Gerry Brownlee presses the buzzer to mark the conclusion of the time allotted for Oriini Kaipara's maiden speech. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
Parliament's early business this week was mostly a continuation of events that concluded last week's Thursday sitting, which had been something of a cliff-hanger.
Tuesday in the House might even have been improved if it had begun with a recap sequence: "Previously on Yeas and Nays of our Lives…"
The first business for Tuesday (after the brief swearing in of the new Green MP Michael Davidson) was a ruling from The Speaker, Gerry Brownlee. He had suspended the House on Thursday when, following a maiden speech from new Te Pāti Māori MP Oriini Kaipara, a celebratory haka had kicked off in the public gallery.
On Thursday, Brownlee had declared the haka "contemptuous" and undertook "to find out whether or not that was by agreement with any party inside this House". He had also been perturbed at the length of Kaipara's speech, saying "we have people coming into the House who decide they're not going to abide by their agreements, then they put themselves in a contemptuous position."
That was followed up on Tuesday when he focused on the length of Kaipara's speech, having apparently determined that the haka wasn't obviously the fault of an MP, declaring "there is no issue with haka".
It was true that Kaipara's moment had gone long. The speech itself lasted about four minutes past the allocated fifteen. There was then a three minute long (and beautifully sung) waiata from her supporters.
In the chamber, speeches are typically given a warning bell when they approach the end of their allotted time and another bell at the conclusion. Kaipara received at least three, including one which she acknowledged with a cheery "I hear you; kei te pai", and then ignored. Presiding officers are not used to peremptory dismissal.
Brownlee's ruling was itself pretty lengthy, and its culmination was this:
"It is my intention that from this point I will more critically apply the limited measures available to a Speaker to ensure greater respect is shown from members-one to the other-and the dignity of the House and the processes of the House are upheld. Later this afternoon, I intend engaging the Business Committee on changes to attendance records, to dress standards, and to leave provisions. Further, from today, question time in the House will revert to Standing Order 397/1, and supplementary questions will be entirely at the discretion of the Speaker. Respect and dignity should be at the front of minds for all members of this House."
His intention regarding supplementary questions was quickly in evidence, when he ended a question line early after Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson repeatedly failed to construct satisfactory queries about whether a government minister had sought to influence a council regarding granting consents to a colleague. The dignity and respect ideal didn't stop ministers on Tuesday from claiming their opponents were shedding crocodile tears, being performative, or were "the great gaslighter". Respect and dignity might turn out to be a bridge too far.
Specifics regarding dress codes, attendance, or MPs being granted leave are yet to be revealed. 'Tune in next time', as they used to say back in the days of radio serials.
The aftermath of the maiden speech hullabaloo wasn't the only storyline continued from last week. There was also a failed vote that had been left hanging when the week ended.
The final bill debated had been the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, legislation that would remove the last vestiges of broadcast advertising restrictions on Sundays, Anzac Day, and at Christmas and Easter.
Possibly because the advertising ban was partly based on religious sensibilities, Greg O'Connor in the Speaker's chair announced it would be a conscience vote, when MPs can call for a personal vote. For a personal vote, the vote is made either in person or via authorised proxies. The vote hit a very unusual snag after a pretty paltry 49 votes to 22 result was announced. It would seem that at least some parties had not prepared for a conscience issue.
Senior Labour MP Duncan Webb raised a rarely used parliamentary rule.
Labour MP Duncan Webb in the House. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
"Standing Order 154 states - it's very short - 'Where fewer than 20 members attend the House to vote or abstain on a personal vote, that vote is of no effect.' It appears we have 13 members who attended the House to vote, and it would appear, therefore, that that vote has no effect."
Whoops. It's normal for few MPs to be physically present in the chamber. But in the event of a personal vote, Parliament's positively deafening bells are rung for seven long minutes to summon them. Thirteen managing to make it in time was surprising. When O'Connor looked into it he also concluded that some of those present may have voted on others' behalf without formal authorisation. The vote was ruled out, and the debate interrupted, to be attempted again later.
On Tuesday, MPs had a second crack at the personal vote. It was placed immediately after Question Time when the House is more or less full. The government benches particularly were heavily populated, presumably to make sure the same problem didn't occur again.
It didn't. This time the process was screwed up in a new way. When the initial vote was declared and MPs were able to ask for a personal vote some did, but Speaker Brownlee apparently couldn't hear them and so asked again, and yet again. Still unable to discern the shouted call for a personal vote from a few confusedly calling for a party vote, he resorted to a party vote (which would be made on their MPs' behalf by party whips). The clerk duly requested vote totals for each party from their respective whips. New Zealand First's whip Jamie Arbuckle got tangled, and instead of giving a total asked for a personal vote, then attempted a Point of Order.
The Speaker took the opportunity to join Arbuckle in interrupting the almost complete vote, switching instead to a personal vote mid-count. Once that lengthy process had concluded, Labour's senior whip Glen Bennett queried the interruption.
"It is very clear in the Standing Orders that a vote is not allowed to be interrupted. We have experienced that in this House, this year, with four people being sent to the Privileges Committee. The vote was interrupted on this in the first instance, and I want your clarification on why that was."
"Good." Gerry Brownlee began. "I will give it to you tomorrow..."
As it transpired, on Wednesday the Speaker began the afternoon sitting in responding to Bennett's query, outlining the reasons for the ineligible vote (last Thursday). He did not explain the interrupted vote from Tuesday.
Which is where we began. With 'the continuing saga of Yeas and Nays of our Lives. Tune in tomorrow when you will hear...'
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
