Carbon Forestry Rules Still Wide Open
"This is an incredibly disappointing result and many farmers will be feeling a total sense of betrayal," Federated Farmers forestry spokesperson Richard Dawkins says.
"Despite widespread feedback during consultation, and clear cross-party support for action, massive loopholes remain in the Environment Select Committee's recommendations.
"Their report sends a clear message to rural New Zealand that the march of permanent carbon farms across productive farmland won't be stopping any time soon."
Dawkins says one silver lining is that the committee has listened to Federated Farmers' concerns about the need to tighten rules around the 'intent to plant' test.
"We made a very strong case that simply purchasing seedlings before 4 December 2024, with no land to plant them on, should not count as a clear intent to plant.
"The committee has recommended the Bill be redrafted to make it crystal clear to carbon foresters that if they had seedlings but no land, they won't be able to enter the ETS."
Federated Farmers has been collecting information on those who have purchased land after December 4 with the intention of entering it into the ETS. This has been presented to the Minister.
"If the select committee's recommendations are accepted, those carbon farmers who have been trying to skirt around the rules will need to make other plans."
Dawkins is highly critical of other aspects of the select committee report saying recommended changes have totally missed the mark.
"It's extremely disappointing that what's proposed continues to ban whole-farm conversions only on Land Use Capability (LUC) classes 1-5 land," Dawkins says.
"That might sound good in a press release, but in reality only 12% of farm conversions were happening on that land anyway. Our productive hill country - the engine room of the agricultural industry - is still at risk of becoming a giant pollution-driven carbon farm."
Dawkins says two-thirds of sheep and beef farms are on classes 6 and 7 land.
"Those classes of land are still exempt from the 25% carbon credit restrictions, so the vast majority of our sheep and beef farms will still be at risk of full conversion to carbon forestry.
"Once those farms are gone, they're gone for good."
Dawkins says Federated Farmers has always supported the intent of these law changes, but what's proposed simply won't deliver any meaningful change.
"Recommendations on the Bill allow a potential 'lottery' system for class 6 land, where 15,000ha of conversions each year will likely still occur on a first-come-first-served basis.
"There are also no restrictions on classes 7 and 8 land - effectively making it open slather. If you're in the business of carbon forestry, business is going to be booming."
Federated Farmers argue that every single farm in the country should be subject to the same 25% carbon credit limit, no matter its LUC rating.
"Otherwise, the damage just shifts - it doesn't stop," Dawkins says.
"Class 6 and 7 hill country is not 'marginal land' as it's often described by foresters. It's often productive breeding land that underpins New Zealand's entire red meat sector.
"Sacrificing that land to carbon speculation isn't just short-sighted, it's economic self-sabotage that will rip the guts out of rural communities, not to mention the national economy."
Federated Farmers will continue calling on the Government to strengthen the law, Dawkins says.
He says the recommendations on the Bill are "smoke and mirrors and do little to prevent the continued undermining of our productive sector.
"We support the Labour Party minority view from the select committee hearings that a thorough review of the ETS and carbon forestry should be undertaken.
"This was one of our 12 key asks for rebuilding farmer confidence leading into the 2023 election."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
25 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Pay equity: Five unions take government to court over law changes
Pay equity protesters voice their opinions outside Parliament in May. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi Five unions are taking the government to the High Court over changes to pay equity laws. The sudden and controversial changes cancelled existing claims from mostly female-dominated jobs and made it harder for new claims to succeed . Workplace Minister Brooke van Veldengave a figure of 33 current claims that would be stopped, as the legislation was put through under urgency in May. The Nurses Organisation, Tertiary Education Union, Educational Institute, Post-Primary Teachers' Association, and Public Service Association argued the new rules breached the Bill of Rights Act. "The legal challenge argues the coalition government's legislation breaches three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process," the unions said in a joint statement. "The case gives workers who have been denied their right to challenge gender-based pay discrimination a chance to challenge the government in court. If successful, a Parliamentary Select Committee must consider the declaration of inconsistency and a Parliamentary debate must occur. The government is then required to formally respond." The claim would be formally lodged on 29 August at the High Court in Wellington following a rally by women whose pay equity claims had been cancelled, the unions said. A spokesperson for the office of Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden told RNZ: "The Bill was considered for consistency with the Bill of Rights Act before introduction, and the Acting Attorney-General concluded the Bill appeared to be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act". Public Service Association national Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said the government avoided proper scrutiny, bypassing consultation. "We are asking the High Court to declare that the government's actions are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 because of the discrimination New Zealand women will face as a result of the government's action," she said. "The government silenced women but we know the High Court will listen to our claims. This is just the start of our campaign for pay equity for New Zealand women and we will be leaving no stone unturned to achieve pay equity. "The decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority is inconsistent with the constitutional foundations of New Zealand which do not provide for the government to interfere with the judicial system in this way." Educational Institute national secretary Stephanie Mills said the government did not follow a democratic process. "The scrapping of the teachers claim without consultation and under urgency was a kick in the guts for our teacher members after years of blood, sweat and money getting the claim moving," she said. "We'd had five years of work on it with hundreds of interviews with members about their work, and it was a genuinely joint process with the Ministry of Education and their pay equity team." NZNO delegate and Plunket nurse Hannah Cook said nurses and care workers were devastated by the scrapping of their pay equity claims. "Plunket nurses were so close to finally having our hard work recognised. Nurses and care workers are the backbone of a caring society and the coalition government needs to value us. These changes don't just impact us. They impact our families, our livelihoods and our quality of life," she said. "The coalition government has shown it doesn't value us nurses and those of us in women dominated workforces. It is 2025 for goodness sake. We shouldn't still be paid less than those in male dominated occupations." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Underfunded And Under Fire: World Vision NZ Calls On Govt To Safeguard Humanitarians Amid Rising Threats And Aid Cuts
On World Humanitarian Day (19 August), World Vision New Zealand is hosting a Parliamentary Breakfast at Parliament in Wellington to bring together Members of Parliament, diplomats, NGOs, and faith leaders to honour the lives and work of humanitarian workers globally and to urge Parliamentarians to more strongly commit to New Zealand's aid efforts. 2025 is set to be one of the deadliest years for humanitarian aid workers - 248 aid workers have been killed in some of the world's most dangerous contexts, including Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, and Myanmar Humanitarians face historic funding shortfalls with a 40% drop in funding2 World Vision NZ calling on Government to prioritise vulnerable children by committing to a roadmap to reach 0.5% of Gross National Income for Official Development Assistance by 2030 As humanitarian needs reach unprecedented levels across the globe, this year's World Humanitarian Day (19 August), is honouring humanitarian workers killed and injured in the line of duty, while calling for urgent action to protect, fund, and support humanitarians. A triple crisis is confronting the humanitarian sector: record levels of violence against aid workers, historic funding shortfalls, and a crisis of legitimacy that threatens the future of humanitarian action. This year is shaping up to be the deadliest year for humanitarian personnel on record. In 2024, a record 383 aid workers1 were killed in the line of duty. As of August 2025, 248 have lost their lives, with staff disproportionately affected in high-risk countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Lebanon, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Syria. World Vision New Zealand's Acting National Director, TJ Grant says, these deadly statistics highlight the need for Governments to protect humanitarians; advocate for an end to attacks on aid workers; and guarantee safe, and unimpeded access to populations most in need. Grant says in addition to the threats to humanitarians' lives, a 40% drop in funding is having a devasting impact on the 300 million people who are in need. World Vision's recent report, Hunger, Harm and Hard Choices, revealed children are among the hardest hit — with severe consequences for food security, protection, and education outcomes. The 2025 Global Humanitarian Overview identifies a staggering 40% decline in humanitarian funding compared to the same period in 2024. Families who experience cuts in emergency food aid rations are the most vulnerable and are five times more likely to be at risk of violence and trafficking and to experience poor education outcomes. World Vision's Global Lead for Disaster Management, Isabel Gomes, says, 'Every time funding is cut, aid workers are put at greater risk, and the world's most vulnerable children are left without critical support.' The decline in global humanitarian funding means critical services, such as emergency health and child protection, are being dismantled, and children's educations are at risk. Despite overwhelming evidence that investing in children yields long-term returns—up to $10 for every $1 spent—global aid for children is on the decline. In 2023, according to the 'ODA at the crossroads' report, by World Vision, just 11.5% of Official Development Assistance (ODA) was directed toward child-focused initiatives, down from 13% the previous year. This drop comes at a time when children are bearing the brunt of escalating global crises—from conflict and climate shocks to hunger and displacement. Grant says the funding crisis has prompted humanitarian organisations to scale back operations. He says there is a failure to meet escalating global humanitarian needs and this raises questions about the international community's commitment to meet these needs. On World Humanitarian Day (19 August), World Vision New Zealand is hosting a Parliamentary Breakfast at Parliament in Wellington to bring together Members of Parliament, diplomats, NGOs, and faith leaders to honour the lives and work of humanitarian workers globally and to urge Parliamentarians to more strongly commit to New Zealand's aid efforts. 'We need the New Zealand Government to prioritise children who make up nearly half of those in need yet receive just 5% of aid funding. We're urging the Government to commit to a roadmap to reach 0.5% of Gross National Income for Official Development Assistance by 2030,' Grant says.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee
Speaker of the House of Representatives Gerry Brownlee (file photo). Photo: VNP/Phil Smith Analysis : 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. 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." 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. 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". Green Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick (file photo). Photo: Phil Smith 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. 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). Labour leader Chris Hipkins (file photo). Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii 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. The Green Party's Ricardo Menéndez March (file photo). Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone 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. 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. "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. Labour's Willie Jackson (file photo). Photo: VNP / Phil Smith "...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 Swarbrick of "hallucinating outrage" and of repeating "Hamas propaganda"; or Peeni Henare claiming that people were dying "as a result of" the government's reluctance to act. 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 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. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
