logo
The House: Parliamentary Privileges – Race As An Aggravating Factor?

The House: Parliamentary Privileges – Race As An Aggravating Factor?

Scoop17-05-2025

Article – RNZ
Analysis: Reactions and advice from Parliament's Clerk, Speaker and even the committee chair show it has recommended indefensibly harsh punishments.
, Editor: The House
Analysis: On Wednesday, Parliament's Privileges Committee released its final report into the MPs who protested the Treaty Principles Bill with a haka in the House in November 2024.
There was surprise and shock over the recommended punishments for Te Pāti Māori MPs, which seemed both unprecedented and extreme.
In retrospect, considering this week's response from Parliament's Speaker, the advice now available from Parliament's Clerk, and Committee Chair Judith Collins' public defence of her own report, that the initial reaction was overly calm. The committee report now appears partisan, indefensible and open to attacks of racism.
On Tuesday, 20 May, Parliament's House will debate whether or not to accept the Privileges Committee Report and its recommendations for punishments, namely that Te Pāti Māori's two co-leaders be suspended from Parliament for 21 days and their junior colleague for seven days, all without salary.
Those recommendations are unprecedented in a number of ways. This article looks at what the reactions and advice of three officials tell us about the recommendations.
We will consider:
The advice regarding punishments given to the Privileges Committee by Parliament's Clerk.
An argument publicly made by the Committee's Chair in defence of her recommendations.
The ruling given by the Speaker to MPs in the House as a reaction to the recommendations.
The Clerk's advice about historical norms
As Clerk of the House of Representatives, David Wilson is the head of Parliament's Secretariat and the chief advisor to the Speaker, the House, Committees and MPs on the interpretation and practice of Parliament's rules.
The Clerk wrote a background advice paper for the Parliament's Privileges Committee on the current case.
The committee particularly asked for contextual information about penalties. One member even asked for information about imprisonment.
New Zealand's Parliament has no power to imprison.
The Clerk's advice to the committee became available when the committee's report was tabled in the House. It is not published on the Committee webpage with the report, but can be requested from the Office of the Clerk.
The advice outlines both precedent and practice for enforcing breaches of Parliament's rules for order in the House. It notes that a Speaker's strictest punishment for the worst conduct (grossly disorderly) is 'naming' that MP, whereby (with the House's agreement), they are suspended for a single day (including a loss of salary). If an MP is named a second time within the same Parliamentary term, the punishment increases to a week, and after a third time to 28 days.
However, in New Zealand, no MP has been named a second time within a Parliament, so the strongest sentence a Speaker has dished out is a single day's suspension.
Regarding punishments relevant to the case under consideration, the Clerk gave this summary.
'We have not found a case of the Privileges Committee recommending anything other than an apology or censure in respect of disruption or intimidation in the Chamber. There have been a few occasions where suspension has been recommended, where the committee has noted aggravating factors. Those recommended suspensions were for short periods.'
So, the usual punishment is an apology, and possibly a formal censure. An apology was the punishment recommended for Labour MP Peeni Henare, who participated in the same haka.
Henare was also found to have acted 'in a disorderly manner that disrupted a vote being taken and impeded the House in its functions'.
He did not leave his seat, however, so the Committee decided his behaviour did not amount to contempt.
Last year, Green MP Julie Anne Genter was found guilty of both disorder and intimidation. She left her seat and shouted at a seated MP from close range.
'Looming' was a word used.
She was only censured and asked to apologise. Neither Genter nor Henare was suspended at all.
The Clerk also listed the strongest punishments that NZ MPs have ever received, including for offences that, on paper at least, seem more serious than the current charge.
'In New Zealand, the suspension of members is a rare occurrence, especially in terms of a suspension on the recommendation of the Privileges Committee. A previous committee has recommended a suspension for three sitting days.
'Potentially, a suspension of up to seven days could align with the penalty set out in the Standing Orders for a member who is named and suspended for a second time in the same term of Parliament.'
The recipient of the longest previous punishment, a three-day suspension, was Robert Muldoon in the late 1980s. It was given at a time when suspension was tantamount to fully-paid gardening leave.
The Clerk also had advice for the committee in case they decided to step outside the precedent he had provided (below, emphasis mine). He could possibly tell it was heading in a more draconian direction.
'Moving to the imposition of much longer periods of suspension than have been imposed previously would be a substantial change to the House's practice.
'If a recommendation for a long period of suspension were to be proposed, we would recommend that the committee adopt it only with broad support among its members (though not necessarily unanimity).'
In fact, the severe punishment recommended by the committee was agreed upon by a thin majority. MPs from the governing coalition all voted in favour; MPs from the Opposition all voted against. A narrow majority for this kind of recommendation is also unprecedented.
Labour's senior member of the committee, Duncan Webb, told The House, 'As long as I've been on the committee (and it's been a while), we've desperately tried to get consensus, so it is a real concern. It's also the situation that the government had a majority there… There have been government majorities before, but they simply exercised their political muscle here.'
The only previous case in recent memory where a Privileges Committee report wasn't unanimous was when New Zealand First was not prepared to agree to a censure of Winston Peters for leaving a $100,000 payment off his disclosure of pecuniary interests.
In other cases, even the party of the member under investigation has agreed with the committee's decision.
The Clerk's advice concludes:
'Adopting a substantial change to the House's practice, if done in the context of a particular case, could appear arbitrary.
'We, therefore, would also recommend that the committee set out clearly its rationale in arriving at the particular penalty or penalties that it wished to propose, and an explanation of how each penalty would be proportionate to the offence, so that a consistent approach could be taken in future.'
He was correct. Harsh penalties were recommended, and they do appear arbitrary. The committee report gave a meagre rationale for the contempt being serious, and no attempt to justify the specific penalty by giving context, comparison or rationale. The committee appears to have roundly ignored the Clerk's historical context, his advice and his recommendations.
Chairperson Judith Collins' false justification
Subsequent to the report's release, the Privileges Committee's Chair, Judith Collins, has sought to explain and justify both the committee's process and recommendations.
Talking to RNZ's Morning Report, Collins gave her view of the actions and motivations.
