Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 21 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday in the House there was quite a bit of discussion about the validity of the vote cast by the junior Labour whip Darren Hughes as proxy for Phillip Field’s vote. There was a discussion about the definition of “public interest” and so on and you made a ruling that had— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No we are in the middle of a point of order—if perhaps we could just hear the completion. I remind members that points of order should be succinct not accompanied by long speeches. So I thank the member. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: You made a ruling and it seems fit today that the House tests whether that ruling actually applied in this case now that we know more facts of the circumstances surrounding the use of Phillip Field’s proxy vote. We have become aware through the media as I am sure you have yourself that yesterday Mr Field was being interviewed by the police. Your ruling stated that if the member was on public business then his proxy vote could be cast and that whether a member was on public business was entirely in the hands of the member. So we would like to ask you whether that activity which has been documented publicly does constitute public business. 
I also want to raise another point and it is to do with the way your ruling relates to the custom and practice of the House. When a whip casts a party vote the whip is in the particularly privileged position of knowing what the business of every member is because MPs apply for leave. They can be absent from the House only if they have that leave from the whip. The whip gives it to them for particular reasons. So when a whip votes on the member’s behalf the whip knows what is happening and is in the position of knowing whether the member is on public business. In the case of Mr Field of course that cannot be the case because the Labour Party had made it clear that it regards his conduct as so negative that it has thrown him out of its caucus. He does not have to apply for leave. So when the Labour whips cast his vote they cannot know what business he is on and therefore they cannot pass that test. 
So the question is whether you believe that being interviewed by the police constitutes public business and if you are not willing to answer that because your ruling is that it is up to the member then it may be fit for the member concerned to explain to the House by way of personal explanation as to whether he considers that what he was doing yesterday—being interviewed by the police—constitutes public business and therefore the casting of his vote was valid. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 With due respect I say that I think it is a rule and an understanding of this House that when members are addressed they are to be addressed by their correct names. Mr Bill English referred to me as Phillip Field. He has been in this House for a long time and knows very well that my name is Taito Phillip Field not Phillip Field. I would like to point that out to him first and foremost. 
In relation to the point of order I say that as far as I was concerned my involvement in the request made by the New Zealand Police to speak to me yesterday was public business. That was the reason for my absence yesterday. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 The Hon Bill English raised an interesting point. In fact his stance today on the back of Mr Key’s performance raises probably two points. The first point is that it would be in order Madam Speaker if you were to confirm to the House whether Gerry Brownlee has relinquished the role of shadow Leader of the House because it would appear that Mr English and Mr Key have taken that role. 
The second point is this—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Paula Bennett that I thought points of order were heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They are but the member will stick to the point of order please. 
RON MARK 
: That was the first point Madam Speaker and it is a point of order. We have a right to know who the shadow Leader of the House is. 
The second point is that Mr English raised the question of whether time spent by an MP being interviewed by police in response to allegations and possible charges that may or may not be laid by the police is time spent on business. That is questionable and it needs to be clarified whether that time is actually parliamentary time or time spent on public business. I ask you Madam Speaker when you consider and deliberate to address whether the time spent by Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith facing charges for which they were convicted—all the preceding interviews in respect of those charges—was parliamentary time whether their votes at that time should have been counted and whether they should be refunding their wages for the hours spent on that matter for which they were successfully prosecuted. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 My point is quite succinct. It is very clear that what Taito Phillip Field was up to was public business because with this Labour Government MPs former MPs and indeed Prime Ministers being interviewed by the police is almost a daily occurrence. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that member wishes to stay in the House she will make no further interjections. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 156(4)(d) regarding proxy votes which states that “illness or other family cause of a personal nature” is also part of that particular issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their comments. The first point to make is that there is no right to know on a point of order who has shadow responsibilities. That is not a matter for the Speaker. 
The matter raised about addressing members correctly is one that members will of course know and I am sure note has been taken of that point by all members. 
Mr Field may have been interviewed by the police yesterday; however as I understand it that interview did not last for 24 hours and it is not for the Speaker to inquire into how members spent their time away from the House. It is for him as a member to inform the proxy holder if he was not performing his public business if he was not attending to family business or if he was not ill. The member informed the Government whip that he could exercise the proxy in accordance with the Standing Order and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. I just add however that I shall be meeting with Mr Field after question time to clarify the position. 
Personal Explanations—Interjections 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your clarification about your ejecting me from the Chamber yesterday afternoon. There are four pertinent facts. The first is that  
Hansard 
 is absolutely clear that my interjection was made during a personal explanation not a point of order. Secondly the Standing Orders make it absolutely plain that a personal explanation is different from a point of order. Thirdly there is no Speaker’s ruling that there cannot be interjections on a personal explanation; in fact I have  
Hansard 
 reports of several occasions last year when you Madam Speaker were in the Chair during a personal explanation on which interjections were made and recorded in  
Hansard 
 and absolutely no action was taken. Madam Speaker we all make mistakes and if what happened yesterday afternoon was a mistake by you I will drop the matter and move on. Alternatively you need to make a formal Speaker’s ruling so that members know what the rules of the House are with that ruling being that interjections on personal explanations in future will result in an immediate kicking out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes I will make a ruling tomorrow. 
Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Last week the House received a report from the Privileges Committee in which the Hon Matt Robson was required to tender an apology to this House and to me. None has been forthcoming to me so far. I just wondered whether one had been delivered to the Speaker’s office and what steps were being taken to ensure that it is actually obtained. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have written to Mr Robson and I am awaiting a reply.