.

And second, he be helping discourage people putting themselves forward to be an MP.

One probable reason it is hard to recruit quality political candidates is the exposure it gives the people and often to their families. If an MP makes a mistake or few, as Gilmore has, the media switch to over exposure mode. Criticism of Gilmore has now also become ridicule, with Campbell Live running showing Gilmore in a very unflattering way, going through things he has said about himself in the past.

Gilmore has not only trashed his own reputation, he has also impacted on the reputation of National and of Parliament.

Some people may be prepared to put themselves forward to be considered as MP prospects because they think they could at least do better than Gilmore.

But more people are likely to be further warned that the life of a politician can expose you to sometimes extreme scrutiny and criticism.

I’ve had a taste of this, I only operate in a small way on the very periphery of politics, but I have experienced targeted abuse and attempts to discredit simply because of being seen as a potential threat to someone or some party who thinks i could be competition, or could be critical of them.

On a bigger scale media give super exposure to MPs given any excuse. The Gilmore gaffs gave them a license to shrill.

Such is the vagaries of modern society, where one night getting pissed and in this case flaunting political power can potentially cause a lot of flow on damage.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on May 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/04/the-gilmore-damage/

Democracy demands no National veto of Parental Leave bill

If the Parental Leave bill passes through Parliament as expected National should reconsider their threat to veto it. With both majority Parliamentary support and strong poll support National don’t have any democratic justification for opposing it.

Increasing paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 26 weeks is supported by…

  • a majority in Parliament
  • a clear majority of the public
  • John Key says National was not opposed to the idea in principle

…so it looks like a no-brainer to do it.

I understand the need for fiscal restraint, but Governments are always making decisions on allocating their budget for necessary expenditure. There is a strong social case for increasing paid parental leave, and there is a double dose of democratic support – Parliament and people.

A One News/Colmar poll confirms strong public support for the bill:

“Do you support extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks?”

Yes 62%No 34%Unsure 4%

Don’t support extended leave: National Party supporters 53%

So there is nearly 50% support even from National voters. Labour and Green supporters and younger people overwhelmingly support it.

John Key says:

“There’ll be a time I’m sure one day when paid parental leave will be expanded but it has to be when we can afford it and not when we’re running up bill on the credit card.”

That day should be the day this bill is passed by Parliament.

The problem is the cost, National claim that will be $150m a year. This is disputed by Labour, but remarkably:

Officials are currently working out the actual annual cost to the taxpayer of 26 weeks leave.

The cost should have been worked out long ago – like at least approximately when the bill was drafted, or at least as soon as possible after the bill was drawn from the Member’s ballot.

And Labour don’t help their case when they are bombing the MRP share float, which will cost the country money – coincidentally by $100-200 million by some estimates.

But National should allow what Parliament and the people want.

If they veto the Parental Leave bill, especially at this stage of their second term, they risk a voter backlash, and that would be justified.

Democracy demands no National veto of the Parental Leave bill.

5 Comments
by Pete George on April 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 29, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/29/democracy-demands-no-national-veto-of-parental-leave-bill/

Speaker improves, House still elephant crap

Speaker David Carter continues to show that he is taking his job seriously and his handling of contentions Question Time continues to improve. He appears to be listening (to what goes on and to valid complaints), learning and adapting.

Carter is now doing more to encourage Ministers to give reasonable answers to questions, and he is asking Ministers to withdraw inappropriate comments – something he had been criticised for not doing.

It’s still early days in Carter’s tenure but I prefer his developing style to that of Lockwood Smith, he is more concise and to the point, and leaves it up to MPs to do the asking, answering and interpreting.

Trevor Mallard is a major contributor to the tone in the House, and he seems to be also be acting more positively and less abrasively since his recent ejection. He can be a bit pedantic at times but there is no harm in that if his point is made and he leaves it to the speaker.

Yesterday Mallard initiated a statement withdrawal:

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Quite simply, I clearly believe that every New Zealander has rights, including people accused of very serious allegations against their parents.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. There have been a lot of Speaker’s rulings about not bringing personal matters of that sort into questions and answers. There is a lot of tradition in the House and a lot of Speaker’s rulings on it, and references to matters such as that have often been ruled out of order when they are part of ministerial replies.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter of inference and it is a matter of whether that is how the answer is interpreted, particularly by the member involved. Mr Horan, it appears to me, took no offence with the answer. I think it would have been more satisfactorily answered in a different way—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took so much offence to that comment that I am speechless.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member took offence, I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw the latter part of his answer.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I withdraw.

Fair enough for both Mallard’s point of order and Carter’s response  – it was a cheap and unnecessary shot from Bridges, dealt with appropriately.

Too much disorder

Despite these improvements by major players there is still far too much unseemly disorder in the House. Some MPs are not giving the majority a fair go.

Yesterday MPs were making such a racket it defeated the purpose of Question Time. They are shitting in their own nest.

During question 10 yesterday the Speaker complained:

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have is that I could not hear the answer because of the noise coming—particularly from the Labour side of the House. If we could have the question put again, I will listen very carefully to the answer. I literally could not hear it, and I am as close to the Minister as anybody in this House, which clearly demonstrates that the level of interjection and background noise today is at an unacceptable level. I ask the member to put her question again.

Labour have been complaining bitterly about Ministers not giving adequate answers, but they frequently drown out Ministers when they are speaking…

Jacinda Ardern: Mr Speaker, if I could just ask for your assistance. In one question the Minister said “It depends which measure”. I asked which measure then, and then she said there is a whole range—

Mr SPEAKER: Again the problem I have got is, because of the noise from your own colleagues, I could not even hear the answer. The only way forward is for the member to ask the question again, but on this occasion I want to have the chance to hear the answer. If I do not hear it satisfactorily, that will be the end of the matter—if the interjections from this side of the House do not allow me to hear the answer.

Labour are often architects of their own hapless House. They provoke disdain from Ministers and then complain they are not taken seriously. It’s hard to know if this is a deliberate strategy from Labour, or if it is just bad habits and ignorance.

Paula Bennett bit back at the rabble…

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time that member’s party has not allowed me to actually answer so that members could hear it, so you had to ask me to repeat it. If they wish to hear the answer, then that is exactly what they should do.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made that point perfectly—

Hon Paula Bennett: So should that happen—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made that point perfectly clear to them.

Apparently it wasn’t clear to them. Soon after Peter Dunne made a point of order:

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the flow of question time, but I think that last question demonstrated a problem that has been apparent in the House for some days.

