Who's running for Auckland's mayoralty?
Photo:
RNZ / Diego Opatowski
Eleven people are going up against incumbent Wayne Brown to be the mayor of Auckland this local elections.
While Auckland councillor Kerrin Leoni has emerged as Brown's main challenger, there are still a number of lower-profile candidates vying for the city's top job.
This year's contenders include a former political party leader, someone who is running for mayor in Auckland and Christchurch, and a university student.
RNZ asked lower-profile candidates, who could be contacted, for one sentence explaining why they want to be mayor and one sentence stating a policy of theirs they want Aucklanders to know about. Six responded.
Eric Chuah.
Photo:
Supplied
Dr Chuah, a former strategist for Peter Dunne and the United Future Party, stood as a candidate in the Auckland electorate of Maungakiekie in the 2023 general election. He told RNZ he is over 61.
He now had his sights set on the Auckland mayoralty and was going after what he considered to be unnecessary spending, like the CBD's
million-dollar Christmas tree
.
Why do you want to be mayor?
"Ensure reduction of excessive spending, transparency and accountability in council tendering process and staff recruitment where proper systems of management, operational and decision making are implemented to ensure fulfilment of Auckland Council's Long-Term Plans and not reacting to situations with ad-hoc solutions and stop gap measures creating long term problems as Auckland Council debt has increased from $11 billion to $14 billion, a $3 billion debt increase in 3 years and rates have increase [sic] 40% in 3 years where a house priced at $1.4 million has a $4000 rate and $1000 water rates with a projected 48% increase in 2026, stated by an Auckland Councilor [sic] in last Governance meeting on July 31st 2025."
Policy
"Reviewing, auditing past expenditures in contract awards, tendering systems, allocation of ratepayers monies via adopting and implementing, transparency, accountability systems of staff recruitment, management systems of the various CCOs (Council Controlled Organizations) such as AT (Auckland), so as to reduce unnecessary operational costs while maintaining jobs, unnecessary expenditure such as $1 million Christmas tree (Dec.2024), $1 million toilet and $1.2 billion road cone spent from 2020-2025 of which $400-$500 million could be overspent."
Ted Johnston.
Photo:
Supplied
The lawyer and former leader of the New Conservative Party is having another crack at the mayoralty after getting
hit with an egg
during a mayoral candidate debate in 2022.
This time around, the 64-year-old has honed in on the city's traffic woes.
Why do you want to be mayor?
"I am seeking the Mayoralty as, no other candidate has solutions for Auckland's growing problems, and I cannot implement these crucial reforms, otherwise."
Policy
"A vastly expanded, efficient and inexpensive public rail system is crucial to bolster Auckland's economy and development, as well as to lower congestion and costs for all Aucklanders."
Rob McNeil.
Photo:
Supplied
McNeil is running under the Animal Justice Party banner. On the party's website, it stated the animal advocate loved long walks on the Auckland CBD waterfront.
Why do you want to be mayor?
"I will ensure animals have a voice in Auckland's decision-making, recognising the intrinsic link between animal welfare, environmental health, and human well-being. Lasting progress begins with local councils committed to protecting the interconnected web of all life."
Policy
"Among other policies for Aucklanders, we're fighting for mandatory funded desexing of dogs and cats - to stop the preventable deaths of thousands of animals while reducing council costs and community."
Ryan Pausina.
Photo:
Supplied
Pausina was an Auckland mayoral candidate in 2022. He told RNZ he is 48-years-old and a product developer.
Why do you want to be mayor?
"For starters, I have defined for the first time in history who should be the mayor of Auckland, out of all of us, who should be the mayor is determined by expertise in the fields of science relative to city works, city management and city civics, of which, that one person is required to serve for that role."
Policy
"Static speed-bump phase-out is a fun one, every time a vehicle slows down and passes over a speed bump, then accelerates away, a tiny teaspoon of petrol is wasted and in Sweden, they have created a speed bump technology to govern speed without wasting fuel or energy and annoyance in the process."
Jason Pieterse.
Photo:
Supplied
Pieterse told RNZ he is a 24-year-old engineering student doing his honours at AUT, making him the youngest of the bunch.
