Parliament’s debating chamber this week did not brim with sparkling debate, but some moments were both memorable and instructive.
The main legislative moment was the passing of the prodigal portion of the abortion law reform. It enables the creation of safe zones around abortion service providers; which still allow silent prayer but disallow harassment and abuse of women seeking medical help.
That aside, the main story was that one of the National Party’s former leaders, Simon Bridges, has called time on being an MP. This had unintended consequences.
Simon Bridges in the House, watched by Christopher Luxon Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
The National Party will presumably slap a “help wanted” note in its front window and wait for job seekers - or something like that. Good luck in a tight labour market.
The immediate effect of that was a party reshuffle. At Parliament you have only to announce a pending retirement to be shuffled off to the back and have your responsibilities dolled out to the young and hungry.
Retiring MPs who decide to wait out the Parliamentary term sometimes even lose their prime office spaces and get shunted off to what I’ve heard described as ‘The Departure Lounge’.
The impending departure of Simon Bridges meant National’s Deputy Leader Nicola Willis has taken up the finance spokesperson role, while Chris Bishop has taken up Housing and Infrastructure.
That’s the job part, the physical part of a reshuffle is a rejig of seats in the House in line with new rank and responsibilities.
The MPs in the chamber often move around a bit during debates but they do each have an allocated seat. For the ‘front bench’ of any party those seats are determined by their current ranking. I’m not sure why but, even post-election, political parties tend to be very hierarchical.
This seat shuffle turned out to be an issue for Chris Bishop who is not possessed of a timorous voice. Previously he was seated further along the National front bench, and further away from the Speaker, but now he was number three.
Because the party leaders don’t sit up against the far wall and out of the limelight, the seat numbering along the front row of the chamber tends to go 4,3,2,1,5,6... so the the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both end up in the fourth chair along, facing each other).
That has shuffled a bit for covid spacing, but the upshot is that Chris Bishop now has a rank that puts him in a chair directly in line with the Speaker’s left ear.
The Debating Chamber during Question Time Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
And that new placement caused quite some ructions in Question Time as Mr Bishop’s gentle foghorn ricocheted off the Speaker’s ear drum, often at times the rules say he should be absolutely silent.
“Order! There he goes again—there he goes again. I mean, if I was either of my predecessors, he would have been gone half an hour ago. The member must not run a commentary on Speakers' rulings. It may be that I can hear him more easily now he is sitting in that seat. I have sat there before and I know that it has advantages and disadvantages.” - Speaker Trevor Mallard
The ‘Chair of Doom’
So, Chris Bishop is now alongside the ‘chair’ and Question Time was punctuated by repeated reminders that his out-of-order muttered comments were audible, along with his running commentary on ministerial responses to his questions.
It’s a bit like primary school and being forced to take the seat right in front of the teacher so that they can keep a close eye on you - a fate I know of old.
Labour MP Megan Woods shared some sympathy.
“We've seen some shifting of the deckchairs once again, and I would like to welcome Chris Bishop to the housing portfolio. I know he was probably hoping for finance but I'm hoping he'll enjoy the housing portfolio. I'd also like to offer him some helpful advice, because that's the kind of person I am. I too, have been an occupant of that chair, that seat in the House. I would like to call it the "chair of doom" and suggest that no amount of attempting to date the Speaker will get you out of the fact that everything you say can and will be heard.”
Photo: 123rf.com
Dating the Speaker
The dating comment referred to an unusual response from Chris Bishop to (yet another) telling-off by the Speaker for (yet another) out-of-order comment on a ruling.
“I'm just trying to be helpful,” he said, with his best innocent schoolboy face on. “Would it be useful if we had a coffee afterwards so that you can understand the difference between sotto voce when I speak and, actually, speaking in public?”
Unfortunately ‘sotto voce’ doesn’t mean what Chris Bishop appears to believe it does. It implies a voice quietened for purely theatrical purposes – a response lowered for effect but intended to be clearly hearable. Or maybe he thinks it means exactly that.
Regardless, as an excuse, ‘don’t mind me, I’m just muttering about you under my breath’ was never likely to fly.
The Speaker declared himself too busy that afternoon but David Seymour paused in asking for his next supplementary question to himself ask Chris Bishop on a coffee date. It’s on.
At Parliament we look for entertainment where we can.
Chris Bishop in an earlier chair, when the House was sitting under Covid level 2. There is much less chance the Speaker can hear mutterings from the vast spaces at the far end of the room. Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
The point, and the rules
The whole episode was the result of an unfortunate combination of seat-reshuffle, quite a few of Parliament’s basic rules (Standing Orders), and the fact that Chris Bishop’s version of a muttered aside can be clearly heard across the room (and possibly next door). There is apparently a downside to learning to project your voice.
It was all very entertaining but the reason we cover most things here at The House is as an excuse to explain things - and during the week’s frequent interactions between our star-crossed pair MPs got refreshers on various parliamentary rules. Like King David and the Ten Commandments, Chris Bishop managed to break a surprising number of them in a day.
Talking back
Muttering under your breath when the Speaker tells you off is a no-no in Parliament. Any commentary on, argument or discussion of a speaker’s ruling is strictly verboten. It can get you told off, kicked out, and if repeated – an even worse fate (naming).
You might get away with comments if you sit further down the chamber - especially if you are wearing a mask. But up close you’re just asking for trouble.
One leg good, two legs optional
If you ask a minister a double-headed supplementary question during Question Time they get to choose which half to answer. These two-fer questions are described as having ‘two legs’.
Standing Orders and Speakers' Rulings come in handy ring bound books which you see MPs quickly checking in the House during arguments over rules. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Everything is aimed at 'you' in the chair
An interjection in the second person is actually directed at the Speaker. In the House if you shout something like “you’re a total muppet” at an opposing MP you’re actually saying that to the Speaker, because in the debating chamber everything said is said to and via the Speaker. So, “You” is a dangerous word to be used with care.
Every MP knows this rule well, but sometimes they lose their cool and forget, sometimes they’re having a bad day, and who knows, maybe sometimes they make a wee mistake on purpose.
‘Rare’ interjections
This is a Speaker’s Ruling (an interpretation of the rules from a previous speaker). 61.1.1 is an old and basic Speaker’s ruling from all the way back in 1923 and the legendary Speaker Statham whose name occurs often in Parliament’s version of common law.
The ruling says interjections must be “rare and reasonable”. That was probably also a bit of a pipedream in 1923.
Recently though, with many MPs participating in Parliament via videoconference, the Speaker has been making a concerted effort during Question Time to keep the interjections at a more manageable roar. This is so the MPs at home - and for that matter anyone else - can actually hear the answers ministers give to questions.
Keep shtum and don’t make it worse for yourself
'Keep shtum and don't make it worse for yourself' is a golden rule learned by anyone familiar with crime or detective dramas. Apparently MPs are less clear on this rule than are old lags.
Speaker’s ruling 61.2.3 (also from Statham in 1923), says it is “highly disorderly for a member to persist in interjecting when the member has been called to order.”
‘Highly disorderly’ is the point at which the Speaker throws MPs out of the chamber, so Mr Bishop gets off lightly when he is allowed to remain.
Speakers are often lenient, especially when they think the offender is hoping for the potential punishment. Getting kicked out can give Mps a good excuse to be interviewed by media.
On this occasion the lenience might have been because the Speaker was aware Mr bishop was due to speak in the very next debate - the General Debate. His first outing as the party number three, and housing spokesperson.
As it turned out Chris Bishop had prepared a strong speech which was heavy on finance and light on housing. But finally all that vocal projection was allowable.