There is something wrong with the sound system. In this quarter of the Chamber—and I say this with no disrespect to the two members involved in that questioning process, who have both got reasonably clear voices—once the level of sound of other hubbub starts to rise, it effectively deadens out the sound of those principal speakers.

There is something not quite right with the modulation of the sound process, and we simply cannot hear clearly enough what is going on. I think, over the weekend it might be appropriate to get someone to have a look at that balance, before the House resumes on Tuesday.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order. There has been a lot of work going on with the sound system, because I think it is evident to every member that we are having significant problems with the sound system.

But, fundamentally, the other part of the problem is the level of background noise coming from right across the House. If members want to have the opportunity to question Ministers and to get answers that I can hear, so I can make rulings on the quality of those answers, I need to be able to hear both the question and the answer.

The Speaker can only do so much. The parties in the House, especially National and Labour, have to take responsibility for their behaviour.

And from what has been said, and what I’ve seen and heard, Labour are major offenders. They complain about Parliament being a circus but more often than not they are the most prominent clowns. The elephant shit in the house is largely  their own crap.

Mallard seems to be now contributing better to the order of Parliament, but as Labour’s Shadow Leader of the House can he talk sense into his colleagues?

Do Labour genuinely want answers to their questions in Parliament? Or are they deliberately promoting mayhem?

A raucous rabble will never be respected, by their opponents or by the voters.

by Pete George on April 12, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 12, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/12/speaker-improves-house-still-elephant-crap/

Carter: “incredibly unhelpful to the order of the House”

In an interview with Audrey Young David Carter said that about John Key but he could as easily applied it to other MPs.

Carter in which he explains his part in recent events in Parliament in NZ Herald.

On John Key:

In relation to Wednesday’s incident he said: “I think in hindsight it was out of order (Mr Key’s comment) but a significant reason as to why I didn’t ask for that reply to be withdrawn is that it was directed at Grant Robertson and Grant Robertson sat and appeared to take no offence.

“If he had raised it and taken offence, I’m sure the outcome would have been the Prime Minister would have been asked to withdraw that part and maybe even withdraw and apologise.”

Asked about whether the Prime Minister had stirred things up, Mr Carter said: “I think the Prime Minister was incredibly unhelpful to the order of the House.”

Carter had also said similar at the time in Parliament. Key has a responsibility to respedct the Speaker and the intent of Question Time, he is abusing Carter’s greater leniency on politcal jousting.

On Trevor Mallard:

Mr Mallard had been riled by Mr Key twice referring to someone being “brighter” than Mr Robertson without reprimand. But when Mr Mallard told Mr Carter to sit down while he was speaking he was thrown out and when Mr Hipkins tried several times to question Mr Carter, he was asked to leave too.

“I have tried to be extremely patient and not asked people to leave the chamber,” said Mr Carter, calling Mallard’s remarks “indefensible”.

In Speaker’s ruling sets stage for hostilities of biblical proportions Jane Clifton glossed over Mallard’s behaviour, and left wing bloggers have defended Labour and heaped criticism on Carter.

Chris Trotter in Making Bold With The Speaker’s Chair thinks Carter is “unfairly favouring the other side” and also tries to justify Mallard’s behaviour:

The level of exasperation needed for someone as experienced as Mallard to commit such a flagrant breach of parliamentary order is considerable. Dissatisfaction with Speaker Carter’s behaviour in the Chair has clearly reached unprecedented levels.

Trevor Mallard’s cold fury of yesterday afternoon, and the egregious breach of parliamentary etiquette that followed, was born of Speaker Carter’s refusal to uphold the standards of Executive accountability and behaviour insisted upon by Speaker Smith.

Clifton and Trotter should read Young’s interview article – but it may not change their slanted stance, they have (different) interests in this.

On Russel Norman and David Shearer:

Greens co-leader Russel Norman often criticises Mr Carter in the House for not being like former Speaker Lockwood Smith. Last week he went to see Mr Carter about Question Time.

And this week Labour leader David Shearer went to Mr Carter about the same thing.

Opposition parties are frustrated that Mr Carter is not applying the same method as Dr Smith.

Expecting a new speaker to operate exactly the sdame as the last one is very naive and unrealistic.

On the Lockwood methods:

Generally Dr Smith would decide whether a question was “straight” or “political” and if he deemed it a straight question he would not accept a political answer – one that contained a political attack on a party.

That was hugely different from the days when ministers could simply use a word from the question and be deemed to have acceptably “addressed the question”, which is the requirement.

Mr Carter said he thought Dr Smith was the best Speaker he had ever seen in action “but I never thought for one minute I would do things exactly as Lockwood did”.“He tended to paraphrase the question as he saw it and paraphrase the answer as he saw it and then draw a conclusion as to whether the answer was adequate enough.”

Lockwood Smith was a big improvement as Speaker – but that reputation was earned over time, not immediately on taking up the position. And his methods were not ideal either.

Mr Carter said he attempted to do that for the first couple of days but the result was that some MPs sought to bring the Speaker’s comments into a question in the House.

Carter had struggled when he tried the Lockwood method, but he was not given a chance to settle in by opposition parties, who vigorously Carter trying to “do a Lockwood”.  I blogged on this at the time – Carter struggling as Speaker.

Mr Carter has opted for a halfway house. If he believes a minister has not addressed a question adequately, he will allow an MP to repeat it, sometimes several times, and Mr Hipkins has used it to the greatest effect with his questioning over the resignation of Education Secretary Lesley Longstone.

“The reason is he is asking straight questions,” said Mr Carter.

I also blogged on Carter’s change of approach: Much better Mr Speaker – rulings without interpretations.

“At some stage in proceedings you have got to move on and then the Members of Parliament and anybody listening to Parliament will judge the accuracy and ability of that minister.”

He accepted that the result had been a lot more political hurly burly had been injected back into Question Time. “It’s a political debating chamber. I don’t want Question Time to be totally sterile.”

Mr Carter has also been criticised for not explaining his rulings well enough – in contrast to Dr Smith who would discuss his rulings at length.

“It’s just my nature. I tend to be a person who speaks relatively crisply, sharply, to the point and doesn’t elaborate. That’s my nature.

So Ministers and opposition parties and MPs need to adapt to the change in Speaker.

“The House will be more difficult between now and the next election that, according to the polls, will be close and you’ve got an Opposition that has been in opposition now for two terms, and I know from my experience in Opposition it’s soul-destroying. It’s a dreadful time in anyone’s political career so I have no doubt that the tensions and the challenges of being the Speaker will only increase as we approach the next election.”

Carter seems to be doing his best to adapt and apply what he things is a fair and reasonable approach.