Why do you want to be mayor?
"I am running for mayor because I want to drive forward changes that support and improve the lives of every resident that calls this city home."
Policy
"I would have to say my most interesting policy is a housing proposal that would make near all housing costs much more affordable and accessible."
Peter Wakeman.
Photo:
Supplied
The 64-year-old described himself as a former passenger jet pilot. He is also running for mayor of Christchurch this local elections. A candidate with his name has run for mayor of Christchurch in almost every election since 1998.
Why do you want to be mayor?
"Wakeman is standing for Mayor in Auckland and Christchurch to be more effective in achieving Government policy that puts more money in everyone's pockets."
Policy
"Get more money into circulation by getting central Government to replace GST with Financial transaction tax (FTT) to reduce all of our costs of living and creation of debt free money by RBNZ."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Mediawatch: Palestinian Statehood Push Vexes Media
Article – RNZ An media debate over New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood was partly overshadowed by party political rows and claims it would only be a gesture. , Mediawatch Presenter 'New Zealand is fast becoming one of the last Western democracies to recognise Palestine as a state,' Corin Dann told Morning Report listeners on RNZ National last Tuesday. While there was a bit of cognitive dissonance in fast becoming one of the last, the roll call of those who have been more decisive was comprehensive. 'Australia, Canada, the UK, France, and 147 other countries have made similar declarations as the world responds to the ongoing destruction and famine in Gaza,' he added. Just a couple of weeks ago, news organisations were prevaricating over whether they could say 'famine' was happening in Gaza or not, but not so much now. The previous evening, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, put out a statement that said the government would 'carefully weigh up its position … over the next month'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters recognition was 'not a race'. But back on Morning Report on Tuesday, former prime minister Helen Clark told Dann she thought it really was urgent. 'I've seen victims of the war in the hospital in a nearby town. I've seen the trucks turned around carrying food and medicines which were unable to enter Gaza. This is a catastrophic situation. And here we are in New Zealand somehow arguing some fine point about whether we should be adding our voice,' she said, after a trip to the Rafah border crossing. But in the media here, party political tensions were overshadowing debate about New Zealand's official response. When Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick condemned what she saw as government's spinelessness in the House, it led the ZB news soon after – followed by points of order about MPs accessories from ACT leader David Seymour. And Swarbrick's eventual expulsion led TVNZ's 1News at Six soon after that. But on Newstalk ZB, the hosts overwhelmingly declared that declaring Palestinian statehood was just a gesture. 'Two groups determined to wipe each other off the face of the earth will never stop until one wins. Definitively recognising one as a state will not make a jot of difference,' Mike Hosking insisted on his breakfast show on Tuesday. Later on her ZB Drive show, Heather du Plessis-Allan reckoned it was just a distraction – one that had already distracted the media. 'For every minute and every column inch that we dedicate to talking about whether we should or should not support the state of Palestine in September, we are not spending … talking about getting aid into kids who need food,' she said. 'I'm sorry, but recognising Palestine right now while this war between Hamas and Israel is ongoing is rewarding Hamas for what they did on October 7th,' she added. Half an hour later, du Plessis-Allan's partner Barry Soper backed her up. 'Is that going to stop the war? Is Hamas going to finally put down the arms. They can see it as a badge of honour if they did do that.' Neither of them were convinced by Child Fund chief executive and politics pundit Josie Pagani. 'The only way that we're going to get any movement forward on this is to recognise a two state solution,' she said on the same show 24 hours earlier. 'The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza. It's to preserve the viability of a two-state solution,' The Herald's senior political correspondent Audrey Young wrote in response. Clark had also told Morning Report that she'd just been talking to Egypt's foreign minister about plans. 