Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities
SPEAKER’S RULINGS
New Speaker‘s Ruling—Content of questions
SPEAKER: Members, yesterday, oral question No. 8 led the House into presenting itself in a less than favourable light. The content of the question led to numerous points of order, each referencing Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, presenting matters that were relevant, but on their own, contestable. I’ve taken time to review the Hansard recording of these proceedings, and I will present to the House, a new Speaker’s ruling, which builds upon, although not exhaustively, Speakers’ rulings, 55/1, 56/4, 157/5, 192/5, and Standing Order 390, and specifically, Standing Order390(1)(c).
In considering all of these points, I’ve reached the conclusion that I should not have allowed question No. 8, although I note that no party raised issues with the question during the pre-publication period. It was reasonable, then, to reach the assumption that the House had accepted the content of the question, as the House is, of course, the architect of its own procedure. Nor should I have allowed the word used in response to the question to go unchecked. The member concerned may wish to think about a belated action to uphold the dignity of the House.
Those who assist members in the preparation of questions need to be more rigid in restricting questions to the confines of all parts of Standing Order 390 and also the provisions around answers. Accordingly, I offer this new ruling to the House which should bring together all of the matters that were raised yesterday in a fairly concise form.
The ruling is: “Oral or written questions may ask a Minister if they agree with comments made in news or opinion articles or broadcasts, but cannot repeat comment if it is of a discreditable nature to any member of this House. The use of socially unacceptable language or profanity, even if relevant to authentication, in either questions or answers, is not permissible, and that has long been a position in this House.” All other rulings on matters relating to Standing Order 390 are upheld.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. And thank you very much, I’m sure the House will benefit from that clarity. I have one question, just for everybody’s understanding: is the restriction outlined in your new ruling in regards to members personally, not in regards to views or policies that they may hold?
SPEAKER: Well, you raise immediately the need for there to be some discretion in the consideration of these matters. But if you take that situation yesterday, that was an article that very unreasonably attacked certain members in the House and characterised them in a way that is totally unacceptable. So those sorts of comments included in the question are now not going to be permitted. It would have been easy to ask the question simply if they agreed with the article. So I hope that makes it clear.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, please. Mr Speaker, can I ask you as to which country the flags currently being flown outside of Parliament represent?
SPEAKER: They’re not being flown at the moment, they—
Shanan Halbert: Outrageous.
SPEAKER: Member, we’re on a point of order; if the member wants to leave the House, he should do so voluntarily before he’s asked to.
They’re not being flown at the present time; they were there for a short recognition ceremony this morning that has been, as I understand it, and I have been advised, undertaken for quite some years.