John Key and his Government ministers have a responsibility to respect the chair and to not abuse the greater scope Carter is giving them to joust with their opponents.

Trevor Mallard should stop trying to discredit Carter, he should stop trying to prove he would have made a better speaker, and he should contribute to enabling a better forum for all of the opposition rather than trying to cling to his ego (and ego that is struggling to find relevance in the current Parliament.

If David Shearer has any authority over Mallard and the Labour caucus he should decide whether trying to turn Question Time into a self defeating farce is ther best way for Labour to promote itself.

Russel Norman also needs to understand that the Speaker has changed and the rulings have changed. Perhsaps the Carter style doesn’t suit the Green approach as much but the Greens have to adapt or they may remain frustrated.

Ultimately the tone and value of Question Time is up to all of those participating. Parliament as a public political forum has a very poor reputation with the votong public. The current Speaker is not to blame for that, he’s not the one throwing and spitting sand in the pit.

Parties and MPs are primarly the ones who have to make the debating chamber a worthwhile part of our political process. MPs are supposed to be the people’s representatives. Grandstanding their own egos is a very poor representation of themselves.

They can choose to be more helpful to the House, and the country, or continue their incredibly bad behaviour that can’t be described as childish, that would be unfair to children.

by Pete George on March 30, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 30, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/30/carter-incredibly-unhelpful-to-the-order-of-the-house/

Speaker troubles – Key’s and Shearer’s responsibility

In an escalation of a running battle between Labour and the Speaker, two Labour MPs (Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins) were expelled from the House during question time yesterday. It has been brewing since David Carter was appointed as speaker last month.

ONE News reporter Simon Bradwell tweeted that today’s events have been a long time coming and the Opposition and Speaker have been on collision course from day one.

There has been growing frustration amongst the opposition that Ministers are getting away too much with not answering questions adequately – there’s some justification for their complaints, it is common for Ministers to avoid giving direct answers.

But there are also indications that Labour MPs are manufacturing mayhem to try and unsettle Carter. It’s hard to understand their aim, if Carter got sick of all the crap and stood down another speaker would take his place – and that wouldn’t be Trevor Mallard, despite his ambitions. New speaker, new attacks, same sad kindergarten antics.

Another complaint is that Ministers are making political jibes with impunity while opposition MPs are being reprimanded by Carter. Again there is some justification for this complaint, but it is overstated, Carter is frequently interupting Ministers and criticising them when he notices them launching into an unnecessary taunt.

John Key is one of National’s main offenders (and Labour’s main target) – and in my opinion, while some political banter is an appropriate part of the parliamentary game, I think Key does this too much.

When things flared up yesterday Key was the centre of attention and attack, and he deliberately kept pouring more petrol in an incendiary environment. That was poor from him, and made Carter’s job much harder. He was eventually asked to withdraw a comment after much prompting from the opposition.

But Labour MPs over-reacted, and it’s easy to suspect they deliberately self-martyred to try and attract attention.

First was Trevor Mallard, who nows exactly who things work in Parliament, so must have either lost control of himself, or deliberately challenged the Speaker to see what he would do.

Tension had been brewing for some time until:

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No. We are not doing further points of order on this.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will entertain it, but if it is a continuation of the other, then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. So if it is a fresh point of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, it is an absolutely fresh point of order. The point of order is whether you have rewritten the Standing Orders—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sit down until I am finished. For goodness’ sake!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. The member will leave the Chamber.

That was disgraceful from Mallard, no matter what frustrartion he may have felt.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify for the House what the point of order Trevor Mallard was going to raise was, because we have not heard it.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I had determined very quickly that it was a relitigation of the matters that have been raised. [Interruption] I have so ruled. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will entertain it. Otherwise I will deal with the—

Chris Hipkins: I am now going to raise with you the point of order that Mr Mallard was going to raise, which—

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is now relitigating—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber.

More disgraceful challenging of the Speaker, this time from Labour’s Chief Whip. If he is out of control what does that say about the Labour benches?

And as soon as he left the house Hipkins started to complain on Twitter. He should be whinging at his own stupidity.

Green MP Gareth Hughes  blogged last night:

How would you rate Speaker Carter’s performance?

Question Time is an important part of our parliamentary democracy. How do you think the new Speaker is going in refereeing it?

Some might throw their hands up in the air and consider this typical politics and unfixable but I disagree. In a Parliamentary system where checks and balances on executive power are few and far between, Question Time is an important channel through which we can make sure the elected Government is held accountable.

I responded:

You shouldn’t just be considering the performance of the Speaker, who is in very difficult position.

Serious questions should be asked of National and their behaviour and disrespect for the chair – including John Key. National should be able to be held to account in a fair and reasonable way.

But serious questions should also be asked of Labour, how they are attacking the chair and disrupting the House. They had good cause to be annoyed today, but the way they dealt with it was disgraceful and they deserved to be ejected – in fact it looked very much like that was what they were forcing to try and score some sort of “poor us” point.

The two largest parties both need to get their house in order. Then the Speaker may be able to concentrate on doing his job – with the support of the House.

There was a response to this from Alex Perrottet · Contributing Editor, Pacific Media Watch at Pacific Media Centre, AUT University

Totally agree with Pete. They were kicked out of Parliament for being disrespectful to the Speaker, clearly. Mallard has a terrible manner.

Norman raises his objections with decorum, as does Peters. But Labour were terrible.

The one thing stopping the Parliament descending into (too much) farce is that the Speakers word goes and people shut up and move on.

There are other forums, outside the Parliament to discuss the Speaker’s handling of Parliamentary matters.It’s early days for him – he’ll hopefully warm into the role. It takes longer for some, and at the moment he looks pretty incompetent but at least he stands his ground – and kicking out Mallard and Hipkins was the right thing to do.

The National and Labour leaders should take control of their benches and insist on a far better standard of behaviour. Otherwise the Question Time farce will continue to present a terrible impression of Parliament and MPs.

John Key and David Shearer should address this ongoing disgrace, urgently.

—

The full video to see it all unravel is here:

27.3.13 – Question 12: Grant Robertson to the Minister responsible for the GCSB

Full draft transcript:

12. Government Communications Security Bureau—February 2012 Briefings

[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:13. Text is subject to correction.]

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Did GCSB Director Ian Fletcher attend the three briefings he received from GCSB in February 2012; if not, which, if any, of the briefings did Ian Fletcher attend?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB) : I am advised that Ian Fletcher was present on the three occasions I met with the Government Communications Security Bureau in February 2012.