'There's elaborate plans which don't include Hamas. So I think it's all a bit of a red herring now to be talking about Hamas. There are credible plans for moving forward,' Clark said The same day University of Auckland international relations professor Maria Amoudian – on Jesse Mulligan's Afternoons show on RNZ National – said Palestinian statehood would not just be symbolic. 'It would mean they would get a seat at the United Nations. A better voice in UNESCO, diplomatic relations among countries which could evolve into economic support and trade. Also legal rights over territorial waters, airspace and sovereignty over their own territory,' she said. On RNZ's Midday Report the same day, Otago University professor Robert Patman said that our government's current position not only 'lacked moral clarity,' it was actually inconsistent with our own recent actions and statements. International law was being 'trashed on a daily basis by Israel,' Patman said. 'In Gaza, cameramen and journalists from Al Jazeera were assassinated by the Netanyahu government. It raises issues which go right to the heart of our identity as a country. I think most Kiwis are very clear. They want to see a world based on rules.' Meanwhile, political reporters here sensed that we were international laggards on this because partner parties in the Coalition were putting the handbrake on. In his online newsletter Politik, Richard Harman pointed out ACT MP Simon Court had said in Parliament there cannot be progress towards a Palestinian state until all Israeli hostages are returned and Hamas is dismantled. He said it was also the position of the foreign minister, though Peters himself had not actually said that. And Luxon had said on Monday Hamas held hostages that should be released. 'We are thinking carefully about all of the different sides … rather than trying to prove our own moral superiority over each other, which the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick have just been doing,' ACT's David Seymour told ZB when asked if ACT was holding up Cabinet support for recognition of Palestine. Seymour gave a similar response to the Parliamentary Press Gallery reporters. It was later posted to ACT's YouTube channel as 'David versus the media. David Seymour WARNS against rushing Palestine'. He repeated his worry that Hamas might benefit. But when a reporter pointed out a Palestinian state means more than just Gaza, and that Hamas doesn't control the West Bank, that episode of 'David versus the Media' came to an end. 'Right now everyone is focused on Gaza. And no one, if you recognise any kind of state – is going to think that this is about the West Bank. That's where the image of every country is going to be judged,' he said. 'Talk to you about domestic politics tomorrow,' Seymour said in closing. On TVNZ's 1News, Simon Mercep highlighted another practical problem. 'All five permanent members of the UN Security Council. – America, Russia, China, France and the UK – have to agree on statehood. 'Israel's major ally, the US, does not agree. It used its veto as recently as last year.' It wasn't much mentioned in the media this past week, but the veto right is something that New Zealand has long opposed. Back in 2012, foreign minister Murray McCully called on the five permanent members to give up their veto rights issues involving atrocities. He said the inability to act in Syria had 'cost the UN credibility in the eyes of fair-minded people around the world'. Three years later, he said that the Security Council was failing to prevent conflict – and during a stint chairing the Security Council later that year (when New Zealand was a non permanent member for two years) McCully criticised it again. The government paid for New Zealand journalists to travel to the UN at the time to watch sessions chaired by New Zealand. In late 2016, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN resolution that said Israeli settlements in the occupied territories had no legal validity – and were dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-state solution.' The resolution passed, Israel withdrew its ambassador here – and the incoming President Trump said 'things will be different in the UN' after his first inauguration. 'The position we adopted is totally in line with our long established policy on the Palestinian question,' McCully said at the time, stuck to his guns. Back then he also said he hoped the attitude of Israel would eventually soften. Eight years later, it's the attitude of New Zealand's government – and its clarity on two-state solution – that seems to have diluted.
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
On The Up: Mount Maunganui start-up Dispute Buddy wins global grant for legal tech growth
A small legal tech start-up run from Mount Maunganui has won a global growth grant to help establish itself in overseas markets. Dispute Buddy, founded by Jenny Rudd, was one of two start-ups chosen from a pool of 400 New Zealand-based entrants to win a $5000 Airwallex Global Grant.
