Bruiser Mallard can lay claim to being the first MP this parliamentary term to be tossed out of Parliament’s debating chamber by Speaker Lockwood Smith.
Deservedly so. He went too far while questioning Education Minister Anne Tolley about the importance of literacy and plans to set up trade academies around the country to give young people practical training opportunities while at school.
Mallard pathetically challenged Tolley to spell “academies” and asked how she could promote higher education standards, yet put out a signed document on the issue “riddled with spelling errors”.
A couple of questions later, Mr Mallard accused Ms Tolley of making false statements about what he had said in the past, but was cut short by Dr Smith.
He was cut short again and then kicked out of the chamber when he attempted to explain how previous Speakers dealt with points of order.
“The member will resume his seat right now. . . the member will leave the chamber,” Dr Smith said.
He said he was also “sorely tempted” to turf Labour’s Darren Hughes out after he snapped at Dr Smith not to “yell at the members”.
Dr Smith has been considered a patient Speaker since taking up the post in December, and is generally strong on making MPs answer questions.
Mallard had been spoiling for a scrap.
During the first question of the day, about the public debt, the Speaker ordered Mallard to resume his seat and said
“The member is being unnecessarily unruly. He may not have liked my previous ruling, but I have ruled and the member must accept that. It is totally unacceptable for him to bellow across the House like that. I have called the Hon Bill English to answer the question, and he will do that. I have ruled on this matter. I warn the honourable member that he will be out of the House for the rest of this day if he challenges my ruling.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am in no way challenging your ruling; you ruled absolutely correctly. It was the Government that turned down the leave, and it is losing the cooperation—
Mr SPEAKER: That matter has been dealt with, and that is not a valid point of order. The member had better watch his behaviour.
But they’re a stroppy lot, those buggers on the Labour side of the House.
While talking about the Budget, the debt, and what-have-you, English said the Government is breaking with the previous Government’s habit of making unfunded commitments.
Reminders of those commitments – promises made, but with no money budgeted to implement them – really rile the Labour lot. Ha. They are obviously embarrassed by them.
Labour’s David Cunliffe raised a point of order, telling the Speaker.
You have previously ruled on the Government’s use of the phrase “unfunded commitments” in this House. You have ruled in line with the Clerk, who has prevented—quite rightly—such language from being set down in prepared questions, because, firstly, it is without justification on the facts, and, secondly, it bears no resemblance to the Budget practice used in the past by the Labour Government—
Bollocks. It was a blatant try-on and he didn’t get away with it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point; he will resume his seat. There is nothing inherently unparliamentary about the term “unfunded”. No one has ever ruled it out.
And so the splendid Bill English proceeded to say the Government
will break with the practice of the previous Government of making unfunded commitments. All initiatives announced tomorrow will be charged against Budget 2009. This will apply, for example, to the scheme to insulate New Zealand homes, which will be outlined in the Budget tomorrow. The previous Government promised a billion-dollar scheme, but not one single dollar was committed to that scheme.
There’s much more to come in the Budget today, of course.
If you are watching on telly, see if you can spot Alf. He’ll be the one wearing a tie with the slogan “Eketahuna rocks”.
Alf Grumble 