Grant Robertson: Noting his previous statements that he is not briefed on operational matters by the Government Communications Security Bureau, was he briefed on the outcomes of Government Communications Security Bureau operations at his 24 February meeting?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not on the advice I have of the notes of that meeting.

Grant Robertson: Given that answer, what are the meetings he has with the Government Communications Security Bureau about?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not my normal practice to answer those details, but, because the member is so prone to conspiracy theories, the director came to me to sign a warrant and I signed it on the 24th.

Grant Robertson: Given that the Government Communications Security Bureau received an email from police on 22 February 2012 that indicated that the three targets of the Dotcom surveillance were New Zealand residents and therefore the surveillance was in breach of the Government Communications Security Bureau rules, does he not think that Ian Fletcher should have informed him of that at his meeting 2 days later?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, the correct process was that the situation in terms of the legality of the actions that the Government Communications Security Bureau had undertaken in relation to Operation Debut needed to be clarified. The bureau went to its chief legal adviser. The chief legal adviser advised the bureau that it was legal. As we all know, that was actually wrong.

Grant Robertson: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: His appointment was made by the State Services Commissioner, but if the member is trying to make some other allegation, then yes, I knew Ian Fletcher. I went to school with his brother. His brother was way brighter than Grant Robertson—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that answer does not assist the order of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Six times yesterday you ruled against the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please make—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Six times yesterday you ruled against the Prime Minister for making comments that were out of order—at least. Earlier when the Rt Hon Winston Peters made an out of order comment he was required to withdraw. You have never done that to the Prime Minister, and I just want to know whether it is going to be even both ways.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot be expected to withdraw that Grant Robertson is not as bright as Alistair Fletcher. He is not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister addressed the question and then added a remark that was not helpful to the order of the House. I moved immediately to stop him. I have now moved on. Does the member—[Interruption] Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to now deal with the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: You did not deal with the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with the matter. I have dealt—[Interruption] Order! The member will stand and withdraw that comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled that the Prime Minister’s comment was out of order. He then used the point of order process to repeat it, clearly in breach of your ruling and trying to overturn your authority here. You must ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment, because otherwise he is completely in breach of your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment, but I am not addressing any further the issue of his earlier answer. Would the Prime Minister withdraw?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is.

Mr SPEAKER: Good. We will hear a fresh point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a suggestion that in future you listen to a point of order. You would have heard exactly the one that Russel Norman made.

Mr SPEAKER: I listen very intently to points of order. I listen—[Interruption] Order! I remind members that the gallery is here watching the proceedings of this Parliament. [Interruption] Order! I listen very intently. I do not always hear the points of order accurately because of the level of background noise in this Chamber. Does the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You saw fit earlier today to threaten not to allow any more questions from me today. The Prime Minister for the seventh time in 2 days repeated his offence. I heard no such threat from you in respect of his ability to take part in this House in terms of question time, and I want to know why he did not receive a similar threat.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I would have thought it was extremely obvious to the member that if other members want to ask the Prime Minister any question, they expect an answer. Has the member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No. We are not doing further points of order on this.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will entertain it, but if it is a continuation of the other, then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. So if it is a fresh point of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, it is an absolutely fresh point of order. The point of order is whether you have rewritten the Standing Orders—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sit down until I am finished. For goodness’ sake!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. The member will leave the Chamber.

  • Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify for the House what the point of order Trevor Mallard was going to raise was, because we have not heard it.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I had determined very quickly that it was a relitigation of the matters that have been raised. [Interruption] I have so ruled. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will entertain it. Otherwise I will deal with the—

Chris Hipkins: I am now going to raise with you the point of order that Mr Mallard was going to raise, which—

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is now relitigating—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber.

  • Chris Hipkins withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave for the Labour Party to be given a chance for its point of order in the name of Mr Mallard to be put.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I do not know whether it is appropriate for the member to seek leave on behalf of another party, but to clear the matter up we will put the leave that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has put. Is there any objection? There is. Has the member got further supplementary questions?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to rule on the question of referring to members of the gallery in debate or in the House, because that is what you did as Speaker. You referred to who was in the gallery. That is not something that we are allowed to do as members of the House, because it is against the Standing Orders to refer to the gallery and that influencing behaviour in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that point that the member is making. She is quite right. It is not appropriate for members to refer to people in the gallery, but the member might like to note my opening remarks at the start of Parliament, when I specifically referred to people in the gallery and invited the House to greet them.

Grant Robertson: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the last supplementary question, when he introduced the nature of his relationship with Ian Fletcher, can he enlighten the House as to whether he has had further contact with Mr Fletcher since their school days, perhaps in London?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I cannot recall particular occasions; I am sure I may well have done so. What I can say, if the member wants to know, is that my mother was best friends with Ian Fletcher’s mother. If that makes a conspiracy, fair enough.

by Pete George on March 28, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 28, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/28/speaker-troubles-keys-and-shearers-responsibility/

Much better Mr Speaker – rulings without interpretations

On Wednesday David Carter had a difficult day in Parliament, causing consternation amongst opposition MPs with some apparently new rulings and with his interpretation of Minister’s questions, and receiving criticism in media and on blogs – see Carter struggling as Speaker.

This resurfaced from the start of Question Time yesterday when opposition MPs raised the issue of the Speaker making interpretations of answers in his own words.

However Carter was prepared, had taken advice and dealt with it by saying he would no longer interpret answers.

In future what I will do is not attempt to reinterpret the answer, but will rule simply whether the question has been addressed to my satisfaction…

Simple and effective – either rule that the answer was adequate or appropriate to the manner of the question, or request the Minister answer the question properly.

…and, therefore, I do not think that members can expect me to continue to justify the decisions that are made.

Fair call, justifications require interpretations which leads to the Speaker putting the question in his words, not the Minister’s.

This was a much better performance from the Speaker, he was well prepared, assertive and remained in control.

A relatively subdued and orderly Question Time followed.

Carter learned quickly from his mistakes and uncertainties from the previous day. He is making his own mark as Speaker, this will take some time but if he continues as he went on Thursday and is reasonmable and fair with his rulings he may be a very good speaker.

Related transcript:

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue we have is that in effect it is not me who has brought the Speaker into the debate; it is the Speaker who has brought the Speaker into the debate by giving an interpretation that today has been contradicted by Mr Joyce answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. It leaves the Opposition in a very difficult position in terms of being able to hold the Prime Minister to account when an interpretation is given by the Speaker and then it is contradicted by the Minister.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the difficulty arises where the Speaker interprets the answer, because members on both sides are then left not able to refer to what is then put in Hansard by the Speaker in any way other than to pretend a fiction. We have here the Prime Minister saying that the interpretation that the Speaker put on the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday was wrong. I think that leads to the view that I think has been put by Mr Brownlee previously, as well as by Opposition members, that this is where we get to when the Speaker interprets the answer that is given by a Minister rather than requiring the Minister to answer for him or herself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I do not think that New Zealand First would oppose the proposition that you can interpret the Minister or the Minister’s answer, providing that that is the answer that binds the Minister as well. If the Minister wants to be excused from that, they must get up and immediately rebut it; otherwise it stands in their name, and it means we can have a meaningful question time.

