Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Kia ora, Mr Speaker.
[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
I congratulate you on your election. The role of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is an extremely important one, even at the best of times, and, sadly, these are not the best of times. As we’re reminded, from the early 1970s to about 15 years ago, the world flocked to democracy. And yet, over the last 15 years, we’ve had a democratic recession—countries move away from it—and that’s a dangerous backdrop for New Zealand. Our only chance of influencing the world is by setting a good example. Depending on how we act in this House, we can be a beacon of democratic light at the bottom of the world, or we can instead be just another example of why democracy is in recession around the world. Your new role as the leader of this Parliament gives you more opportunity to influence the development of our democracy than any other single New Zealander. It’s not for you, but for the institution. As Speaker’s Ruling 16/1 says, “It is the duty of the Speaker to uphold the authority of the Chair, and that authority is not the authority of the individual who happens to occupy it, but of the House itself.” You have the opportunity to ensure that every New Zealander’s vote counts. You can ensure that the representatives they elect into this House can use their privileges to hold the Government accountable through the mechanisms of this Parliament. I’m very encouraged by what you’ve already said, Mr Speaker. But, unfortunately, it has to be said, you are starting from a low base through no fault of your own. I think it’s fair to say that we’ve had our own democratic recession over the last five years, and you’ve already alluded to some of that. I think we can get some useful tips about what not to do from the last five years, and I share these out of a sincere effort on behalf of the ACT Party to support you in doing your role, rebuilding the mana of your Chair and this House.
We think that you should allow more discussion on the rules of Parliament. For reasons I don’t understand, but best known to him—perhaps under-confidence about the rules, or a lack of humility—your predecessor would not allow discussion of the rules in this Chamber, instead asking that they happen behind closed doors in his office. That’s a great shame, because it meant that instead of having tutorials for new members, instead of having a forum to ventilate frustrations, and growing the sophistication of our rules over time, we weren’t able to engage with you about the Standing Orders and how they are interpreted. I hope that you will reverse that change.
As you’ve already alluded to, I think it’s important to have some equality between Standing Orders 390, that’s the content of questions, and Standing Orders 396, that’s the content of replies. Because if you read those two Standing Orders, they’re nearly identical. They are mirror images of each other. But we simply have not seen that in the tolerance of questions and the tolerance of replies over the past five years. I really hope that you will look at those two Standing Orders and uphold them equally.
We should allow more urgent debates. An urgent debate takes 90 minutes of the House’s time. For the last three sitting blocks, the Government has taken up to four hours in extended sitting. So we’re able to have an extra four hours a week, but we don’t have 90 minutes to discuss important events, because so often it’s ruled not to demand the urgent attention of the House. Well, I think, for example, $2.1 billion spent by the taxpayer buying a bank that 6 percent of people have their mortgages with is something we could find 90 minutes for, and I hope that you’ll start a new tradition of publishing not only your rulings on whether we have an urgent debate but also the letter that came along.
I think it’s important—and I’m sure you will do this, and I have great and sincere hope for you, your personality, and mana—that you’ll rise above partisan politics and treat members with grace and respect. You know, when I was a sole and relatively junior MP, I was treated so badly by your predecessor that often senior members of his party came up to me and apologised for him. You’ll face a similar dilemma with Gaurav Sharma, someone who you may have voted to expel from the Labour Party on Monday. You’ll be responsible for upholding his rights tomorrow. And that is a very important distinction that brings into sharp relief the difference between being a partisan politician and the Speaker. I have great confidence that you will do that well, on behalf of the people of New Zealand.
In difficult times, breathe. People look to this Parliament for leadership, for a calm hand on the tiller. When crises strike, we’re here to support you. Don’t jump the gun. We want to see this Parliament’s mana enhanced. All together, you have an important job at an important time with much damage, sadly, to undo. ACT members are committed parliamentarians. We have often been deeply saddened by the way this important institution has been run down over the last five years. None the less, we view today as a new day, and we stand ready to give you every assistance and support in your leadership of this great House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
