Houses of Parliament, London, United Kingdom

3 January 2008

Mr Speaker, Colleagues

I thank you for the opportunity to make a few observations on the general topic of keeping order and fostering decorum. I was prompted to make a contribution because of two events that have recently occurred in the New Zealand Parliament. The first was the practice of concerted barracking to silence members asking or answering a question, and the second is the introduction of the televising of proceedings for the entire proceedings of Parliament in the Chamber. Both of these developments have resulted in reactions from Members and a questioning of existing practices and Standing Orders.

Before I address these two specific events, I wish to make a general observation about keeping order in the House. It is fair to observe in the New Zealand Parliament interactions between Members in the House have always been robust. During the first session in 1854 a Member is reported as having “marched in with his hat on, defied the chairman, flung a Gazette on the table and declared the session was over” and then marched around the chamber flourishing his umbrella and daring anyone to evict him. The history of the House of Representatives is full of instances of disorderly behaviour and attempts by Speakers to maintain a sense of decorum. It is also disconcerting to note how many of our Speakers suffered from stress and retired with ill-health.

It is fair to conclude that the New Zealand Parliament has a high level of tolerance for what in any other environment would be unacceptable behaviour. The contesting of ideas and policies is conducted in a vigorous manner with little regard or respect of others. Tempers fray and verbal abuse is exchanged in an attempt to score a political advantage over one’s opponent in the debate. Physical altercations were not unknown but relatively rare, though there was a recent example of Members in a physical altercation in the lobby. It is also fair to observe that instances of rowdy and unruly behaviour are less apparent today than they were in the past.

It is interesting to speculate why such behaviour has been so much a part of the New Zealand Parliament. I suggest there are two factors that deserve comment. The first is that there appears to be a correlation between the level of misconduct and the Standing Orders. The second is that the Parliament reflects the culture within the wider society. Late nights; sessions that go on for an indeterminate time; devices to shorten or avoid opposition scrutiny of the executive have all contributed to incidents of bad behaviour. Without the rules to ensure a ‘fair go’ in the Chamber, it was not surprising the frustrations of Members boiled over on occasions. Also the more discretion given to the Speaker meant more opportunities to contest the Speaker’s decisions and create a new avenue for disorder.

It is interesting to note that the introduction of MMP in 1996 required a rethinking of the Standing Orders to govern this new form of Parliamentary representation. MMP had been introduced to provide a curb on the power of the executive and to give all the parties represented in Parliament a greater role. The Standing Orders that were agreed after the review in 1995 reflected this change to parliamentary practice. The guiding principles adopted by the Parliament to govern its proceedings were proportionality and a ‘no surprises’ approach to Parliamentary business.

These principles have removed much of the uncertainty and ‘gaming’ in the management of the business of the House. The Business Committee that meets every Tuesday afternoon provides the opportunity for all parties to have notice of the forthcoming business in the House and to sort out any procedural matters that may be contentious such as urgency motions. The Government now gives notice of the business before the House for the upcoming week, requests for notices of motion without debate are discussed, memberships of select committees are determined, as well as a variety of other issues that contribute towards the orderly conduct of the business of the House.

The Standing Orders also set out the limited debates and the speaking times for Members. The number and sequence of primary and supplementary questions is also determined according to the principle of proportionality. The sitting times for the Parliament are also more family friendly due to the influence of the changing nature of gender roles, for example recesses in school holidays.

The Standing Orders also to some extent reflect the changing nature of the political culture within which the politics of the House are conducted. There is a high level of interest in politics by New Zealand citizens. A recent survey conducted by the Electoral Commission found that 72% of New Zealanders claimed to be interested in politics. New Zealand is a country of only four million people in which there is considerable access by citizens to their Members of Parliament. Elections are held every three years with a participation rate of 80% plus. Expectations that Members perform well are high even though most surveys do not rate politicians very highly.

Whether the relatively low opinion of Members of Parliament is related to behaviour in the House is an interesting question on which there is no research in New Zealand. It is apparent however that within Parliament there is a growing intolerance of unruly abusive behaviour. On 12 June 2007, four minor Parties – the Greens, Maori Party, United Future and the ACT Party – held a press conference and announced they were signing a Code of Conduct and strongly urged other Members to also sign. The Code was to be voluntary but the intention was that if enough Members signed, then the Code of Conduct could be adopted by the Parliament and included in the Standing Orders. The announcement of the Code followed a letter to the Speaker in March outlining concern about the poor behaviour in the House, particularly at Question Time.