But Carter had obviously given things some thought, had done his homework and had sought advice. He responded with a change of approach to dealing with whether questions were answered properly or not.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the points raised are genuine. I accept the difficulty with this particular issue is my attempt to interpret an answer yesterday. The difficulty I am faced with is that on numerous occasions yesterday members who had asked a question then felt that question had not been adequately addressed. In future what I will do is not attempt to reinterpret the answer, but will rule simply whether the question has been addressed to my satisfaction, and, therefore, I do not think that members can expect me to continue to justify the decisions that are made. The situation we have here today is that we are now relitigating rulings that I made yesterday, which will lead only to disorder. So I am concluding this matter.

InTheHouse video: 21.2.13 – Question 1: Grant Robertson to the Prime Minister

Full transcript of the question and exchange on procedures: 1. Skycity, Convention Centre—Negotiations

 

by Pete George on February 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 22, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/22/much-better-mr-speaker-rulings-without-interpretations/

Prosser out on his ear, maybe next month?

Richard Prosser wrote an extreme column about Muslims, a very deliberate aim to inflame, and to sound like a tough guy. And he was apparently unrepentant. Patrick Gower reported:

No apology over Muslim statements

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has outraged Muslims. Both he and his leader, Winston Peters, refuse to apologise.

“If MPs don’t say this, who will?” Mr Prosser says. “We are here to represent and to speak about the views that people have.”

A tough stance from someone who will never back down. From his book Uncommon Dissent:

One of the best things about being a no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commentator is never having to say you are sorry.

It doesn’t matter if you upset anyone, because the only people likely to be offended by your unabased dissertations of truth and common sense are pinkos and liberals and other whingeing minorities whose opinions don’t count anyway.

And get offended they certainly do!

And this his how Prosser is promoted on his book sales site:

RICHARD PROSSER is not just one of the country’s newest politicians. He’s also the outspoken, straight-talking, politically-incorrect mind behind Investigate magazine’s monthly “Eyes Right” column.

ON ‘LIBERALS’: “I mean if people want to be weak, stupid, effeminate, erectile dysfunctional, naïve, apologist, namby-pamby, thumb-sucking, lefty pinko fantasy-land morons, let them find their own word for themselves, and leave “liberal” for us genuine freedom-loving, gonad-equipped, libertarian go-getters”

PREPARE FOR A WITTY, PUNCHY & EASY-TO-READ EXPLANATION OF EVERYTHING THAT’S WRONG WITH NZ, AND HOW TO PUT IT RIGHT…

But that was last year. And his unrepentant refusal to apologise was last Tuesday.

By Wednesday Prosser had changed his tune. Stuff reported Prosser’s sorry but backlash continues:

The Waimakariri-based list MP has vowed not to write any more inflammatory columns, saying: “It’s what a shock jock does, and I’m not that any more.”

The “gonad-equipped, libertarian go-getter” is not that anymore?

He “unreservedly” apologised for his provocative Investigate magazine column, which said Muslims should be banned from Western airlines.

Last night, he insisted his mea culpa was genuine. “I think you can learn from these things and not make the same mistake twice.”

He added: “I suppose the disappointing thing is that you realise you have made some mistake and set out to make an apology and that doesn’t get accepted, then that’s a little bit on the nose.”

The article was “not his best work”, he admitted. “I shouldn’t have allowed that to go out and tar them all with the same brush. Nor should I have gone down the line of calling for a blanket ban . . . it’s not a political solution.

It’s an off-the-cuff, in-the-pub solution.”

The column was not an “off-the-cuff, in-the-pub” comment. Neither was what he wrote in his book. He has made big claims about his no nonsense unrepentant wish to offend people “whose opinions don’t count anyway”.

Prosser has a right to speak, like anyone in New Zealand. But that doesn’t rule out consequences.

And as soon as he feared consequences he backslid. He made a half arsed apology – he said sorry if people were offended, he didn’t ‘unreservedly” apologise. And then said it was “on the nose” if people didn’t accept his apology – having written “One of the best things about being a no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commenter is never having to say you are sorry“.

And he didn’t stand by what he had written. When a motion was moved in the House making a statement distancing Parliament from what he had written Prosser was in the House and agreed with the motion. (See Parliamentary motion on religious equality).

Prosser’s words obviously can’t be trusted. He has not been an honest MP.

ON KEEPING POLITICIANS HONEST: “Our Prime Minister, and members of the Cabinet, need to have a similar Sword of Damocles hanging over them; they need to know that if they don’t perform, conform, behave properly, and do as We The People tell them, that they’ll be out on their ears, not maybe in three years time, but maybe next month. That should keep the bastards honest.”

He has not performed or conformed as an MP – all of Parliament made it clear they didn’t think he had behaved properly.

If one bastard was to be kept honest he would be out on his ear. Maybe this month.

by Pete George on February 17, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 17, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/17/prosser-out-on-his-ear-maybe-next-month/

Parliamentary motion on religious equality

In reaction to the Prosser column on Muslims and the resulting furore Russel Norman moved a motion on religious equality:

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the House. I move, That this House affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity should be treated equally before the law, and that the rights and dignity of all people—in particular, of Muslims—should be upheld, and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another, to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us, and to act with justice, equity, and respect in all that we say and we do.

Motion agreed to.

There has been some criticism of this, with claims that it gives special rights to Muslims. For example ‘BeaB’ at Kiwiblog (with supporting ‘likes’ and comments):

But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday. Sends a shiver along my female spine.

But that claim is incorrect, apart from the impossibility of ‘more equality’ this motion was simply a statement to distance Parliament from Prosser’s comments.

In a Dominion column Sean Plunkett claimed the motion was discriminatory by mentioning Muslims:

Parliament was even moved to pass a resolution recommitting itself to non-discrimination, particularly against Muslims. As I pointed out to Green Leader Russel Norman, who penned the motion, mentioning Muslims was kind of self-defeating and in itself discriminatory.

But the motion was hardly “making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things”, it simply made a point by mentioning Muslims. There doesn’t seem to be any unfairness, it was an attempt to counter the unfairness of Prosser’s comments.

