Gerry Brownlee – who has ordered three MPs from the House of Representatives this week – seems to have lost the sense of humour that has been a feature of his term as Speaker.
Ginny Andersen (Labour) was ordered out on Tuesday following her heckling during a question regarding capital gains taxes.
David Seymour (ACT Leader and Deputy Prime Minister) soon followed after getting into an argument with the Speaker.
Chris Bishop (National Minister) was ejected yesterday, the first time in his 12-year parliamentary career that he has been ordered from the House.
It has also been a week in which the Prime Minister has avoided explaining why the Government should have a stake in the airline business (through Air New Zealand) but not supermarkets.
Yes, there are lots of reasons for scoffing at the Greens’ supermarket policy.
But the principles invoked to keep the Government out of the shop-keeping business should apply equally – you would think – to aviation, energy, farming, transport, broadcasting and all the other sectors in which state-owned enterprises operate.
Christopher Luxon perhaps has not familiarised himself with them – but a colleague, Todd McClay, had a good answer.
It brought mirth to the House, but not to the Speaker.
The limits to Brownlee’s geniality became plain on Tuesday when (as the New Zealand Herald reported) he told Andersen he had given “quite clear instruction” to politicians and that she “might like to leave the House now”.
“No, it wasn’t funny at all, I wasn’t making a joke, I was taking it very seriously – please leave the House,” he said.
On the matter of Seymour’s expulsion, The Herald reported:
Seymour raised a point of order, arguing MPs had a right to ask questions and [Act MP Laura] McClure did not deserve “to lose that right because you don’t believe that I am answering it correctly”.
Brownlee rebutted and told Seymour to read up on Standing Orders, the rules of Parliament.
“You argued with me, which wasn’t a smart thing to do. It is not progressing.”
When Seymour responded from his seat in the House, Brownlee kicked him out.
“The Speaker was clearly having a bad day,” Seymour told reporters as he left the House.
Brownlee’s tetchiness became evident again while the PM was being questioned about supermarkets.
Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick asked if Woolworths and Foodstuffs should be allowed to continue making excess profits of $1 million a day “as New Zealanders struggle to afford their groceries”.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s why you’re seeing announcements from us this morning on that.
Brownlee agreed with Labour MP Kieran McAnulty’s point of order that the Prime Minister was answering on behalf of the Government and “the Government has not made an announcement on that today”.
Indeed not. The National Party had done the announcing.
Brownlee asked Luxon to “answer that in a different way”.
He obliged.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we agree, having looked at all the previous reviews of the previous Governments where nothing changed and nothing happened, that there is a real structural problem in the supermarket sector. It’s important that in the future that is addressed.
Swarbrick next asked:
Does the Prime Minister understand that his officials’ analysis shows that the biggest possible benefit for consumers to achieve more affordable groceries would be breaking up both Woolworths and Foodstuffs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree, given the analysis I’ve seen on that.
The analysis – we must suppose – shows the Aussie giant is not as problematic in the supermarket duopoly as the New Zealand one.
If re-elected, National plans to look into splitting New Zealand-owned Foodstuffs into two separate, independent nationwide grocery competitors.
One chain would run PAK’nSAVE, while the other would manage New World and Four Square.
This aims to create three major nationwide grocery entities (including Woolworths) to increase competition and lower prices.
But the policy would first require a six-month assessment and formal recommendation by the Commerce Commission to ensure it delivers net benefits for shoppers before any legislation proceeds.
Under this policy, Woolworths would remain intact as an Australian-owned nationwide supermarket chain.
Swarbrick followed up with a question that called for something more considered than the mockery with which Luxon addressed it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does he think that New Zealanders can publicly own an airline but not a supermarket?
Great question.
Similarly, why should New Zealanders own businesses in several sectors –
David Seymour (ACT Leader and Deputy Prime Minister) soon followed after getting into an argument with the Speaker.
Chris Bishop (National Minister) was ejected yesterday, the first time in his 12-year parliamentary career that he has been ordered from the House.
It has also been a week in which the Prime Minister has avoided explaining why the Government should have a stake in the airline business (through Air New Zealand) but not supermarkets.
Yes, there are lots of reasons for scoffing at the Greens’ supermarket policy.
But the principles invoked to keep the Government out of the shop-keeping business should apply equally – you would think – to aviation, energy, farming, transport, broadcasting and all the other sectors in which state-owned enterprises operate.
Christopher Luxon perhaps has not familiarised himself with them – but a colleague, Todd McClay, had a good answer.
It brought mirth to the House, but not to the Speaker.
The limits to Brownlee’s geniality became plain on Tuesday when (as the New Zealand Herald reported) he told Andersen he had given “quite clear instruction” to politicians and that she “might like to leave the House now”.
