King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4508] 
12.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What changes have been made to the testing requirements for wine? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 On my instruction to reduce business compliance costs the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has removed the requirement that all wine destined for the European Union must be sent to Auckland for testing and now wine will be able to be tested closer to a winery’s own operations. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but the member Mr Mallard has been accusing me of being a liar and I think that is inappropriate in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On a couple of occasions during question time today I have heard the Hon Trevor Mallard interjecting exactly that. Offence has been taken on this occasion and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Before I do that Mr Speaker I make it clear— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I did not make the comment! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber for the rest of the day. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: For not making a comment? For goodness’ sake! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not dispute the Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] And if he is not careful he will be named. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that we have to take this issue carefully. I think the issue was that Mr Mallard was trying to communicate to you that he had not used the phrase that the Prime Minister had accused him of making. Mr Mallard said he was happy to withdraw if he had breached parliamentary procedure by using an unparliamentary term but Mr Mallard did not say the very word that the Prime Minister said he had used. I heard what Mr Mallard said; I am happy to repeat it for you if that is of use to you. To eject a member and threaten him with being named when you had directed him to withdraw and apologise for something that he had not said and when you did not ask him to clarify what he had said does seem like Mr Mallard has paid a very high penalty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter is very simple. Today during question time I have listened to the Hon Trevor Mallard interjecting inappropriately on a number of occasions. I have pulled him up on a couple of occasions. The problem at the end was that when I asked him to withdraw and apologise for it because offence had been taken he started to dispute with the Speaker. I will not tolerate that. The manner in which he did it was the problem; it was not that he had interjected. He could have withdrawn and apologised for that. It is not a difficult thing. The dignity of the House was totally destroyed by the way that the member behaved and I will not tolerate that in the House. 
The honourable member will just have to learn to control his anger. It would have been perfectly within my right as the Speaker to have him called back into the House and have him named. I have not done that because I do not want to do that but the member will have to learn to behave with a little more decorum. He is a senior member. He has the authority from the Labour Party it seems to raise points of order on behalf of the party. The shadow Leader of the House appears to allow him to do that on a number of occasions. If he is going to do that he has to respect the House and respect the dignity of the House and not behave in the way that he did just now. He will be out for the rest of this day and he will learn to behave in a manner befitting the dignity of this House. 
I did not make that decision lightly. Members will note that I resisted the temptation. In my time in the House I have seen members named for that kind of behaviour as they left the Chamber. I did not want to do that because I realised that the member had lost the plot for a moment and he was angry. That is the end of the matter. But I want all members on all sides of the House to realise that it does not matter about me as the Speaker; it is the treatment of this House. This House will be treated with its proper dignity. 
Hon John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me make it quite clear. On numerous occasions Mr Mallard yelled out at me: “Your nose is growing. Your nose is growing.” I think everyone understands what Mr Mallard meant by that. I took offence at it. The reason I took offence is that Mr Hodgson may not like the fact that I have not answered questions in the way that he would want but I have not done so because I am a liar or have misled New Zealand in any way; I have done so because I do not believe that it is in the public interest to answer those questions in the way that he would want. That is a vastly different proposition. I recognise Opposition members’ dissatisfaction with that and they are entitled to be dissatisfied but I am also entitled to answer questions in the way that I perceive to be in the public interest. There was no ambiguity about the implications of the statements that Mr Mallard made. Members will know that I have been in this House for 7 years and I have virtually never asked members to apologise but I will not put up with Mr Mallard implying very clearly that I am a liar. I am not. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think what the Prime Minister has just offered the House goes directly to the point I have made to you. The Prime Minister took a point of order and accused Mr Mallard of calling him a particular word. Mr Speaker it was that which made you get to your feet and reprimand Mr Mallard. As you rightly said he had said that word earlier in question time and without hesitation withdrew it. But the Prime Minister who brought the issue to your attention by way of a point of order used a different word from what he has now admitted in his second point of order was actually said. 
The other point I would make is that you have given a long dissertation about your views on Mr Mallard using your authority as Chair in a way that I do not think we have ever seen; it was quite a detailed explanation given by somebody in the Chair. Mr Mallard has been penalised in this case for something that the Prime Minister himself who was the person who complained now admits was a false accusation about what Mr Mallard had said in the first— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Bill English 
: Sit down! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. And there will be no interjections even from the Deputy Prime Minister. I have let these points of order go on long enough because I realise that the House is concerned about the actions I have taken. But I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that anyone who thinks that what the Hon Trevor Mallard said was not an insinuation of lying does not have half the intelligence that I attribute to the Hon Darren Hughes. To insinuate a member is lying is out of order. It has been well—please do not dispute me while I am in the Chair. I have not asked many members to leave this House. But I will not have the dignity of this House insulted by members behaving in the way that the Hon Trevor Mallard has behaved just now. I will not tolerate it. It is up to members to treat this House with dignity. That is the last thing I will say on this matter. 
We were on question No. 12. I think Colin King has a supplementary question. 
Colin King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek your indulgence if not the House’s indulgence to put the original question to the Minister again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the member put his question because I think the honourable Minister had not finished answering it. 
Colin King 
: What changes have been made to the testing requirements for wine? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: On my instruction to reduce business compliance costs the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has removed the requirement that all wine destined for the European Union must be sent to Auckland for testing and now wine will be able to be tested closer to a winery’s own operations. It makes sense that wine should be allowed to be tested at any appropriate lab rather than forcing wineries to send everything to Auckland. I thank the National MPs who lobbied so effectively on behalf of their local winemakers who had expressed frustration over the current process. 
Colin King 
: What reports has she seen in response to this announcement? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: South Island laboratories have already indicated that they want to offer testing services so wineries should soon have a choice of providers and an opportunity to reduce their costs. Wine exporters have already expressed their support with the New Zealand Winegrowers Deputy Chairman Steve Green saying that he is pleased to see that the Government is supporting New Zealand wineries.