Maharey Steve: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21626] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have been stirred into action by the keen words of Labour’s junior whip. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you able to explain how the Government managed to get two calls in a row? If the Government chose not to speak earlier there is no obligation on the part of the Chair or the Speaker to even things up at all. I was on my feet well before Mr Maharey. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the calls have been given correctly Mr Brownlee. Calls are taken out of order many times. We just had two consecutive ones from the National Party too. 
Hon David Carter 
: Only because they got the call. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would you like to stand and apologise please Mr Carter? 
Hon David Carter 
: Yes I apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I tell Mr Brownlee that the calls have been given correctly. That often happens. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 162. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 162. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 163. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 163. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 164. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 164. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have just heard one of the more tear-jerking speeches in the House from Mr Carter about how serious this bill is. He invoked the Kurds and 9/11 and here we have Mr Brownlee—right after Mr Carter’s trivialising speech finished—trivialising this debate yet again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I do notice the deafness that you appear to have to a number of comments that came from the Government benches during a previous exchange. So to continue I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 165. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. I am going to rule on that point of order. There were interjections from both sides of the House Mr Brownlee as there had been for a quite a while—for quite a while before you came in too. The point is— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Are you referring to my absence now? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. You will stand withdraw and apologise for that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I was ruling on the point of order. There had been interjections but there was certainly no need for the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 166. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table Standing Order 166. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it because a member cannot by innuendo make allegations against members. I am intrigued. Maybe the member is just calling out Standing Orders arbitrarily but I decided to look up the one he called out and I saw Standing Order 165 is actually about pecuniary interest. The implication I take from that is that you Madam Speaker in making the calls had some pecuniary interest in calling a Government member. Well that is bribery. The member cannot make that implication. If he wants to suggest tabling some Standing Orders he should do it with more care. If he is just being careless that is one thing but if he was seeking to table that particular Standing Order for some purpose then he is asking us to consider that there was a pecuniary interest. 
The member then asked to table Standing Order 166 which relates to the Speaker deciding whether a pecuniary interest is held. I would actually require you Madam Speaker to ask the honourable member whether he was making an implication that another member—and in particular the Speaker—has a pecuniary interest. If the member is doing so then he should say what it is because under the Standing Orders he is required to. If he is not making that implication he should withdraw and apologise for having made such an implication against the Speakership. That seems to me to be going nuclear on an issue and I really think he ought to come back a little bit. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will ask Mr Brownlee whether he was making such an implication. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No Madam Deputy Speaker. By way of explanation I say that I just think there is such a reckless disregard for the Standing Orders and for the precedents of the operation of the House that I felt it necessary to table all the Standing Orders in order that we may get some better decorum around the place. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee it is quite out of order for you to make that allegation against the Speaker and I think you know that very well. I will give you a final warning about that. You will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 173. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 173. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 169. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 169. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 179. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has asked for leave to table Standing Order 179. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could get some sense of what is going on here. My understanding is that a call was due to be taken by a Labour member and a Labour member sought it. Mr Brownlee seems to have taken some strange offence at the fact that the standard rules for the allocation of speakers in the debate have been followed. Now if we are to have this performance then that is perfectly all right and it explains why the Opposition did not want to take leave to have question time. But perhaps it may be easier and it may help matters if we simply seek leave for Mr Brownlee to take a call. I am sure we would all be fascinated to hear what he has to say. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That wasn’t the issue. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Well what is the issue? [ 
Interruption 
