Mr SPEAKERYesterday members raised with me a reflection on persons outside the House that was contained in a supplementary question. I indicated that I would further consider my decision that the remark was not in order. Standing Order 115 deals with offensive or disorderly words used in debate. The Speaker intervenes when such remarks are likely to lead to disorder. Standing Order 371 sets the standard for questions. It is quite clear: questions should not contain offensive or unparliamentary expressions, nor should they contain expressions of opinion, imputations, or epithets. The rules for questions, while reflecting the general rules about unparliamentary language, are deliberately tightly framed.
In reflecting upon the matter, I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 53/3. It counsels members to use temperate and decorous language when referring to persons outside Parliament. Although members have absolute freedom of speech in this Chamber, that privilege should be treated with the utmost respect and used only in the public interest, because it is conferred on Parliament in the public interest. While members may be strongly critical in debate of persons outside the House, the rules for questions require members to take much more care if they wish to include such reflections in their questions.
I have given considerable thought to Mr Hide’s point of order. It remains my judgment that the reflection was out of order. Not only was it unparliamentary, it was, in effect, an expression of opinion in a supplementary question, and it led to disorder. In such circumstances it was appropriate for me to intervene. Members have absolute freedom of speech in debate and I do not seek to curtail that privilege in any way. However, I intend to uphold Standing Order 371. Questions that include offensive or unparliamentary expressions will be ruled out of order.
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification, but I would ask you to reflect on the difficulty that we may now have. As you point out, there are two standards: one for questions and one for parliamentary debate. But today’s question No. 7, which you have said is OK, refers to “some oik in Crown Law”. Clearly you have ruled that one can call someone an oik in question time, yet you have just ruled that one cannot call someone a hypocrite. I would like you to consider where you will draw the line, because, to be quite honest, I cannot see why being called an oik is OK but being called a hypocrite is not.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) Link to this
Mr Speaker, I think a difference can be drawn, but, of course, all of these matters come down in the end to your judgment as Speaker, and judgments are made on a case by case basis. The essence of calling people hypocrites is to imply that they are misrepresenting, that they are speaking with two tongues, if one likes, that they are engaging in saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place, and that they are being fundamentally dishonest. The term “oik” is somewhat out of date and not used much these days. It largely means somebody of a relatively limited education and background, ignorant, and not knowing very much, which does not apply to almost anybody in Crown Law that I am aware of, but it has been said by a person in reference to people outside the House, and it is perfectly legitimate to quote it, it seems to me, in a question.
I appreciate the honourable member’s point, and I think it was well made, just as I think the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide was a perfectly fair and valid point. The dilemma with all these matters is that one has to make a judgment somewhere. It is interesting to reflect, in respect of some of these things, that within this Chamber we consider it absolutely unacceptable to call another member of this House a hypocrite. I am not sure I have heard anyone suggest that one cannot call another member of this House an oik—I do not think that it has ever come up. But it is worth reflecting on the fact that if we find it offensive in this House to call another member a hypocrite, why would we hold ourselves to be so special and above good citizens of New Zealand that it would be perfectly acceptable to call good citizens of New Zealand hypocrites? It is interesting that in this case the people being referred to are people who have been honoured and hold some of the highest honours in our country.
I accept that the ruling is somewhat arbitrary, I accept that the Speaker has to make judgments, and I have given it careful thought, because I think the point of order made by the member was a perfectly fair point of order. But I think in question time it is worth keeping the framework for questions a little bit tighter, because the Standing Orders in respect of debate are different from those in respect of questions. I thank honourable members.