The House takes a look at how the backgrounds of three MPs informs the way they speak in Parliament.
When MPs stand up and shout at each other in the chamber, it's more than likely what they're doing is advocating. Whether it be on behalf of their communities, for legislation and pet projects, on matters of policy and accountability, they advocate for those they represent. After all, they are in the House of Representatives.
Though some may argue the prestige of the United Nations General Assembly, or the Oxford Union takes the cake, for most New Zealanders, Parliament is perceived as the paramount platform for robust discourse, oratory and debate. Debating - and more broadly speaking - in the House is a pretty integral facet of doing your job if you're an MP. If you're a party whip (or musterer, in the case of the Greens) having an MP that radiates confidence in Question Time or a General Debate is a massive asset to have in caucus. Conversely, being an MP who struggles with oratory can be.... a challenge.
Former competitive debater and National MP Chris Bishop has been in Parliament for 9 years during which time nothing has dissuaded him from the importance of persuasion as an art form.
Thankfully, most MPs aren't complete newbies to public speaking and debating when they get to Parliament. MPs may have competed in schools debating, others have had opportunities to kōrero on the marae, some have debated in courts, some have spoken in church, some have debated the price of a kilo of Merino wool.
Among the current cohort of MPs, National MP Chris Bishop stands out as your classic school and university debater. For good reason too. Bishop competed for Victoria University, and in the Australian and World Champs (he was first speaker, by the way).
Bishop reckons that "the skills that debating teaches you around being able to phonetically group arguments together being able to construct a speech" were helpful to him in giving him a strong foundation of oratory and debate to use in the House.
But how does competition-style debate compare to doing it in the House?
Bishop says "parliamentary debating tends to be a bit more free flowing. In Parliament, you tend to have asides from other speakers, people yelling things out in the middle of your speech, trying to put you off your stride or make funny jokes". The jokes, he adds, are "typically unfunny". Perhaps, nowhere is this more the case than in the General Debate.
"There's no topic, it's five minutes, and you can just go for a lash and talk about whatever you like and get stuck in." Bishop says. "And that's where you tend to see the more political speeches in which the people will attack the opposition." …