A core notion underpinning how parliament operates is that all MPs are people of honour and that their word can be relied on.
It’s not often that the notion is challenged - at least inside Parliament. But a skirmish during Question Time this week shows it being tested.
ACT leader David Seymour makes a point during the general debate Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
The ACT Party leader David Seymour accused the Speaker, Trevor Mallard, of saying that National's Deputy Leader Nicola Willis had misled the House through ignorance.
“No, I haven't. I rely on the word of the Leader of the House, something which I find I can do, unlike some other members,” the Speaker said.
This comment didn’t go down well with Seymour who sensed an affront to his integrity
“Was what you just said an insinuation that you can't rely on my word, and if so, can you give an example of that?” he said in a point of order.
“No, it wasn't, but if the member feels guilty he might want to,” Mallard responded.
“Point of order,” Seymour piped up, “Mr Speaker, I just want to make it clear I don't feel guilty at all but you often go well beyond your brief with those kinds of insinuations and that's why...”
At that point, the Speaker ordered the MP to leave the House, making David Seymour the first MP to be ejected from the chamber this year. As he packed his things and walked out, National MP Christopher Bishop took up the mic and addressed the Speaker.
“It's a well-established principle of this Parliament since the establishment of the Parliament that all members are honourable and the words they say in this House are to be taken with the degree of honour that the words are appropriate for, for members who are in this House.
Trevor Mallard wraps up the Parliamentary year Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
"Is it now your position that you can rely more on the words of the Leader of the House than other members, and if so, why is that and would you like to explicate for the House who those members that you can't rely on are?”
The Speaker described Bishop's offer as tempting, but moved on to something else. Yet the matter which sparked this little affray itself remains instructional.
Willis had successfully sought leave to table some documents and told the Speaker they weren’t publicly available as far as she knew. Being public would have precluded their tabling. A few minutes later, Labour’s Chris Hipkins informed the House that the document was actually publicly available.
The Speaker had believed Willis and now he believed Hipkins because - as he reminded MPs - all MPs are honourable and their word is taken.
“I think what the member knows is absolutely right, and what this member may learn, or other members should learn from this, is that if they want members to accept them tabling documents in the future, they should make sure that they do not mislead the House, as the member did albeit through ignorance and not deliberately.”
The Speaker makes deliberate ignorance sound like a bad thing, but I’m glad to note that accidental ignorance is just fine.