“No, it wasn’t funny at all, I wasn’t making a joke, I was taking it very seriously – please leave the House,” he said.
On the matter of Seymour’s expulsion, The Herald reported:
Seymour raised a point of order, arguing MPs had a right to ask questions and [Act MP Laura] McClure did not deserve “to lose that right because you don’t believe that I am answering it correctly”.
Brownlee rebutted and told Seymour to read up on Standing Orders, the rules of Parliament.
“You argued with me, which wasn’t a smart thing to do. It is not progressing.”
When Seymour responded from his seat in the House, Brownlee kicked him out.
“The Speaker was clearly having a bad day,” Seymour told reporters as he left the House.
Brownlee’s tetchiness became evident again while the PM was being questioned about supermarkets.
Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick asked if Woolworths and Foodstuffs should be allowed to continue making excess profits of $1 million a day “as New Zealanders struggle to afford their groceries”.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s why you’re seeing announcements from us this morning on that.
Brownlee agreed with Labour MP Kieran McAnulty’s point of order that the Prime Minister was answering on behalf of the Government and “the Government has not made an announcement on that today”.
Indeed not. The National Party had done the announcing.
Brownlee asked Luxon to “answer that in a different way”.
He obliged.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we agree, having looked at all the previous reviews of the previous Governments where nothing changed and nothing happened, that there is a real structural problem in the supermarket sector. It’s important that in the future that is addressed.
Swarbrick next asked:
Does the Prime Minister understand that his officials’ analysis shows that the biggest possible benefit for consumers to achieve more affordable groceries would be breaking up both Woolworths and Foodstuffs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree, given the analysis I’ve seen on that.
The analysis – we must suppose – shows the Aussie giant is not as problematic in the supermarket duopoly as the New Zealand one.
If re-elected, National plans to look into splitting New Zealand-owned Foodstuffs into two separate, independent nationwide grocery competitors.
One chain would run PAK’nSAVE, while the other would manage New World and Four Square.
This aims to create three major nationwide grocery entities (including Woolworths) to increase competition and lower prices.
But the policy would first require a six-month assessment and formal recommendation by the Commerce Commission to ensure it delivers net benefits for shoppers before any legislation proceeds.
Under this policy, Woolworths would remain intact as an Australian-owned nationwide supermarket chain.
Swarbrick followed up with a question that called for something more considered than the mockery with which Luxon addressed it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does he think that New Zealanders can publicly own an airline but not a supermarket?
Great question.
Similarly, why should New Zealanders own businesses in several sectors –
- Energy: Generation, wholesaling, and retailing of electricity, as well as managing the national grid (Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury NZ, Transpower).
- Transport and logistics: Managing rail networks, ferry services, and air navigation infrastructure (KiwiRail, Airways Corporation).
- Agriculture and primary industries: Pastoral farming, food safety assurance, and pest management roducts (Landcorp Farming, AsureQuality, Animal Control Products).
- Postal and courier services: Delivering mail, parcels, and logistics (New Zealand Post).
- Telecommunications and broadcasting: Providing network services, technology, and broadcasting transmission (Kordia Group, Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand).
- Property and valuation: Delivering property data, valuation services (Quotable Value).
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I have visions of a Labour-Greens Government sending bureaucrats up and down this country, going into supermarkets with clipboards, assessing the price of oranges and Weet-Bix and everything else, and I’d just say that is not the answer. That is a Soviet step backwards, big time.
Swarbrick took a slightly different tack, triggering Todd McClay’s quip and heightening Brownlee’s irritability.
Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is the difference between public ownership of an airline and public ownership of a supermarket?
Hon Todd McClay: Supermarkets don’t fly.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the bottom line—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Sorry, that may be amusing to some, but not particularly to me. The Prime Minister will answer and we’ll have the answer without any comment from anyone.
Luxon asked for the question to be repeated.
Swarbrick obliged:
Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is the specific difference between public ownership of an airline and public ownership of a supermarket?
The answer was just as glib as the first time.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, as I said, the thought that we would have bureaucrats and officials roaming around with clipboards trying to implement the—[Interruption] No, no, hang on. Calm down. Calm down, people, calm down. It’s all good. Calm down.
SPEAKER: Right. OK, absolute silence for the balance of that answer, which should be very brief.
And then Luxon became curiously magnanimous.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I want to thank the Green Party for contributing to solving a problem that we have in our supermarket sector with their idea. I don’t support their idea, but at least they have an idea and a policy unlike what we’ve seen from—
But Luxon did not take the opportunity to tell the House why the public should have a stake in the airline business (among all the others PoO has identified) while steering well clear of the supermarket business.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.