] Well come on. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will call the member who was speaking the Hon Steve Maharey— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Deputy Speaker I asked for some guidance; I have not had a response. The House has a problem and if we have this kind of irrational behaviour in the House usually there is a reason for it and usually we can sort it out. If Mr Brownlee would explain what he has taken offence at then we can respond. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that I have given several rulings to Mr Brownlee. I have no idea what his problem is. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Perhaps Madam Deputy Speaker you could invite Mr Brownlee to tell us because this behaviour is not seemly in Parliament even under urgency. I simply want to know what the problem is. I am perfectly happy to try to sort it out. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That seems to be a reasonable request. If Mr Brownlee wants to respond he obviously can. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The difficulty is of course that having made one explanation already I have been required to withdraw and apologise for that explanation. That leaves us in a difficult position. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to talk about seemly behaviour but there were numerous comments—two in particular that came from the Government side of the House and one in particular that came from the Minister of Education—that I have taken grave offence to. I have attempted through the Speaker to sort the matter out but she has not been able to see the point I was making. So if the Government wants to behave in that unseemly manner then the Government can lose time over it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I have consulted my colleagues and listened to the member. My understanding is that under Business Committee rulings there is an agreed order of speakers in a second reading debate. Now the member seems to have taken offence because he was not called and then he responded to that. He does not seem able to explain to us what the problem is beyond that fact. If that is the origin of the problem I am perfectly happy to seek leave for the member to take the final call or an extra call in the debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: In order to help the House it would be useful for the Deputy Prime Minister to know that in the exchange that resulted from the question over who should get the call—I fully accept the Speaker’s ruling on that and understand the convention and although I find it a little strange that Labour members were not taking calls earlier but decided to take them later that is by the by—a comment was made by the Minister of Education which the Speaker apparently did not hear. I find that amazing because almost a whisper from the Opposition side of the House is only too readily heard. Indeed three withdrawals and apologies have been required from me. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I still have no idea of the issue because Mr Brownlee did not raise a point of order at the time. If there was a concern about another member and it had been raised I would obviously have dealt with it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The first thing is that I just wanted to check the calls because I thought maybe my maths might be wrong. I realise the member has moved on from this issue but the rest of the House thought that what he was objecting to was a limited time debate with a number of speakers. In fact when the calls are added up we see that the Speaker had added them up correctly. There was only one slot left and it was a Government slot. Those are the numbers; I have just checked that my maths is correct. So the suggestion made by Dr Cullen is actually not an answer because in fact only the Labour Party is now entitled to speak. Everyone else has spoken. The numbers are fair. But I think Mr Brownlee’s objection relates to a different matter. An interjection was made that he has taken very great exception to. I do point out that it has taken a long time to find that out because there has been no point of order to say what that interjection was. I did hear Mr Brownlee say that he thought there was some deafness. Well perhaps I share that because I did not hear the interjection. It appears to me that a nice way of proceeding would actually be for Mr Maharey to rise withdraw and apologise for whatever remark he made. The House could then hear what Mr Maharey thinks about terrorism. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Obviously that is a sensible suggestion. I was concentrating on the issue before the House and I still am not aware that there was a point of order as Mr Prebble says on that matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Remarks were made by both Mr Maharey and Mr Mallard to which exception is being taken so it may be appropriate if they were called upon to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If any member made an unparliamentary remark—I certainly did not hear it—I ask that member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am advised that I made an unparliamentary remark and if I did I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that I made an unparliamentary remark and if I did so I make an unqualified withdrawal and apology. The wind has been drawn from my sails slightly but the outrage remains. That is why I have decided to follow on from the speech of the junior whip who himself felt towards the end of this debate that it was very important to rise and comment on the fact that we have had two speeches in recent times from National Party members. One was from Mr Wayne Mapp known on the Government side of the House as the Captain Mainwaring of the National Party and the other was from David Carter who has no nickname because no one can remember him from one speech to another. Both speeches agreed with the Government’s position on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). Both speeches took a full 20 minutes—I correct myself; they were 10-minute speeches and they just feel like 20-minute speeches—but both speeches also ruthlessly exploited the underlying issues. 
That was what so outraged my friend Darren Hughes from the Otaki seat who sat through those speeches with enormous discipline. He is a young man. He has not been in the House a long time. Darren Hughes is not used to the kind of cynicism that has been on display here this evening as the National Party members spoke. He has not seen that kind of display of exploitation of the fundamental issues before because he is young. But as a result of sitting here today even he could finally take it no longer. Darren Hughes rose to his feet and pointed out the sheer cynicism of the speeches. On the one hand the speeches agreed with the Labour-led Government and said how urgent this issue is how we must pass this legislation now and how we must deal with these issues now. On the other hand in quavering voices those members tried to rehearse the kinds of terrorist acts that have led to such outrage around the world. That is what led to my young friend having to rise to his feet this evening. People who are listening at home would I think have got the message from Darren Hughes that the National Party actually agrees with this legislation. But we are here in the dead of night at 5 past 11 listening to that kind of rehearsed speech from National members as they say that they fully agree with the legislation that they want to pass it that they see it as urgent and that they believe we should be voting on it. I will sit down now knowing that the National Party will now want to move to a vote.