One of the ways MPs speak is to raise a point of order.
A point of order lets the Speaker know that the MP thinks one of the rules of Parliament may have been broken in some way. It is a powerful Parliamentary tactic, because it immediately takes precedence over whatever is being discussed, interrupting the flow of debate while the MP makes their point of order and the Speaker considers what the MP has said.
This is quite important. For the whole thing to work, MPs need to be able to bring to the attention of the Speaker areas where they don’t think the House has been functioning as it should.
One rule that’s being broken a bit at the moment is the rule against the Government using patsy questions to attack the record of the previous government.
Ministers haven’t been able to help themselves from using their answers to have a dig at Labour’s record. Labour MPs have raised points of order noting these apparent breaches, and Brownlee has often sided with them.
But not every point of order is quite so procedural. Some MPs use the fact that points of order interrupt debate to stop their opponents’ flow, beef up their own achievements and attack the opposition. These aren’t really points of order, but thinly disguised political tactics.
A recent point of order from NZ First leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters went like this: “Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the Opposition is having difficulty reorganising itself, but every member from that front bench over there shouting is surely not the way to image this Parliament.
“We don’t mind objection — we welcome it — but that sort of screaming, mindless leadership mess is not what Parliament should look like,” he said.
Now, the point is a fair one - MPs are allowed to remind the Speaker to keep the House’s volume down - but Peters also used it to have a crack at Labour’s recent run of resignations, which isn’t a question of the order of the House.
Another point of order from Peters in response to a question from the Greens: “There is a trend in that sort of question to make an allegation without one skerrick of evidence and think you can get away with it in this House. If that’s what that member wants, then he’s come to the right place, because you’re not going to put up with those lies anymore.”
Brownlee himself wasn’t keen on this one, noting it was “interesting” for Peters to point out there were “veiled threats from one side only for the point of order itself to contain a less than veiled threat”.
And another point from Peters in response to questions being raised about influence being exerted on the Government.
“Can I speak to the point of order? It is simple: there is a requisite under the electoral law of this country for declarations to be made. Those declarations have been made. The Electoral Commission has not challenged it, nor has anybody else. So what’s happening in this House? It has to be that or plain ignorance. Take their choice,” Peters said.
MPs often grumble in private that these points of order aren’t really points of order at all, and are instead an opportunity for Peters to rise to his feet, interrupt the debate and attack them. Peters is far from the only MP to use this tactic, though he is probably the one most known for it.
They also grumble about what is known as the “Winston Rule”, which refers to the belief that the rules of the House are enforced more lightly when it comes to Peters, partly because his antics in the House are amusing to those who are not on the other end of them, and partly because enforcing the rules against Peters could create more trouble than simply letting him have his way.
Recently, outgoing Green Party co-leader James Shaw has been complaining about Peters’ interruptions in the chamber. Speaking on his way into the House today, Shaw said he had not complained to Brownlee about Peters’ points of order, but he had raised it in the House.
“I’m really delighted that he [Brownlee] listened,” Shaw said.
Asked whether he believed his objections had played a part in Brownlee’s ruling, Shaw said, “I would like to think so”.
Asked whether he hoped the “Winston Rule” would end, Shaw said, “I hope so”.
For his part, Peters said he did not believe Brownlee’s ruling actually referred to him.
“No - otherwise the Speaker would have said so, and you cannot go on inferring things when you don’t have a fact or a skerrick of evidence,” he said.
Peters said “of course” his points of order had always been orderly.
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