Otago Daily Times
17 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee
Analysis by Phil Smith of RNZ Parliament's Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, had a rough week. He made a series of novel, escalating rulings, with later rulings to justify the earlier ones, all after, arguably, digging himself into a procedural hole. Any discussion of it should probably start at the beginning. First though, it is plainly not easy being Parliament's Speaker. Speakers are often a lightning rod for opprobrium and discontent - and that is when they're doing well. The role walks a tightrope, caught between two sides, trying to avoid one's own natural bias; attempting to maintain order in a chaotic House that has more attention-seeking rascals than haunt a teacher's worst nightmares. The inciting debate On Tuesday, the Speaker allowed an urgent debate on the issue of New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. The situation in Gaza is desperate and horrific, so understandably the debate was impassioned. It probably didn't help that National Party MPs declined to contribute any speeches to the debate. Very strong language was frequent. Labour's Peeni Henare asked "how many more people will die because of the government dragging its heels?" and accused the government of "walking blissfully into the sunset of ignorance". ACT's Simon Court accused MPs of bandying around "Hamas propaganda", described Chlöe Swarbrick's description of the situation in Gaza as "hallucinating outrage", and intimated that the UN agency UNRWA was "enabling terrorism". Labour's Vanushi Walters accused the government of waiting "until the very last possible moment to make the morally correct decision". Te Pāti Māori's Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said "this is ethnic cleansing. This is genocide and apartheid, and I have never been more ashamed to be in the House than I am today." What irked the Speaker, though, was some rhetoric from Green Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick who said, "I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history". Gerry Brownlee interjected, saying: "that is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise". Swarbrick declined to do so, and the Speaker ruled "then leave the House for the rest of the week". Hansard, which describes Parliament with Georgian nicety, records that "Chlöe Swarbrick withdrew from the Chamber." 'Spineless' There were a few different elements to that ruling, and its immediate aftermath. Let's take them in order. A wag might point out that, on paper, the ruling from the Speaker was that hoping to find six governing-party MPs with a spine was "unacceptable". Of course it was the implication rather than the literal phrase that he found problematic. The Speaker later remembered the offending phrase as that governing MPs were "spineless", which is easier to say - so let's go with that. There are many examples of MPs using similar language in Parliament to describe an MP's opponents: "get a spine", "have the guts", "spineless", "gutless", etcetera. They have been made on both sides of the House, including a few times this Parliament. Sometimes MPs are told off, sometimes no one notices. One previous Speaker, when an MP complained about the use of "spineless", ruled that the term was not disallowed at all. Upon request, the Parliamentary Library collated 17 pages of recent examples, and it wasn't exhaustive. Other claims are much more assured of getting an MP in trouble. Particularly implying dishonesty, lying, or corruption. I found no reference to insults relating to bravery in the collected Speakers' Rulings that, akin to common law, guides interpretation of Parliament's rules. Swarbrick was definitely taking a swipe, but she was also calling on governing-party MPs to break ranks and vote for a Green bill. It's an old and ineffectual political tactic - insulting your opponent into joining you. On the other hand, doing what Swarbrick suggested would take an unusually strong spine. Disobeying your own party to vote with the opposition is very rare. Tariana Turia and Marilyn Waring had spines of steel. Ejection, overreach and justification Gerry Brownlee's typical approach is to gently reprove MPs, telling them not to repeat poor behaviour - sometimes repeatedly, and with repeated final warnings. Occasionally an MP is asked to "withdraw and apologise" which is genteel parliamentary language for taking back a remark. Refusing to withdraw a remark is considered highly disorderly, whatever was said. When that happens MPs are usually asked to leave the House. But the Speaker overreacted. Speakers are only empowered to eject an MP for a single day. Gerry Brownlee jumping straight into a week's absence brought to mind the speech that former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe gave in June, when arguing against the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation to impose unprecedented punishments on three Te Pāti Māori MPs. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt-a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. You can also guarantee that governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents." A little while after Swarbrick had departed the Green's musterer Ricardo Menéndez March pointed out the punishment itself was against the rules. The Speaker returned to the Chamber, not to retract, but to justify his mistake with a brand new rule (emphasis added). "The comment that I made was that it could be for the rest of the week. That was because, while it is true the member can only be removed from the House for the sitting day, the requirement for an apology does not lapse. And so if the member comes back in tomorrow and, at the start of proceedings after the prayer, takes a Point of Order and withdraws and apologises for the offensive remark, then that will be fine. If she doesn't, then she'll be leaving the House again. "I'm not going to sit in this Chair and tolerate a member standing on her feet or his feet or their feet and saying that other members in the House are spineless. That is completely unacceptable. I made it very clear at the start of the special debate that I expected it to be conducted in a manner that was respectful of the various views that are held across the House. So I've come back in here to make it absolutely clear that there is still an expectation that there will be a withdrawal and apology; and until there is one, then the status quo will continue." Arguably, that explanation dug the procedural hole deeper. Brownlee was now demanding an apology before Swarbrick would be allowed to return. That could turn a day-long suspension into a permanent one if the MP in question decided it was an issue on which they wouldn't back down. Searching back more than 22 years and at least 585 MPs ejected from the chamber, Parliament's Library couldn't find any example of a Speaker demanding an apology before an MP could return. There's a reason for that - Brownlee's demand directly contradicts a current Speaker's Ruling (ruling 21/1, from Speaker Hunt in 2001), which concludes "where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point". Brownlee's insisting on an apology before an MP can return is both new and, in this case, retrospective and retroactive. Parliament, as an institution generally frowns on retrospective law. Gerry Brownlee has, in the past, described laws that may have effect prior to their passing as "dopey" and "the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have". Ejection redux: Naming On Wednesday, the House began with the Speaker inviting Swarbrick again to "withdraw and apologise for an offensive comment made in the House yesterday". She declined again. Therefore, he again required her to leave the chamber. At this point Chris Hipkins tried to raise a Point of Order, but the Speaker declined to hear it. A very brief standoff ensued when Swarbrick stayed put, which only escalated things further. The Speaker asked "Is the member refusing to leave the House?" No response was recorded in the video or Hansard. Brownlee continued, "I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick". Naming is more serious than just being kicked out. It includes a loss of both a day's wages and the ability to vote or participate in committees or the House. Only the House can name a member, so a vote was required. The vote was contested and a party vote showed the governing parties in favour and opposition parties against. Swarbrick departed to a call of "Free Palestine" and some applause. Brownlee is a former classroom teacher, and - nodding back to the metaphor we began with - it's not a great sign when a teacher ejects a student from class and the departing student is applauded on their way. Once Swarbrick had departed Chris Hipkins rose again with a Point of Order. Parliament's rules (The Standing Orders) include a specific wording for the vote to name a member. Brownlee had evidently been flustered and bumbled it. "So I wonder," asked Hipkins, "whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was, because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does". This brings to mind Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride telling Vizzini "I do not think it means what you think it means". Inconceivable! Brownlee had a second crack at it, and there was another vote, with the same result. Reflections on the Speaker Chris Hipkins rose again with a second Point of Order, which began a broader discussion about the correctness and appropriateness of the Speaker's ruling. This itself was unusual. When an issue has been raised in the House it is not unusual for there to be a few contesting Points of Order before the Speaker makes a ruling. But after a Speaker makes a ruling such challenges are only allowed formally, by a later motion with notice (Speakers' Ruling 25/1). By contrast, on Wednesday there was an extended debate on the appropriateness and the correctness of the Speaker's fractions and rulings. That debate only drew out more contestable rulings. The core of Hipkins' Point of Order was whether the Speaker, in demanding an apology the following day, was acting in contravention of the rules. "I've been in the House quite a long time and there have been plenty of instances where members have been ejected from the Chamber for the rest of the day for doing exactly what Chlöe Swarbrick did. There is not a single instance where a member has been asked to withdraw and apologise the following sitting day, and then named for not doing that. "There has only been one instance that I can recall where a member was subsequently asked to withdraw a comment, and that was the Rt Hon John Key when he said that members of the Opposition supported rapists and murderers. At the time, he received a standing ovation from the National Party. That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost. "I think the naming of a member for something they had done the day before is not something that has ever happened in the House before. I wonder whether you can reflect on what precedent or Standing Order you're relying on in asking Chlöe Swarbrick to apologise for something [done] the day before, because I did check the Speakers' Rulings, and Jonathan Hunt back in 2001 specifically ruled that 