Immediately following the opening prayer, John Key sought the call and was recognised by Speaker Lockwood Smith. What followed was a disgraceful display of dissent and disrespect to Parliament, to Members and to the Speaker. And it comes as no surprise that Rt Hon Winston Peters was right at the centre of it. The action (for want of a better word, although perhaps petulance might suffice) starts at about the 1:55 mark, and we wonder what the Speaker of the Cook Islands House of Representatives made of it all:
It is less than one year since the public returned Winston Peters and his team of MP's to Parliament. But in that year, Peters has managed to get himself sent from Parliament no less than three times by Lockwood Smith, in February, August and then again yesterday. Yesterday, Dr Smith twice threatened to name Peters after having ordered him to leave the Chamber, and following that, Peters continued to argue as he left the House. Lockwood Smith should have named Peters in our ever-hunble opinion, such was the level of his petulance and dissent.
So it begs the question; is it time for Parliament to have a Three Strikes Standing Order? Winston Peters' behaviour will not change as long as missing the remainder of a day's proceedings is the worst sanction he faces. He enjoys the notoriety of being Parliament's bad boy.
So how about the MP's on the Standing Orders Committee do something tangible and grade ejections from the House. The first could carry the same sanction as it currently does, a second ejection during a set time period or during the life of that Parliament could carry a longer suspension (two days, perhaps), and a third or subsequent ejection could mean that the MP is automatically named, and gives the House as a whole the opportunity to vote on the length of the suspension.
Winston Peters lost the plot yesterday, and his behavior brought no credit on him or his party colleagues. On the other hand, Trevor Mallard had the foresight to see all where this was heading, and left of his own accord before Dr Smith could kick him to touch.
Winston Peters is the most senior MP in the current Parliament. But yesterday he behaved like a spoiled child who didn't get his own way. It was one of the worst displays we have seen in our many years of watching Parliament, and it does Peters no credit whatsoever.
9 comments:
It was certainly a bad display. And was it a pre-arranged stunt? Why else would MPs from NZF and Labour invite (demand) they be ejected from the house?
Immediately prior to this happening, at the beginning of the InTheHouse recording, Winston Peters was in discussion with David Shearer, with David Parker listening in. Peters went straight from there to take his seat in the house, albeit very temporarily.
Democracy! Oh no! Opposition MPs behaving rowdily! Tsk tsk!
I am not a supporter of Winston Peters and the whole the nonsense in the House did not reflect well on all those involved, but it is interesting how the whole story isn't being presented.
Before he made his apology to the house the Prime Minister was supposed to ask for a "point of order" first, as this is the expected protocol (Standing Orders) that members should follow. The points of order being called by the other MPs related to the fact that he didn't remember to to say this which meant they could call a point of order and take precedence over the Prime Minister's statement. When Lockwood is normally a stickler for good process, in this case he let the Prime Minister off and told the house that he accepted the intent of the PM even if he hadn't said it.
85 Points of order
(1) Any member may raise a point of order. A point of order takes precedence of other business until ruled on by the Speaker.
(2) The Speaker may rule on a point of order when it is raised without allowing any discussion apart from that of the member raising the point.
(3) A member raising a point of order and any member permitted by the Speaker to speak to a point of order must put the point succinctly and speak only to the point of order raised. A point of order is heard in silence by the House.
I thought Lockwood should have expected the PM to follow the rules of the house and overly favoured the PM when others tried to use the rules and were castigated for doing so.
I thought the whole thing demonstrated poor judgement from the PM, the Speaker and Winston and to only focus on Winston is being disingenuous.
I disagree completely bsprout. Peters refused to accept the Speaker's ruling, and continued to challenge Smith. He was warned at least three times to desist, and did not. Whether the ruling was right is debatable, but once the ruling has been made and explained, challenging the Speaker is only ever likely to lead to one conclusion.
And Peters was very lucky to avoid being named. He was still arguing on his way out the door. It was petulant, childish behaviour; not what one should expect from the longest-serving MP in the House. Perhaps that's the problem; Peters has been there so long that he thinks that he IS the House.
Peters is a complete and utter waste of space. He has had his snout in the trough of the taxpayer for far too long. His contribution to the running of the country has been negligible at best and his views are from the dark ages of Muldoonism. It would seem to me that the combination of too much whiskey, too many cigarettes and late nights cavorting around Wellington have addled his brain. He should be consigned to the dustbin of history and promptly forgotten about.
So it was acceptable for the the Prime Minister and the Speaker not to follow basic standing orders procedure?
I don't disagree with you about Winstone but the "Point of Order" statement is a powerful one and although the speaker mast be obeyed above all else I doubt if any member of the opposition would have been given the same allowance as the PM was in not recognizing it.
The Greens generally don't get involved in such demeaning political gamesmanship, but your view of this issue is fairly one eyed, KS.
Smith bends over backwards to get Ministers to answer questions bsprout, which is an area in which his predecessor was hugely remiss; witness Hipkins' question to Parata yesterday and a few weeks ago. He is the least partisan Speaker I have seen in the years in which I have been interested in politics (since the 70's). His ruling yesterday may indeed have been wrong, but Peters' refusal to accept his ruling was inexcusable. Even Mallard had the sense to realise he wasn't getting anywhere and withdraw.
Again I don't disagree with you, KS, just in this situation standing orders weren't followed and although the speaker's decisions should be accepted, both he and the PM were negligent in not following protocols.
You know I think that Lockwood has done a good job as speaker, but he isn't perfect and sometimes he makes mistakes. You also have to accept that one of the lowest points in the House was when John Key made his throat slitting gesture when a mental health sufferer tried to throw themselves from the gallery and into the debating chamber. Winston is a pain and a political opportunist but our Prime Minister has no sense of decorum for what is appropriate for a PM (his braying and goading after he made his apology was not necessary either).
just Name Winston Peters already! stop with the warnings and just Name him :)
Post a Comment