The main concerns expressed by the four parties were –

• the strategy of organised barracking by parties
• constant points of order, which are repeatedly silly and frivolous and intended to hector, bully and destabilise those asking or responding to questions
• Ministers indulging in flippant comments and put-downs rather than addressing the question.

The letter also complained of the shouting matches in the House that meant it was difficult to hear what Members were saying to each other. They stressed that an MMP Parliament demands a standard of behaviour that allows all voices to be heard.

This letter had followed the development of a tactic by the major opposition party – the National Party – in shouting down the answers of Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister – so it was impossible to hear the reply. It was also impossible for the Speaker to identify a particular offender and exercise the power under the Standing Orders to ask the Member to leave the House. Opposition Members were aware that the Speaker could not eject all the Members without looking like control of order in the House had been lost. Government Members had also adopted the practice when National Opposition Members sought to ask a question as a response to this tactic.

The co-leader of the Green Party, Jeanette Fitzsimons, stressed that the Code was not only about behaviour in the House but covered wider ethical issues that stressed Members’ responsibility to the public good rather than their own personal interests. Peter Dunne, leader of United Future, talked of the challenge to the two old parties to follow the example of the newer parties, while Tariana Turia, Maori Party co-leader referred to tikanga and kaupapa guiding the conduct in the House. She said that those principles of respect and integrity fitted well with those expressed in the Code. Rodney Hide, ACT Leader, referred to the New Zealand Parliament being second rate in its behaviour and the time had come to provide a Parliament we could all have pride in.

In other words, the Code was to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, to their constituents and to the public. The promoters of the Code noted that it was intended to supplement and support Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. It is also clear that the Code was intended to provide a standard against which the public could judge members’ activities. The other point made by the promoters gives some insight into the motivation behind the Code. It is that an MMP Parliament demands a standard of behaviour that allows all voices to be heard. This last point is an important one.

The Code is currently before the Standing Orders Committee and will be discussed later this year. It would be fair to say that it appears unlikely the Code will gain the support of the major parties. It may be that a better solution may lie in a reconsideration of the Standing Orders relating to Question Time. Question Time takes place each sitting day and consists of 12 primary questions and 63 supplementary questions that are allocated amongst the parties proportionally. There is no time limit but it usually lasts between an hour and hour and a half. It is not a ‘truth-seeking’ exercise but about challenging political confidence. It is therefore often acrimonious and personal and difficult to control. There is however no desire by Members to change the nature of Question Time which has become an accepted part of the Parliamentary culture.

At the outset I said there were two recent factors that may be seen to have an impact on Parliamentary behaviour and decorum. Barracking in the chamber was the first and the second is the introduction of television, recording all proceedings in the chamber. Although New Zealand led the world in radio broadcasting of Parliament, it has been very slow to televise proceedings. The first television broadcast was the Opening of Parliament in 1965. In 1986 there was a week-long experiment filming the entire proceedings, but only Question Time was broadcast on free to air television. In 1989, the Standing Orders Committee endorsed the making of parliamentary proceedings available for broadcast but did not support public funding for that purpose. In 1990 the then Speaker Kerry Burke implemented the decision and cameras were admitted to the chamber to film under a set of standards.

It was not until 2000 however that Sky TV entered an arrangement with TVNZ to broadcast each day’s Question Time. In 2003 the Standing Orders Committee decided the time had come to establish its own television unit and to commit public funds for that purpose. After a difficult period of negotiation, on 9 October 2007 the proceedings of Parliament were broadcast on a free to air channel, Sky TV and streamed on Parliament’s website. The next phase is to televise select committee proceedings.

What effect, if any, such broadcasting has on Members’ behaviour or on the public’s perception of Parliament is difficult to assess. It appears to have had little affect on behaviour, though comments have been made that the standard of dress has improved. The primary purpose of making available televised proceedings to the public was to give them the opportunity to decide for themselves what is happening in Parliament. The edited highlights on the news programmes often did not give a balanced view and naturally concentrated on the sensational incidents that were few but were presented as the norm. While nothing can be done, nor maybe should be done about such media coverage, it is essential in such an environment that the public have access to an unedited record of events. The only matter of controversy surrounding the introduction of televising proceedings of Parliament was the media objection to the rules and conditions surrounding broadcasting.

In conclusion, I trust these observations of activities in the New Zealand Parliament may be of interest to colleagues in other Parliaments.