Dr Norman shot back that the point of the vote was to show that Parliament didn’t agree with what Mr Prosser had written.

That’s certainly how it seemed to me, and nothing more than that. Peter Dunne agrees:

I think this was a generic motion in the wake of the Prosser incident, with a little flick in the tail aimed at him. I do not think it pro-Islam in the sense some are suggesting.

And all of parliament agreed as the motion passed, and as Dunne confirms…

NZ First MPs (including Prosser) were in the House at the time and did not oppose it.

Even Richard Prosser had no problem with the motion – unless he didn’t have the gumption to be seen to be voting against it.

I don’t think the motion was worded as well as it could be, but it was obviously a signal that Parliament disagreed with and was distancing itself from Prosser’s comments.

And Prosser joined this distancing from and disagreeing with what he himself had written.

This doesn’t sound like the no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commenter he claimed to be in his book.

 

by Pete George on February 17, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 17, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/17/parliamentary-motion-on-religious-equality/

Congratulations to new speaker David Carter from parliament

David Carter speaker

David Carter was elected 29th Speaker of Parliament yesterday. All party leaders congratulated him, starting with Prime Minister John Key. In brief:

John Key: You bring to the House your wisdom of your time both in Parliament and prior to that. In my experience you are someone who is extremely fair, someone who is thoughtful, and someone who has a real passion for the parliamentary process.

Peter Dunne: Mr Speaker-Elect, you bring to this Parliament a background of many years service, a wide range of community and other contacts, a real feel for the average New Zealander, a decent sense of what is right, and a good judgment of fair play.

David Shearer: You have served here 18 years and that experience will, I am sure, serve you well as you take up this new position.

Tariana Turia:  One of the things that we have noted is that you have had an ability to build relationships because of your thoughtful and constructive manner.

Gerry Brownlee: I know that you have taken a huge amount of interest in the processes of the House, and I am sure that you will have quite an instinctive feel for how the House needs to operate.

From draft Hansard:

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister)

Mr Speaker-Elect, can I be the very first in Parliament to congratulate you on your successful election and to wish you the very best for your time as Speaker of this Parliament.

Members of this Parliament know you well, but some members of the public may not know you as well, so for the purposes of that I thought it would be useful to summarise David’s achievements so far before taking up the role as Speaker-Elect and soon to be Speaker of this Parliament.

He was, of course, elected to Parliament in 1994 as the MP for Selwyn. In the 1996 general election he was the Banks Peninsula electorate, before becoming a list member based in Canterbury in 1999.

David was elected junior Government whip in 1996 before being promoted to a Minister outside Cabinet in 1998. He returned to the Opposition benches as spokesman on finance, housing, and tourism from 1999.

Following the 2008 general election, David’s ministerial responsibilities included Minister of Agriculture, Minister for Biosecurity, and, of course, Minister of Forestry. David was appointed Minister for Primary Industries, incorporating agriculture, biosecurity, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture, following the 2011 general election, and Minister of Local Government in early 2012.

As he himself mentioned, he is a former student of St Bede’s, and this Parliament today has four other members who went to St Bede’s: Peter Dunne, Clayton Cosgrove, Gerry Brownlee, and Damien O’Connor. I say to those members congratulations on your world-class education, and commiserations for not going to Burnside High School.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The rugby wasn’t good enough.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, the rugby possibly was not good enough, but I understand that it has improved since I left. In terms of further education, David went to Lincoln University, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree. He has held a varied career in farming and business before Parliament.

Speaker cartoon

He established New Zealand’s first commercial cattle embryo transplant company, so he shares a great interest with the former Speaker, of course, who also has a strong interest in agriculture.

In his spare time he farms beef and sheep properties on the Banks Peninsula and in Cheviot in North Canterbury. David is married to Heather, and they have four children, all of whom are in Parliament today to witness David’s election, and we welcome them here today.

Mr Speaker-Elect, I congratulate you on behalf of the Government on your election as Speaker of the House.

You come to this role with 18 years of experience as a member of this House, and both as a Minister, a member of the Opposition, and, of course, as Government whip.

You bring to the House your wisdom of your time both in Parliament and prior to that. In my experience you are someone who is extremely fair, someone who is thoughtful, and someone who has a real passion for the parliamentary process.

In my time as Prime Minister I have seen you work with both officials and other Ministers to try to achieve good, balanced, and sensible outcomes for New Zealand.

You have had the guiding hand in the largest industries in New Zealand in terms of agriculture. I have found your counsel always one to be sensible and wise.

I was delighted when you indicated that you would accept the nomination as Speaker, and I am equally delighted that you have been elected today.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue)

Mr Speaker-Elect , can I warmly congratulate you on your election to this role. In fact, I think I have probably known you longer than anyone in this House. Our association goes back to Loreto College in Christchurch—primary school days—and then the years at St Bede’s.

You are not unfamiliar with centre stage. You, after all, I recall, graced the boards at one stage as the lead in HMS Pinafore , and showed deft singing and acting skills, while I, along with your brother, at the time was left to be a mere hornpipe dancer in the chorus.

Although some things have changed, what has not changed has been the sense of fairness and compassion and genuine interest that you have shown over all those years. As you take on this role as the Speaker of our Parliament, that set of virtues will be more and more in need than ever before.

I should also say that you are part of the reason I left the Labour Party. Your election in 1994 in the Selwyn by-election precipitated within the Labour Party a series of moves that led to my departure a few months later, so I am grateful to you for that as well.

Mr Speaker-Elect, you bring to this Parliament a background of many years service, a wide range of community and other contacts, a real feel for the average New Zealander, a decent sense of what is right, and a good judgment of fair play.

Although you might wish to be a referee in the sense that some others have been in the past, I caution you, if I may, on this occasion about emulating your predecessor Sir Gerard Wall. Sir Gerard had a particular way with questions. I recall on one occasion seeking to ask a supplementary question, getting up to my feet, calling on Mr Speaker, and being told “The member may not ask that question.” even before I had actually asked it. When I protested he said that the question was out of order.

I think that there are some things that he did that are worth preserving; there are some that are not. I am confident that you have the sense of judgement, the experience, and the wisdom to do extremely well. I congratulate you on your appointment.

So Mr Speaker-Elect, can I conclude by warmly congratulating you again, acknowledging the role of your predecessor, and looking forward to serving under you during the balance of this Parliament.

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)

Thank you, Mr Speaker-Elect, and I want to also congratulate you very warmly on behalf of the Labour Party and myself. We wish you all the very best in your role as Speaker.

