Welcome to the House of Representatives, where the standing orders one week aren’t the same the next week.
Echo Chamber is The Spinoff’s dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus.
Do you ever get tired of people beating the same old drum? Some are worn down from so much use that what once were crashing bangs are now dull thuds. In the House of Representatives, for example, the cost-of-living drum once beat loudly and now sounds more like a low hum. But most thrashed is the standing orders drum, whose cymbals are so coated in patina it’s hard to know what the writing underneath says – so you might as well just make it up as you go along.
For Tuesday’s question time session, Labour leader Chris Hipkins and prime minister Christopher Luxon beat their same old drum (“does he stand by all his government’s statements and actions?”, “yes”) and landed on the same old notes that the government swears are still in tune. But when Hipkins tried to press Luxon on why the average Hohepa should cough up nearly $100 to see their doctor while tobacco companies have enjoyed a massive tax cut, he pressed someone else’s buttons instead.
“Point of order.” Winston Peters rose to his feet. No one should be able to come into this House and base a question on a supposed $300m tax cut – “and it was $200m”, he clarified – which came from a reduction in the sales of cigarettes and tobacco, and amount it to what he’s saying. “And they’ve done it for the umpteenth time.”
Finance minister Nicola Willis, perhaps in audition mode for the role of future prime minister, egged the show on: “Give him some advice! Surely you get it?” And the voice of Labour MP Megan Woods cooed back, “ooohh, Nicola!”
The speaker and the Chrises moved on, but Peters couldn’t let go of the tobacco conversation. While Chippy now wanted to talk about tax breaks for tech companies, Peters wanted to clear up the record for the misunderstood tobacconists bravely and boldly trying to operate in an increasingly pro-health world. “Point of order, Mr Speaker,” he began. “We have sat here for month after month while those members have repeated that lie in the House.” He carried on, but there was something flapping around in his periphery, the arms of Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick trying to get the speaker’s attention.
“Seriously?” Swarbrick – back from a week-long ban from the House for encouraging her fellow MPs across the aisle to look into the benefits of growth in the vertebrae – cried out. Longtime fans of parliament’s standing orders may remember the fact that “reflecting on a member’s character” – in this case, implying or straight up saying they’re lying/are a liar – is a punishable enough offence to get kicked out of the House, like when Labour’s Willie Jackson was ejected from the chambers last year for calling David Seymour a “liar”.
Hipkins rose for a point of order. Mr Speaker, just last week you named and ejected a member for saying they were struggling to find members with a backbone – “how is accusing members of lying any different?” Well, Brownlee replied, “it is quite different in my head” – because one of those comments was directed “very personally at members of parliament”, and the other was a question about repeating a lie. Interesting point – no two days are ever truly the same in this building, so why should the way the rules are applied be the same every day?
“Wait on, what I’d say to you is,” Brownlee began, and quickly corrected himself. “Oh, I don’t like that saying. The member knows there is a remedy by way of the standing orders to have that corrected.” Raising a privilege complaint would be “pushing it too far”, Brownlee told Hipkins, and all the while, Peters grinned away in his seat.
Trying to turn the tide back into the left bloc’s favour, Hipkins channelled his inner gen Z to let the nation know he’s still cool and with the kids, unlike that other Chris across the aisle. “When he says that the economy and the country are turning the corner, while food prices continue to skyrocket, unemployment continues to go up,” Hipkins began, “why won’t he simply admit that his government is all ‘delulu’ and no ‘solulu’?”
“Sorry, could he repeat the question?” Luxon asked. “I didn’t understand it.” No, we don’t need that repeated, Brownlee decided – we’ll move on.
It didn’t take long for Peters to resume the defensive position, after Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds questioned Willis over the dead-in-the-water iRex ferry project, which cost $671m and returned no new ferries. Peters was keen to rectify another “lie” – actually, the previous Labour government had already spent $471m on the project before we even came to power, he told the House.
Peters sought leave from Brownlee to “table an article” – which was actually commentary to the select committee – from February 2024, when KiwiRail confirmed the price tag from the Labour side. Brownlee let him, but not correcting Peters’ use of “article” came back to bite him when Labour’s Kieran McAnulty stood up, and asked to “table a document which shows Christopher Luxon is the least popular prime minister in 30 years”.
“Check yourself before you wreck yourself,” Peters called.
What ensued was a small back and forth, where Brownlee conceded he had made a rare misstep, but now it was time to get on with it. “You can disrupt the House all you like, I’m not changing my mind,” Brownlee told McAnulty. “Stop trifling in my direction.”
