The ongoing spat between Winston Peters and Speaker David Carter has continued in Parliament this week, with Peters thrown out two days in a row. With him it’s hard to know if it is deliberate grandstanding, or if his frustration at the Speaker’s rulings or a lack of impact in the House is getting the better of him.
After yesterday’s ejection Peters said that Carter was a bully – perhaps that’s another attempt to try and tap into the populist issues of the day.
The first was for uttering the word “crap” – which he doesn’t think is that bad.
“Crap is not a swearword,” he said.
And he says the reason he was thrown out was because he thinks Speaker David Carter is bullying him.
“Don’t get up there and think you’re going to bully me out of my fundamental rights,” was his message to Mr Carter.
…Mr Carter said the use of the word wasn’t the issue, it’s Mr Peters’ behaviour – and his second turfing of Mr Peters showcased it.
“Whilst on my feet he actually yelled out for me to sit down while he wanted to speak. You cannot run Parliament with Members of Parliament showing that little respect for the Speaker.”
I’ve seen Peters getting petulant and trying to tell the Speaker what to do before.
And here’s the transcript:
Whānau Ora, Minister—Statements
9. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Whānau Ora): Āe, i te wā e kōrerohia ana.
[Yes, at the time it was being discussed.]
Darroch Ball: Does he stand by his answer on measures of effectiveness provided to justify the increase in funding to Whānau Ora, that “The increase in funding for Whānau Ora … was subject to a cost-benefit analysis consistent with other Budget 2016 social sector initiatives.”?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Āe.
Darroch Ball: How could he possibly use the cost-benefit analysis as justification for an increase in funding, when that cost-benefit analysis clearly states that the “benefits achieved through Whānau Ora are difficult to capture using cost-benefit analysis.”?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Arā anō ngā momo toronga o Whānau Ora.
[Whānau ora has other forms of extensions.]
Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we confirm that there is a translation going on?
Mr SPEAKER: Certainly—[Interruption] Order! There is a translation, and it would be helpful if members listened to it.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: E tika ana kia whai ahau ā-Minita nei i tēnei kaupapa o te cost-benefit analysis. Kua eke a Whānau Ora ki tērā taumata, kāre he rere kētanga ki ētahi atu Tari Kāwanatanga. Ko taua āhua anō, ka whakamātauria ia tau, ia tau, ia tau.
[It is proper that I, as a Minister, follow due process in this matter about cost-benefit analysis. Whānau ora has achieved that standard; it is no different from any other Government department. It is that situation again, there is an annual audit each year.]
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister was asked as to how he could make that statement, given that he had on record, from a Government department, a statement about the impossibility of a cost-benefit analysis in the way it was being put in his answer. He was asked how he could say that against that official information that he got, and he did not in any way try to answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question was not as the member has now summarised it; it was somewhat different, and, as I listened to the answer, the answer addressed the question that was asked.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So, just to clarify your ruling, are you saying that what I heard from the Minister was not what he said?
Mr SPEAKER: No, let me try to clarify for the benefit of the member. The question that the member, Winston Peters, suggested was asked was not exactly the same as Darroch Ball asked. I listened to what Darroch Ball asked, and I have ruled that the answer given by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell has addressed that question. That is the end of the matter. There is not much point in continuing on.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I helped draft this question, so I know what is in it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled that the question has been addressed. The member does not have to agree with that, but he has to accept it. We will move to further supplementary questions; otherwise I am quite happy to move to the next question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am certainly not going to entertain a further point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters contesting my ruling, and if he does so, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order. Can I just—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to be—[Interruption] Sit down. Resume your seat, please. I just want to be absolutely clear—[Interruption] Order! I want to be absolutely clear. I have given the member a warning that I am not prepared to tolerate him continuing to raise a point of order that is challenging a ruling I have just given. If the member wishes to seek a fresh point of order on a completely different matter, that is a right that he has, and I will listen to it, but if I—[Interruption] Order! If I detect for—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, Mr Speaker, sit down and let me—[Interruption]—put my point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber—[Interruption] The member will leave the Chamber.
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.