It was a contested election, but we accept the will of the majority, as is the way in this Parliament, and we will work constructively with you to make sure that this Parliament and this House is able to go through the matters it needs to go through in the way that is befitting of both this House and what is expected of us from the people of New Zealand, as well.

So you certainly have my personal assurance on that, and we look forward to working with you.

Once again, our congratulations to you, David. All the very best. You have served here 18 years and that experience will, I am sure, serve you well as you take up this new position. All the very best.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)

Congratulations, Mr Speaker-Elect, on your successful nomination as Speaker of this House.

And I expect it will be the same with you, Mr Speaker-Elect. We will not always agree on every issue, but it is the way in which those disagreements are played out and the discussions that we have that really speak to the way a Speaker can bring dignity, and a caucus and an MP can bring dignity to this House.

As you know, a major issue for the Greens has been ensuring that this Parliament becomes a genuinely accessible Parliament for all citizens in this country, and we look forward to working with you in the future, to embed the commitment of this Parliament to an accessible Parliament, to making sure all citizens have access to this Parliament, as members of the public, as members of Parliament, because this is, after all, the people’s place.

We look forward to working with you in the future, and we wish you the very best for this new part of your parliamentary career. Kia ora.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)

Mr Speaker-Elect, this is not to add a discordant note, but it is fundamental in our parliamentary democracy that we carefully choose a Speaker. It is of great importance, and that is why this is a serious and significant event, not just here but around the country.

There is another aspect of the transition that cannot be overlooked. Given the importance of the role of the Speaker as being Parliament’s man or woman, we were deeply disappointed that the Government chose not to involve all political parties in any of the background considerations regarding the selection of a new Speaker.

We are committed to a well-organised and effective parliamentary process. We would have contributed constructively and thoughtfully to a dialogue around the selection of a new Speaker, which has been the long tradition of this Parliament. We want this House to work and to work well in the interest of our democracy, so it is in our view that it would have been consistent with the values and spirit of our democracy for the Government to engage with other parties over the appointment of a new Speaker.

This was not done, and there yet remains outstanding any explanation as to why it was done this way, or even to have a debate today on this very unprecedented selection process. It makes your job doubly difficult, and I am certain you are very much aware of that.

If the Government wanted cooperation, then it needs to understand that cooperation is a two-way street. The manner of this selection evinces arrogance and a poor understanding of the need to try to image political neutrality in this post.

We do not blame you for it, because the decision not to consult was not yours. In short, in our view it reflects poorly on the leadership of this Government.

So here we have an appointment that belies all the grandiose statements of aspiration, cooperation, and positivism, and this one act exposes them for being the shibboleths that in National’s mouth they have most regrettably become. I am not going to stand here today and make out that everything is fine and dandy, because it is not.

This is a very important appointment, and we do congratulate you on having succeeded, and we wish you the very, very best in what, because of the circumstances on your advent to this job, will be more and more difficult.

That said, we will give you a fair go and seek to cooperate with you in what will be, we hope, a successful transition. All the very best of British.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whanau Ora)

We want to congratulate the Hon David Carter as the Speaker-Elect to this House. One of the things that we have noted is that you have had an ability to build relationships because of your thoughtful and constructive manner.

I first came to know you, in fact, when I went with you on the Speaker’s tour to Europe with the Hon Doug Kidd. As a new member of Parliament at the time, I certainly appreciated the wonderful support that you and your wife gave to me and my husband and I have never forgotten that.

You have the assurance of the Māori Party that we will support you in your role.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Minister for Regulatory Reform)

I rise on behalf of the ACT party and the people of the Epsom electorate to congratulate you on your election to this high office. I am losing a benchmate and I am losing a next-door neighbour, the benchmate who sat beside me here for the last 12 months—you, Mr Speaker-Elect .

Thank you for all your sage advice and useful help. I was campaigning around the electorate when you first stood for Parliament.

I have had the privilege of being here when you gave your maiden speech, and I said to you before you were dragged out of the chair kicking and screaming this afternoon that this would be a day in your life that you will never forget.

What a high honour and what a great privilege you have been given.

I was here 10 Parliaments ago when that great Speaker Sir Richard Harrison was sitting in that Chair. We could tell he was in the Chair because of the wig he used. I am not sure whether you are going to be using that wig, Mr Speaker-Elect, or where it is at these days, but he was a fine Speaker from rural provincial New Zealand. What is it that they put in the milk of the cow farmers that makes such good Speakers—Sir Richard Harrison, Dr Lockwood Smith, and now yourself?

Mr Speaker-Elect, I wish you well for your next change in direction as Speaker. I am very hopeful that I will be in the 20th Parliament to see you back as Speaker at that time, or, at the very least, another fine New Zealander from rural provincial New Zealand.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)

Mr Speaker-Elect, I want to join with the other members of Parliament who have congratulated you. The result, of course, was an expected result.

I read on the New Zealand Herald’s website that the Prime Minister thought—well, it indicated that the Prime Minister thought—that the vote was going to be at 3 o’clock. I tweeted, just to make sure that members knew, that it was at 2 o’clock to make sure that we had a fair result.

Mr Speaker-Elect, I look forward to working with you inside and outside Parliament.

I would join with Peter Dunne in indicating that people who have advised you to follow Dr Wall’s advice have been misleading you. If you want to go for a Canterbury Speaker, I would go for Kerry Burke. Kerry Burke was someone who knew how to play the advantage rule as a referee. I think he would be seen as a top test referee, whereas, I think, Dr Wall could well have been someone seen as a cricket umpire from Pakistan or somewhere like that, Mr Speaker-Elect.

He was one of ours, but I think it is fair to say that no one would accuse Dr Wall of being unbiased and fair. Mr Speaker-Elect, I look forward to working with you, as closely as you wish.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)

Mr Speaker-Elect , I rise as Leader of the House to offer my congratulations to you on your election to this position today.

I think it is always important that you do have people who sit in the Chair who have the right sort of temperament, and a great feel for the way in which Parliament works.

Just 2 years into your political career you became a whip, and I know that you have taken a huge amount of interest in the processes of the House, and I am sure that you will have quite an instinctive feel for how the House needs to operate.

Given that we do operate under different Standing Orders these days, one of the things I would point to is the way in which the Business Committee now has, I think, a more meaningful role in the way in which the House decides how it will proceed.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent)

Mr Speaker-Elect, I rise as an Independent member and congratulate you. I would also like to thank you for confirming that you will uphold the dignity and respect of this Parliament.

