Flavell Te Ururoa: Standing Orders 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Standing Orders 
[Volume:676;Page:21763] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tatou katoa. I am pleased to stand to acknowledge the important amendments that have been made in the Standing Orders Committee especially as I have been privileged to be a member of that committee. I really enjoyed the contributions made by members of that committee particularly those members who have been around for some period of time—the likes of the Hon Rodney Hide Trevor Mallard Simon Power and Rick Barker—and I acknowledge the leadership given by Mr Speaker. It was really good to have the cooperative nature of the whole of the committee working together. 
If I can follow on from the lead given by Mr Kennedy Graham this evening I have a few points to mention that were highlighted. The very first amendment—to add a new paragraph to Standing Order 13—is one we have considerable interest in. Indeed we believe it is fundamental to good government. It is the amendment that would allow any member taking the oath to use only the words required by law. I really enjoyed the debate on this for a number of reasons. We were talking about subtle things around the legislation like if it is counted if someone wants to say something just before the oath. It was all that sort of stuff and it was quite interesting. 
Our interest is I suppose in two regards. Although we endorse the importance of consistency in formalising the most sacred oath of allegiance to this House we did not necessarily agree that the current wording of the oath is sufficiently robust as an oath for Aotearoa. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our founding document and people who hold public office should not be deprived of giving it some recognition. 
Two months ago my colleague Rahui Katene announced that the Maori Party is proposing a member’s bill that will give politicians police officers members of the judiciary and public office holders the option to uphold the nation’s founding document when they swear their oath of allegiance. As I said the Treaty is a fundamental basis of our identity as a nation and it provides us with the foundations for our Parliament in this country Aotearoa New Zealand. The Oaths and Declaration Bill will move us forward on the journey to nationhood and is another step in upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In effect the impact of our member’s bill is that any person who elects to state that they uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi may do so by making the following statement at the end of the affirmation: “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ka whakaungia e au Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” So it is a pretty minimal change. 
The Maori Party has been lobbying to bring legislation into the context of statutory oaths and declarations since July 2006. As I have said we uphold te Tiriti as our founding document and it is incumbent on Parliament to deal with matters involving tangata whenua in particular on the basis of the Treaty principles—namely things like mutual respect reasonable cooperation and the utmost good faith. Endorsement of the Treaty would be an easy and efficient way of expressing this commitment. We would hope that ideally the proposed amendment would be supported on the understanding that we seek to amend the oath as an immediate priority in the new Parliament to best reflect our adherence to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of this land. 
The most significant advance that we would like to acknowledge in this debate is amendment 14 which amends Standing Orders 139 and 151 which refer to the casting of proxy votes. The Maori Party raised the issue of the Standing Orders for casting proxy votes because we believe that they are pretty unfair particularly to smaller parties. Prior to this report a party could lodge only up to 25 percent of its votes by proxy. In this sense the Standing Orders penalise minor parties with more than one MP. We say this because single-MP parties can be absent but their vote still counts although a party with four or five MPs can have two members in the House but still not be able to cast a full complement of votes. We believe that this is pretty unfair and we are pleased to see the amendment to Standing Orders 139 and 151 to enable any party with up to five members to have its votes cast on its behalf notwithstanding the need for the party to still have members in the precinct. 
A third change I refer to is amendment 19 which affects Standing Order 248(1). It now states that the Government must not more than 60 working days after a select committee report has been presented present its response. This issue arose for us following the Maori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry and the difficulty of considering an extremely complex issue within the constraints of a condensed report-back time. The report back was scheduled over the summer break so it greatly condensed the amount of time during which officials could respond over the Christmas holiday period. Following the tabling of the Government’s response my colleague Tariana Turia wrote to the Speaker asking for consideration of a consistent time frame for report-backs. She asked for consideration to be given to working days rather than the 90 calendar days referred to in the Standing Orders to ensure fairness. I am pleased to say that this was an issue that was raised and highlighted by us and there has been movement there. 
We had a little bit of a struggle in supporting amendment No 6 which was the proposed change to Standing Order 277 which suggests that “urgency may be accorded to the first reading of a bill despite the bill not being available to be set down for first reading.” The recommendation suggests that this amendment would allow the Government to introduce a bill without having to wait for urgency to be accorded thereby making bills dealt with under urgency available sooner to MPs and the public. We believe that it could in fact set a precedent that the first reading of a bill could be taken under urgency without parties having access to the bill in advance. 
I articulate the support of the Maori Party for the new initiative described under the heading “Cognate bills”. This issue is specifically addressed in amendment 20 which provides for the Business Committee to determine that bills can be regarded as cognate bills. This initiative first entered this House in May I believe of this year with the passing of the first reading of three bills: the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. We welcome the opportunity for Parliament to consider bills concurrently—bills that are debated together but voted on separately—and we acknowledge that the opportunity remains for the select committee to report them back to the House individually. 
I refer to the issue raised at the end of the report and brought together in a section described as “Communicating Parliament”. Over the last few weeks and even tonight in the process of valedictory speeches we have heard various comments passed about the war zone if you like that we call a debating chamber. Mr Kennedy Graham also alluded to this in some of his speech. The conduct of some of the members in the parties within the House it seems is quite simply unacceptable for the elected leaders of the country. Shouting across the Chamber while others are speaking organised heckling and jeering etc. by some needs to stop. 
I am mindful that in 2008 the minor parties signed a voluntary code of conduct for the House. The measures within the document I think are pretty reasonable and would contribute to a more honourable showing in the House. Our submission on behalf of the Maori Party suggested that a code of conduct should be considered as a part of the Standing Orders. Another suggestion we made was that a kawa Paremata which guides the behaviour of at least the Maori Party MPs could work alongside the code of conduct of the House. The kawa Paremata at its core is about respecting other people and showing whanaungatanga to others. 
Finally I refer to the comments about the attendance of members which is mentioned on page 19 of the report. It specifically states: “A member’s first duty is to the House.” We wholeheartedly agree with the requirement for members to be in attendance in the House and that it is pretty important to maintain the respect for the institution of Parliament. Although it would possibly be inappropriate and indeed a breach of the Standing Orders to name a member who was not in the House I cannot avoid making mention of the fact that a significant absence of one political party—which during July and September failed to even lodge a vote with a staggering 20 bills going through—was pretty much a statement in itself. It is not as if those bills were of no consequence. They were identified as extremely controversial bills—the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill the Student Loan Scheme Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill to name a few. I repeat for the record the key statement in the reference to attendance of members which states: “The House would be brought into disrepute if members were seen to be able to simply abandon their duty to it without penalty.” We think that stands up quite well. 
In conclusion the valedictory speeches of departing members have consistently repeated the concept that to serve in the House of Representatives is a privilege and an honour. I endorse the sentiment and hope the amendments to the Standing Orders we debate here tonight will help us and enable us to continue to uphold that solemn duty responsibly. Kia ora tatou. 
Motion agreed to.