Parliament witnessed a fiery exchange on Tuesday between the leaders of the three major political blocs over the inclusion of a provision in the Water Services Entities Bill as part of the government’s Three Waters Reforms.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern faced a pincer attack from the opposition coalition, with National Party leader Christopher Luxon firing the first salvo.
While the prime minister conceded a mistake had been made in including the entrenchment clause in the legislation, she reaffirmed her government’s opposition to the privatisation of water assets and sought the National Party’s commitment to “not privatise those incredibly important assets.”
Jumping into the fray, Act Party leader David Seymour countered by asking how the prime minister could demand the opposition rule out privatisation “when her own government is taking the assets off democratically elected councils who had ratepayers pay for them, and putting them into new entities that will not be fully democratically run?”
Rejecting the Act leader’s claim as “mischaracterisation” of a bill to ensure public ownership and management of water entities, Ardern added: “ The member needs to be honest. The way that he is portraying this bill is wrong, dishonest, and factually incorrect.”
Raising a point of order, Seymour then insisted Ardern withdraw her remark, along with an apology, calling it “unparliamentary.”
Responding on behalf of Ardern, Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said Ardern had called the member’s statement dishonest, not the member himself.
He further noted the opposition’s oral questions contained assertions that were in violation of standing orders of the House.
Speaker Adrian Rurawhe waded in and overruled Seymour.
However, the Act leader was back on his feet claiming a video transcript confirmed the “prime minister did accuse me of dishonesty. That is unparliamentary.”
Seymour added: “And I would put it that the Finance Minister misled the House when he said that she didn’t.”
But the Speaker intervened to brief the Act leader on the rules of procedure when a member disagreed with the chair.
Seymour denied he was questioning the Speaker’s decision and cited [former] Speaker Wall's ruling, which said, "The offence of calling another member a liar, or implying that another member of the House is a liar, is an injustice to the whole House.”
It's a very serious matter that can't be brushed off by saying it was provoked, Seymour noted.
The Speaker asked the Act leader to submit the matter in writing.
The Speaker’s ruling is pending.
ISSUE
Leave a Comment