'where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point' [Speakers Ruling 21/1]. So that has been the established practice of the House since 2001, and I wonder if you could indicate why that has changed." Speakers' Rulings referenced in this article are quoted in full at the bottom. Brownlee responded "because the Standing Orders Committee met in July of 2017 and brought down a new Speaker's ruling, Speaker's Ruling 23/1. I refer the member to that." A new Speaker's Ruling (23/1) was added in 2017, but it has two problems. Firstly, it plainly did not supersede the 21/1 ruling (that being sent out is the end of the matter), because 21/1 is still extant in the Speaker's Rulings. Kieran McAnulty also pointed out the contradiction. Brownlee disagreed. Furthermore, 23/1 doesn't seem at all relevant. It reflects the John Key situation that Hipkins referred to. It allows a Speaker to deal with a situation retrospectively but assumes it hasn't already been dealt with. And it has conditions. It is to be used only in serious cases, and only where not doing so would have a continued impact on the House's ability to conduct its business. In the John Key situation the Opposition were so offended at the Speaker's refusal to demand a retraction that they walked out en masse. The Speaker asked Key to apologise later to restore order. The Swarbrick situation had been dealt with at the time. Unlike Key, Swarbrick had been ejected from the Chamber. Hipkins and Menéndez March both argued against this unusual ruling. Menéndez March immediately and Hipkins later. Hipkins argued that "The [23/1] ruling ... specifically states that the threshold should be very, very high for that type of action. There was no disorder in the House once Chlöe Swarbrick had left yesterday, nor was there any today. The very high threshold that was envisaged by the Standing Orders Committee at the time certainly does not appear to have been met in this instance." Menéndez March, referring to the condition that acting retrospectively was only allowable if not doing so would affect the House's ability to function, asked: "Is it your view that this meets that threshold?" The Speaker's answer to Menéndez March took the debate somewhere new. Unprecedented? The Speaker did not attempt to argue the facts or the rules, he went with a claim that Swarbrick's behaviour was ... newly offensive. "If that's how the member wants to take it, but if you think about the comment that was made, 68 members of this House were accused of being spineless. There has never been a time when personal insults like that delivered inside a speech were accepted by this House, and I'm not about to start accepting it." Setting standards in the Debating Chamber is the Speaker's prerogative, but it was far from the first time that such a comment had been made. Remember the 17 pages of occasions referenced by the library? Gerry Brownlee has himself questioned the courage of his opponents en masse, but couched in slightly politer terms. First on his feet to respond was an unexpected ally for the Opposition - Winston Peters (who typically has no time for the Greens). "Mr Speaker, I've been in this House when a Prime Minister accused the Opposition of [needing to] '[get] some guts' - it was a serious accusation; nothing happened - and then, worse, I've heard the "c" word being accepted as language that can be used in this House. My personal view is that I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted. That's my position." As it happens, the "c" word, as Peters referred to it, was used again later in this debate without remark. Winston Peters' confidence may come from the fact that he himself has called governments and government MPs spineless, in both a General Debate and in Question Time - without punishment. On the other hand, confusingly, his party had also just voted that Swarbrick be "named". As a result of that contradiction, Menéndez March inquired whether the vote to name Swarbrick could be taken again. The Speaker did not allow this. Brownlee did not respond to Peters' opinion, other than to introduce some context for the new interpretation of Parliament's rules. The Speaker's context, and a new decency? "There [are] considerable efforts being made at the moment," said Brownlee, "across the Parliamentary Service to deal with what might be described as cyberbullying, and, essentially, what it comes down to is a question of: 'what standard does the House want to set for itself?' I've decided that there are two things that can be looked at. One is that if there are interjections across the House and they are reactionary ... then that is not as egregious as someone taking their speaking time to include a gratuitous insult inside a speech. That is, in my opinion, from this point on-while I'm in the Chair-unacceptable. I take the point the member makes about the House being a robust place-it most certainly is. But if members are going to be disrespectful of one another in such a demonstrable way, then how on earth can we be upset about members of the public taking a similar approach to dealing with MPs?" Within the above quote is another new edict from the Speaker (emphasis added). The Speaker also noted on Wednesday that, in the wake of Tuesday's Palestine Debate and his ejection of Swarbrick, he had raised the issue in the cross-party Business Committee. "There's a point where things change, and I've reached the conclusion that we had so many threats and other stuff being directed at members of Parliament that if we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside. So that is part of my rationale as well, and I made that very clear to the Business Committee yesterday." The Speaker participated in a recent forum with other MPs on the subject of cyberbullying. We reported on it at the time. Apparently, he took to heart the impact of hateful communication on some (particularly female) MPs. It is well-intentioned to posit that if MPs were polite about each other's policies and beliefs, then trolls and lunatics would no longer send them hate mail and death-threats. It seems a little hopeful, but modelling respectful behaviour is a nice start. However, opting to begin a campaign to make female MPs feel safe by coming down like a tonne of bricks on a female MP, (probably one of the female MPs most commonly attacked online), may have missed the mark. Regardless, the Speaker's role includes maintaining "order and decorum in the House", so setting standards (within the rules), is fair enough. But again, while the intent is good, it is a post-hoc ruling, and given after the punishment. If that ruling and warning had been made before he sanctioned Swarbrick it may have made a lot more sense to everyone. The debate with the Speaker on this matter continued for quite a while. We can't include it all. But two more moments are worthy of note. First, Kieran McAnulty wondered how a punishment could be escalated when the original punishment was itself outside the rules. Brownlee's response included more new rules. "...The fact that someone is asked to leave the House for a comment that has caused offence, and they do so for that day, does not mean that the offence has gone away. That can be a new thing written into the Speakers' rulings, if that's what it takes ... and there is a huge difference between the sort of commentary that you get by way of interjection-which should be rare and has become far too frequent-and a comment that is inside a speech delivered deliberately to the House." Those are both new ideas, and again, they are retroactive. One more moment worthy of noting was when Labour maverick Willie Jackson offered his own experience. "With respect, I think that this is outrageous. I ask you, with respect, to reconsider this, given that you have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes and you gave a direction that I could come back into the House. We need some clarity on this. This is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and asked to come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required. ... I did not apologise and I would never apologise." Possibly at the core of all of this is a confluence of factors. The war in Gaza is a highly emotive issue, and, as Brownlee termed it, a "tragedy of humanity". It's surely an issue where every MP, regardless of their current relative power, probably feels powerless to genuinely effect useful change. That combination of impotence and tragedy is quite a tinderbox to toss provocations into. There were plenty of provocations. In retrospect it seems odd that, of all the statements made in Tuesday's Palestine Debate, the Speaker did not react to Simon Court accusing MPs of repeating "Hamas propaganda"; or Peeni Hemare claiming that people were dying "as a result of" the government's reluctance to act. He did though ask Court to withdraw his claim that Swarbrick was "hallucinating outrage". Instead it was a challenge to not be spineless that sparked the whole affair. As the Speaker admitted, it was a very personal reaction: "That, I think, in the context of that debate, was completely unacceptable, and - I've got to be quite straight up with you - I personally found it deeply offensive." Spare a thought for Parliament's Clerk's who will have the job of untangling all those new rulings and deciding which to include in the official guide to Speaker's Rulings, and which rules they may supersede. Speakers' Rulings referenced above Speakers Rulings are a collection of important decisions made by various past Speakers that are used to guide the current interpretation of the Parliament rules (The Standing Orders). They are akin to the Common Law of previous judicial decisions that can influence future interpretation of legislation in the courts. 21/1 Where a member has been asked to apologise and has left the Chamber rather than comply, the Speaker always insists that the member return to the Chamber and apologise. Members cannot avoid complying with the Speaker's direction by just leaving the Chamber. (But where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point). 2001, Vol. 596, p.13100. Hunt. 23/1 We consider, however, that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it important and in the House's interests to do so. The Speaker's primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House's ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address the matter. Retrospective intervention by the Speaker should be infrequent and used only in serious cases. In such situations, the Speaker could ask the offending member to withdraw and apologise, or could take stronger action if necessary. Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker, outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed, and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still, of course, a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. Report of the Standing Orders Committee, July 2017 (I.18A), p. 14. 25/1 (1) The Speaker's ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice; (2) such notice cannot be accepted immediately after the ruling has been given. It must be given at the appropriate time. (1) 1891, Vol. 72, p. 7. Steward. 1903, Vol. 125, p. 523. Guinness. 1931, Vol. 228, p. 725. Statham. 2017, Vol. 726, p. 733. Mallard. (2) 1960, Vol. 322, pp. 161-62. Macfarlane.
