Post by John Bowes Post by James Christophers Post by Mutlley Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?
BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
In New Zealand this is what happens Keith: Members of Parliament vote to elect the Speaker at the start of each new Parliament (after every general election). This is the first task of every new Parliament once members have been sworn in.
Candidates are nominated by another member and, after the election vote, the Speaker-Elect visits the Governor-General to be confirmed in office.
So, such confirmation is made under the authority of the Governor-General thereby formally appointing the new Speaker to his/her role. The formal protocols and top-down pecking order throughout are therefore maintained and sustained.
Post by John Bowes
The position of Speaker is high-ranking — the Speaker commands the respect of other members. This is because the Speaker is the member that the House chooses to communicate with the Sovereign on its behalf.
Despite this, the Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives is allowed to maintain links with their political party, but must not show political bias when chairing business in the House. The Speaker must not show either preference or disrespect for any political party, for the Government, or the Opposition. All members of the House must be treated equally."
The Speaker is therefore and thereby the highest authority in the House, hence every member including the PM defers to him/her. The PM therefore cannot directly "sack" him/her as Mutley suggests.
So again, what are the rules governing the "sacking" of the Speaker? (Remember, Parliament is sovereign)
Post by John Bowes
It is important that the elected Speaker is not biased towards any political party. This ensures that every member of Parliament has an equal chance to contribute to debates and take part in other business in the House.
So again, why does the Mother of Parliaments traditionally elect the Speaker from the Opposition rather than the ruling party? It is relevant, particularly in the light of Boris Johnson's massive Tory majority and, I would have thought, Ardern's unprecedented and unassailable overall Labour majority within an MMP electoral system.
In New Zealand's case, the question of "sacking" is further complicated by the Speaker holding a Ministerial position. So, can he/she be fired from that ministerial position while still remaining as Speaker, or not? And who in this case would be authorised to carry out such a "sacking"?