Video of speeches from InTheHouse:

by Pete George on February 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 1, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/01/tributes-to-new-speaker-david-carter-from-parliament/

Tributes to Lockwood Smith from parliament

Lockwood last day 2

During the process of congratulating the new speaker David Carter yesterday all party leaders also paid tribute to outgoing speaker Lockwood Smith (from draft Hansard):

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister)

Finally, like you, can I take a moment to reflect on the great contribution of the now former Speaker Lockwood Smith. Lockwood is someone who has been in this Parliament for 29 years.

He came to the Speaker’s role somewhat out of surprise when I rang him and indicated to him that I thought it would be a great opportunity, but he came to this Parliament and demonstrated his enormous intellect and his great passion for getting the parliamentary process and the role that it plays in New Zealand’s democracy.

Lockwood last day

He brought to this Parliament, I think, some real standards and some expectations. We on the Government side did not agree with every decision that he made, and I am sure Opposition parties did not either, but what he attempted to do, and was successful in doing, was to ensure that this Parliament is perceived by other New Zealanders who watch this occasion—shall we use that word—and that they could see that there was a great deal of importance about what was going on in this Chamber.

He will be sorely missed as our Speaker, although he will take up his role, of course, as High Commissioner in London. I wish him the very best for that.

Finally, let me say that those who have not had an opportunity to read John Armstrong’s column this morning in the New Zealand Herald would be well-served by doing so. I think he points out not only the great contribution that Lockwood Smith has made but also the great confidence that he has in you, Mr Speaker-Elect, to do a wonderful job in the years ahead.

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)

I also just want to pay tribute to Lockwood Smith and to his contribution that he made. I think one of the things that we most appreciated from Lockwood was the fact that when we asked a straight question, he insisted on Ministers giving an answer, and that is a fine place to start, Mr Speaker-Elect, as you begin your speaking career.

But I also wanted to say that obviously he had his own idiosyncrasies, as well, and sometimes we would have preferred the Minister’s answer, rather than his interpretation of the Minister’s answer, to be the one that stood on the Hansard. However, I do believe that he made a very, very positive contribution in ensuring that the dignity of this House was upheld.

We appreciate that, Lockwood, and we wish you all the very best as you go on your next challenge, to be the High Commissioner in London.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)

If I might first just say how much I have enjoyed and respected working with Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith in his time as Speaker. He and I have not always agreed on every issue, but it has been a great joy alongside someone who is prepared to engage in these disagreements and come to conclusions in a respectful and dignified way. I have appreciated that opportunity to work with him like that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)

It would be churlish not to acknowledge the departing Speaker and his contribution to this House. As you know, from time to time we have disagreed with his judgments, but that is the nature of a mature and robust democracy.

Although we wish the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith well in his new appointment, representing New Zealand in one of our most important bases abroad, in London, we nevertheless have to place on record our disquiet that in a time when so many career diplomats have lost their jobs in foreign affairs, yet another political appointment by this Government has been made to supersede these career diplomats’ lifelong commitment to the service, and the country is going to suffer because of it.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whanau Ora)

I also want to take the opportunity to offer our very sincere respects to the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith as he leaves Parliament to go to be the High Commissioner in London.

Probably we will honour you most of all for the respect that you have paid to Te Reo Māori in this House, but more importantly we remember that the first 20 kura kaupapa Māori that were established were in fact established by you when you were the Minister of Education.

We do mihi to you for that, because we know that what you did in your time as the Minister of Education set the Māori education pathway on to a road of success. So we thank you and we wish you very well in your appointment to London.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Minister for Regulatory Reform)

Dr Lockwood Smith, I want to say on behalf of the ACT party congratulations on your outstanding job. Lockwood Smith is a much-loved member of the rural community from Northland, where he has served so well for so long. I think he has made a major contribution to this country.

I thought he was a magnificent Speaker, and he is going to serve the interests of this country very, very well in London. We wish him well. Mr Speaker-Elect, I wish you well for your next change in direction as Speaker. I am very hopeful that I will be in the 20th Parliament to see you back as Speaker at that time, or, at the very least, another fine New Zealander from rural provincial New Zealand.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue)

Can I also acknowledge Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith. He is one of the few survivors, now, of the class of 1984, and an outstanding member of Parliament in his own right. He is a man who, when he became a Minister—first Minister of Education and then, later, Minister of Agriculture, Minister for International Trade, and Associate Minister of Finance—showed a huge capacity for hard work, a real commitment, and flair for the job.

He is one who, sometimes in unpopular circumstances, made lasting and durable decisions. I think many of the features that my colleague to my right, Tariana Turia, referred to in respect of Māori education and also education generally have their genesis in the tenure of Dr Smith as Minister of Education, and that is, after all, a tribute to his judgment as well. As Speaker, you have been one of the outstanding Speakers.

You have actually allowed the game to flow. You have installed a sense of authority about what your expectations were of Ministers and members, and I think you have set—perhaps unwittingly—a very high barrier for your successor and future Speakers to follow.

You will be a fine representative for New Zealand in London, and I wish you extremely well in that regard. You may well find, of course, that your door is traversed by visiting members on a number of occasions, but I am sure you will always have a few moments to at least catch up with the news from home that they might bring. ELECTION OF SPEAKER

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)

I think a number of members of the public have seen the work of Dr Smith inside the Parliament, but I also want to acknowledge the work that he has done as the Speaker outside the House, and, in particular, the work that he has done on the review of Standing Orders, which has meant that this place has flowed, without urgency, in a way that is much more logical—the Government getting its business done and the Opposition more able to focus on the things that it opposes rather than delaying in the way that happened under urgency.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)

In that regard I take this opportunity to also thank Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith for the way in which he has conducted that committee. I say conducted because it is not really a chairman’s role; it is a body where there is consensus reached, and generally the acceptance is that where there is a broad view of representation from members, then that will be the way in which things proceed.

I am sure that you will be able to not only pick up where Dr Smith has left off but also enhance the work that that committee does. Dr Smith, I do wish you all the best for your appointment. I know that your door will be open in London. And although you have been an excellent Speaker, I do think that my former college mate is going to be just as good. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent)

I would like to give special thanks to Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith . I think it is fair to say that I, possibly more than others in this Parliament today, have more reason to thank him for upholding the rights of members.

To Lockwood I say thank you for not only protecting me but for the very human face and care with which you have accorded my wife and children, at a time of great difficulty and sadness for my family. I would wish to thank Lockwood for that from the bottom of my heart, and from my family I say arohanui , and good luck—fair travels. Thank you.

Video of speeches from InTheHouse:

by Pete George on February 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 1, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/01/tributes-to-lockwood-smith-from-parliament/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers