Latest news with #StandingOrders
Scotsman
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Swinney says Presiding Officer ‘always acts impartially' after Ross ejected
First Minister defends Alison Johnstone against accusations of bias following row in Holyrood chamber Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... John Swinney has backed Holyrood's Presiding Officer after the Scottish Conservatives accused her of bias for kicking their former leader Douglas Ross out of the debating chamber. Mr Swinney said she 'always acts impartially' and upholds the rules of the Scottish Parliament. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During a fiery session of First Minister's Questions on Thursday, Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone took the rare move of ordering Mr Ross to leave the chamber and barring him for the rest of the day. Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone and Tory MSP Douglas Ross | Getty She said Mr Ross had 'persistently refused' to abide by Holyrood's standing orders, which make clear MSPs should treat each other courteously. Her intervention came as Tory MSPs heckled the First Minister as he clashed with Russell Findlay over the Scottish Government's net zero policies. But the decision to expel Mr Ross angered his Tory colleagues, who said Ms Johnstone was regularly treating them unfairly. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Scottish Conservatives said they would be 'seeking discussions to reiterate that the Presiding Officer should not show blatant bias'. Ms Johnstone was elected as a Green MSP, but Holyrood's Presiding Officer is expected to be neutral and incumbents give up their party affiliation when taking on the role. The First Minister was asked about the Conservatives' claims as he visited a distillery near Glasgow on Friday. Impartial 'on all occasions' Mr Swinney said: 'The Presiding Officer has got to make very difficult decisions about the conduct of parliamentary business, and it's important that at all times – and this is what the presiding presiding officer does at all times – is to reflect the rules and the Standing Orders of parliament. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I'm absolutely certain that the Presiding Officer exercises that judgement impartially on all occasions.' Pressed on whether Ms Johnstone is biased in her role, Mr Swinney said: 'The Presiding Officer acts impartially on all occasions, and there is absolutely nothing that anybody could suggest otherwise. 'The Presiding Officer has a difficult job to do to make sure that Parliament operates to the rules that parliament itself has directed. 'And I think it's very clear from the conduct of the Presiding Officer on all occasions that she always acts impartially.'
Kiwiblog
7 days ago
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
Prebble on Labour and TPM
Richard Prebble writes: Claims standards of parliamentary behaviour have fallen are nonsense. Except for Te Pāti Māori, this is a well-behaved House. The Speaker's referral of the floor protest to the Privileges Committee was not discretionary. It was required by Standing Orders. The Speaker was lenient. He could have ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to end the Māori Party haka. Any MP who resisted is automatically suspended for the rest of this Parliament. No Parliament can tolerate its proceedings being disrupted by protest. In 1981, British Speaker George Thomas suspended Labour MP Ron Brown for 20 days for nothing more than placing a protest flag on the Commons table. In 2023, the Tennessee House of Representatives expelled two Democratic lawmakers for leading a protest on the House floor. Yes, there have been incidents of disorder in the House before, but all admitted their actions were wrong. No MP has ever refused a summons to the Privileges Committee. This is spot on. There is no general problem. Just a problem with one party. And indeed a three week suspension is lenient for the nature of what they did. Across Europe, there are MMP parliaments with extremist parties that reject parliamentary norms. Europeans know it is a mistake to appease democracy's enemies. The democratic parties establish a 'cordon sanitaire'. They refuse to form coalitions or alliances with parties that oppose democracy. Here's what is also unprecedented: the New Zealand Labour Party, long a champion of parliamentary democracy, has not set a cordon sanitaire and ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Parliament that Labour wants no penalty on the MP who instigated the protest and just 24 hours for the party leaders – no real sanction in my view. Parliamentary democracy is not safe with Labour. TPM are proudly an anti-democracy party. They do not believe in one person, one vote. They want one person, six votes.
Borneo Post
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Borneo Post
Yong: Speaker's dismissal of travel expenses question alarming, undermines democratic governance
Yong said she was deeply disappointed and concerned by the ruling. KUCHING (May 27): State Legislative Assembly (DUN) Speaker Tan Sri Datuk Amar Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar's dismissal of a question seeking a breakdown of expenses for official overseas trips involving the state government has been called 'alarming'. Pending assemblywoman Violet Yong said she was deeply disappointed and concerned by the ruling, stating her question was 'legitimate'. She said Mohamad Asfia's assertion that such expenditures are 'trivial' or a 'pittance' is not only dismissive, but fundamentally undermines the principles of transparency, accountability, and democratic governance that the people of Sarawak deserve. 'We are not questioning the necessity of official overseas missions when they are truly for the benefit of Sarawak. What we are demanding is accountability in how public funds are spent. 'As elected representatives, we have a duty to uphold the public trust. How can we fulfil that responsibility when legitimate questions are blocked under the vague pretext of being 'against public policy'?' she questioned in a press statement today. According to Yong, citing Standing Orders 20(3), 20(4), and 20(6) to reject this line of questioning sets a dangerous precedent where any inquiry into government spending may be unilaterally shut down, robbing the DUN of its role as a checks and balances mechanism. She said the people have every right to know how their money is being used, especially when it involved potentially millions and millions of ringgit in travel and related expenses. 'It is alarming that while the Sarawak GPS (Gabungan Parti Sarawak) government claims to have nothing to hide, it simultaneously refuses to disclose basic financial details. 'The Speaker's statement that online methods are insufficient for inspections or negotiations is beside the point. We are not disputing the need for engagement; we are questioning the cost, scope, and propriety of these trips, including who went, how much was spent, and whether the outcomes matched the expenditure,' she argued. Yong said Sarawakians are not asking for classified trade secrets but simply clarifications on how their tax money was spent, especially when public welfare, healthcare, infrastructure, and rural development remain inadequate across many parts of Sarawak. 'By suppressing my question, the Speaker and the Sarawak GPS government risk eroding public trust and feeding a culture of opacity,' she said. 'Dismissing calls for transparency as disruptive to Sarawak's so-called 'economic miracle' is both irresponsible and unacceptable. True economic progress does not fear scrutiny but embraces it.' She reiterated her call for the Sarawak government to immediately disclose the breakdown of public funds used for official overseas trips over the last five years. 'If the Sarawak GPS government is bold enough to spend the rakyat's money, why are you so afraid to tell the rakyat the truth?' In delivering his ruling, Mohamad Asfia had stated that the costs involved were merely a 'pittance' and 'trivial' compared to the billions in foreign investments the state has successfully attracted. Warning against attempts to question the state's development strategies, the Speaker said such scrutiny could 'impede and jeopardise Sarawak's economic miracle and expansionist programme'. lead Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar overseas travel expenses violet yong
Malaysiakini
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Rep slams S'wak speaker's ruling to block query on state travel spending
Pending assemblyperson Violet Yong has voiced strong disapproval over the recent decision by Sarawak legislative assembly speaker Amar Asfia Awang Nassar to reject her question seeking a breakdown of government spending on overseas trips by state leaders and their family members. In a statement today, Yong expressed her 'deep disappointment and concern' over the speaker's ruling, which deemed the question inadmissible under Standing Orders 20(3), 20(4), and 20(6).
Borneo Post
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Borneo Post
DUN Speaker orders parts of Pending rep's speech expunged from Hansard for breaching Standing Orders
Fazzrudin said Yong's remarks appeared to impute improper motives and make unsubstantiated allegations, contrary to the decorum expected in the august House. KUCHING (May 22): State Legislative Assembly (DUN) Speaker Tan Sri Datuk Amar Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar today ordered several parts of Pending assemblywoman Violet Yong's speech to be expunged from the official Hansard. The ruling was made in response to Yong's speech during the motion of appreciation for the Governor's address on Wednesday, which contained two 'pantun' references found to contravene Standing Orders 32(4), 32(5), and 32(6) concerning the use of names, improper imputations, and offensive language. 'Under Standing Order 32(6), no member shall impute improper motives to any other member or make any statement of allegation which the said member is not prepared to substantiate. 'Standing Order 32(4) prohibits the use of offensive or insulting language against fellow members, while Standing Order 32(5) bars members from referring to one another by name during debates. 'You are using his name, which violates Standing Order 32(5), while 32(6) covers improper motive and 32(4) is for insulting language,' said Mohamad Asfia. The ruling came after Tupong assemblyman Dato Fazzrudin Abdul Rahman raised the matter during the sitting today, citing a breach of Standing Order 32(6). Fazzrudin said Yong's remarks appeared to impute improper motives and make unsubstantiated allegations, contrary to the decorum expected in the august House. 'I would like to reiterate my objection under Standing Order 32, specifically concerning certain remarks made by YB Pending, which, in my view, fall squarely within the scope of Standing Order 32(6),' he said. Fazzrudin said Yong's references, while indirect, were suggestive and easily understood by the public as alluding to specific individuals. 'Although YB Pending may argue that these terms were not directly aimed at any individual, it is evident, particularly from the perspective of the layperson, that such language is suggestive and alludes to a specific person,' he said. Mohamad Asfia then ordered the DUN Secretary to expunge the relevant portions of Yong's speech from pages 62, 63, and 64 of the Hansard. Yong, meanwhile, withdrew her two 'pantun' during the sitting.
