Speaker Gerry Brownlee in the House. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
Last week there was more tension than usual in the debating chamber, and a lot of it arising from an unusual ruling made by the Speaker Gerry Brownlee, about whether a schedule of projects added to the Fast-track Approvals Bill during the Committee for the Whole stage was within Parliament's rules. This week that tension appears to have consolidated, making for a change of tone in the chamber.
The background
Parliament can pass three broad kinds of legislation. The most common are Government or Members' Bills - laws that affect everyone. Less usual are Local Bills, which have only a local effect. Most unusual are Private Bills, which apply only to those named in the bill.
The Clerk of the House, whose staff are the experts in these things, had provided advice to the Speaker's Office, that a schedule added to the Fast-track Bill at the committee stage was contrary to the rules for what can be added to a Government Bill, since it included private benefit to specified individuals and entities. These were more appropriate for a Private Bill.
The Chair during the Committee Stage (Deputy Speaker, Barbara Kuriger), agreed with the Clerk's advice and ruled the schedule 'out of order' - meaning it would be omitted from the Bill.
The Government Whip recalled the Speaker to appeal Kuriger's ruling. The Speaker then overturned his own Deputy, ruling against the Clerk's advice and stating that it was finely balanced but within the rules.
The ruling itself was controversial, but publicly overturning either a ruling of another presiding officer, or the acknowledged advice of the Clerk, is unheard of.
That ruling and the good half hour of debate that led up to it are a fascinating listen for the parliamentary or constitutionally interested, and can be heard here, as a podcast extra on The House.
Over the next two days the Speaker reiterated and added to that ruling. While this was a response to questions and criticism, it had the feeling of buttressing being added post-construction to a weak edifice.
The effort to convince the opposition that the ruling was solid obviously failed, as it ended with the Shadow Leader of the House Kieran McAnulty making an announcement on behalf of Labour.
"We, regrettably, indicate that where you as Speaker had the full confidence of the House, that is no longer the case."
There is a preference in Parliament for the Speaker to be elected unanimously, and be seen as disinterested and apolitical. Achieving this unified show vote will usually involve a degree of negotiation. It doesn't always play out through a whole term either. David Carter fell out with the opposition partly over his treatment of women MPs taking a stand in the House on assault, while Trevor Mallard was never popular with either National or with ACT.
Until now though, the Opposition (possibly besides Te Pāti Māori), have been pretty gentle and very polite with the current Speaker. As Labour's interlocutor-in-chief, Kieran McAnulty has been both careful and diplomatic.
Making a list, checking it twice
Which brings us back to this week. In the aftermath of the announcement that Labour has lost confidence in the Speaker, it seems they have also shelved the super-polite approach. They have certainly changed their tone in responding to the Speaker's rulings in the House. Here, for example is Leader of the Opposition Chris Hipkins interacting with Gerry Brownlee on Tuesday during Question Time. The Speaker had been remonstrating with the opposition for interjecting during answers from the Prime Minister.
"Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister actually addressed the questions that were asked, rather than giving a long speech about things unrelated to the question, there might be less interjection on this side of the House. Order in the House goes both ways, Mr Speaker. If you'd like order on this side, you might want to make sure that side is also complying with the rules."
The Speaker responded that because the Leader of the Opposition had asked a general primary question, the Prime Minister had carte blanche in his options for answering any of the subsequent supplementary questions. Their exchange ran thus.
Brownlee: "That leaves it open to anything and any answer from that point."
Hipkins: "Point of order, Mr Speaker. That's a very new ruling; one that's not consistent with any other Speakers' rulings in the past."
Brownlee: "It's not a new ruling".
Hipkins: "A supplementary question that is quite specific is still a specific supplementary question."
That assertive tone is a long way from the previous approach, which has tended towards 'with respect sir', and 'respecting your ruling, I would suggest…'.
The gloves are off for Christmas.
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