'This is not about haka, this is not about tikanga. This is about MPs impeding a vote, acting in a way that could be seen as intimidating MPs trying to exercise their right to vote.
'After Te Pāti Māori had exercised their right to vote, they then stopped the ACT Party from exercising theirs.'
That is not true.
ACT had already voted. Every party had voted before Te Pāti Māori did. As the smallest party in Parliament, Te Pāti Māori is always the last to be called on for their vote.
It has been that way all Parliament.
Judith Collins could not fail to be aware of that.
The vote tallies and outcome had not yet been declared by the Speaker, so the fuller voting process was incomplete, and disrupting it was disorderly behaviour; but the claim that the MPs were intimidating another party to prevent it from voting is entirely unfounded.
The answer Collins gave RNZ was either misinformation (perhaps Judith Collins mistakenly believes the MP's actions were more serious than they were) or it was disinformation (in the aftermath of the report, she might have felt it necessary to convince the country the incident was more serious than it was).
Whatever the reason for the untruth, the claim suggests that Collins has a more jaundiced view of the MPs' actions than is realistic or defensible.
Did she fundamentally misunderstand the MPs' actions during the investigation (which would cast the committee findings into doubt), or did political or other prejudice make those actions appear worse than the evidence showed?
Research has repeatedly found that in any justice system, dark-skinned defendants are treated more severely based on ethnicity.
Findings based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the sequence of events would be highly embarrassing. Findings tainted by political or other prejudice would bring both the committee and the Parliament into disrepute.
The Speaker: Parliament's champion invites dissent
Damage to Parliament's reputation would be of particular concern to the Speaker, Parliament's champion and protector.
In the House on Thursday, the Speaker, who had initiated the inquiry, seemed anything but pleased at the outcome. He took quite some time outlining the process for a debate next week on the report and its recommendations.
There is always a debate in the House as to whether to accept the recommendations of a privileges inquiry. These debates are usually short, pro-forma events with a handful of short speeches and all parties in accord. They take ten to fifteen minutes.
By contrast, the Speaker has introduced this one in such a manner as to make it either an extended opportunity for rebuke of the committee or an option for dignified retreat by the government.
In his ruling, he outlined the committee proposal, 'that [each] member be suspended from the service of the House, one for a period of seven days, and the other two for a period of 21 days.'
He then reminded MPs by reminding the media (who have misreported this) that the punishments are only recommendations.
It seemed clear that the Speaker wanted MPs to know that, as far as he was concerned, this is not yet a done deal.
He then gave a (only slightly) coded view on the severity of the proposed punishments.
'These punishments recommended by the committee are very severe and are unprecedented in this Parliament. As far as I'm aware, since the House first met in 1854, no member who has been found guilty of contempt has been suspended for more than three days.
'I'm also conscious that, unlike in previous such cases, suspension from the service of the House now carries a substantial financial penalty. The committee's recommendation, therefore, represents a significant development in the practice of the House.
'A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision.'
He expanded:
'I also note that the committee's recommendation was adopted by a narrow majority. That is an important point when the effect of the recommendation would be to deprive members of a minority party of their ability to sit and vote in this House for several days.
'As the committee's report states, the Speaker has a duty to protect the rights of members of all sides of the House. In particular, there's a longstanding convention for Speakers to safeguard the fair treatment of the minority. I intend to honour that convention by ensuring the House does not take a decision next week without due consideration.
'In my view, these severe recommended penalties placed before the House for consideration mean it would be unreasonable to accept a closure motion until all perspectives and views had been very fully expressed.'
That is an open invitation for the Opposition to spend as long as they want hanging the 'unprecedented' and 'severe' recommendation firmly on the government's shoulders. In fact, to filibuster the debate and, in so doing, use valuable government debating time against them.
Inviting a filibuster is unusual, but he went further, spending time on what amounted to a refresher course for MPs on how to filibuster effectively, and how they could offer amendments to alter the Privileges Committee's recommended punishments.
'The motion may be amended, and an amendment is not required to reflect the recommendation, as long as the amendment is relevant and otherwise in order. As with many other situations when proposals are made to this House, it is not an all-or-nothing decision.'
In answer to a query, Brownlee made it clear that the Te Pāti Māori MPs involved were welcome to speak.
'[No one has been suspended] so all members in this House can speak in this debate.'
One question came from National's Leader of the House, Chris Bishop.
He is usually a member of the Privileges Committee but was replaced for this inquiry by his deputy, Louise Upston.
As Leader of the House, he is responsible for managing the government's legislative agenda and government progress in the House. He was somewhat lost for words and seemed genuinely worried that a long debate might derail the government's plans for budget week, which are always carefully choreographed.
'Is it the case that it is your intention that… this matter will be put on Tuesday, because just from a time-tabling point of view, Wednesday is set down to be a members' day, and, of course, Thursday is Budget day.'
The Speaker replied that that was what the rules mandated. The reply had echoes of the slightly taunting reprise from Dangerous Liaisons.
'It's beyond my control'.
I may be wrong, but I interpreted the Speaker's ruling on Thursday as having four messages for MPs:
That he is unhappy with the recommended punishments.
He is very happy for MPs to try to alter those recommendations.
He is happy for the debate on those recommendations to drag on long enough to embarrass the government and cause havoc with its timetable.
It is also possible that the Speaker is hinting that the government might want to negotiate more suitable punishments with the Opposition.
Achieving a less extreme punishment outcome would help the Speaker protect the reputation of both Parliament and the Privileges Committee. It might also save him from thinking twice about involving the Privileges Committee in future disciplinary cases.
If the above supposition is correct, and the Speaker is successful, he may also deflect the feeling that the government has used its majority in Parliament's most powerful but usually apolitical committee to push for punishments that smack of punishing Māori for daring to overstep their 'place'.
That may not have been the intent, but even the whiff of it is awful.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice
'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice

RNZ News

time5 hours ago

  • RNZ News

'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice

Teanau Tuiono. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Government ministers did not get advice on what the changes to pay equity would mean for specific claims in their portfolios, ahead of the legislation that would discontinue the claims being introduced. The Green Party said it is another example of the lack of consultation over the changes, with thousands of workers blindsided by the government. But the government maintains it made the changes to deliver clarity and certainty to workers, and the changes will improve the design and overall process for raising and resolving claims. Thirty-three unsettled claims were halted by the changes passed through Parliament last month, and will need to start again under the new threshholds, due to the legislation applying retrospectively. Review clauses under existing settled claims have also become unenforceable. Affected workers and the wider public were not consulted on the changes ahead of their announcement, there was no Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill, and with the legislation going through under urgency there was no opportunity for a select committee process. Through written questions, the Greens' workplace relations and safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono asked ministers what advice they received prior to the introduction of the legislation, about specific claims under their portfolio coverage. Tuiono sent the questions to: Brown, Collins, Doocey, and Upston told Tuiono that advice they receive is available on their relevant ministry's or agency's website, but they did not refer to pay equity at all in their responses. Seymour said in his capacity as an associate minister, he had not received advice, but as a Cabinet minister participated in Cabinet discussions on pay equity. Chhour, Mitchell, Potaka, Reti, Simmonds, Stanford, and Watts confirmed they had not received advice related to specific claims. Grigg told Tuiono the changes "do not halt claims," and claims can still be raised "in a manner that is more robust, more sustainable, and more workable to address sex-based discrimination in the workplace." She said she was involved in conversations about the legislation, including policy discussions, and consultation on the Cabinet paper where advice was provided by officials. Stanford's response said the advice she received was regarding policy changes to address historical sex-based discrimination for women overall, and was "not limited" to particular sectors or claims. "This government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace," she wrote. Tuiono said the ministers' responses showed the government had not shown any thought towards the impact the changes would have on the thousands of workers going through a claim. "I thought there would at least be some sort of analysis being done by each of those ministers to determine 'this impacts workers within my portfolio area, what does that actually mean?' But none of that has been done, they've just discarded people's roles and jobs and treated them with the utmost disrespect," he said. "Where was the thought? Where was the care of thought for the impact on these people as well? Why was there no analysis done on what the ongoing impacts would be?" The Public Service Association's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it showed arrogance in developing the changes. "This government promised evidence-based policy, but is not even interested in seeking the views of their own agencies when coming after pay equity," she said. Fitzsimons said it was ironic, given the ACT Party's principles around regulatory standards. "It is hypocritical from the ACT Party to introduce a Regulatory Standards Bill which includes elements of consultation better than they've done when it comes to New Zealand women and pay equity." Since making the announcement last month, the government has defended the lack of consultation, and has been at pains to stress the changes do not get rid of equal pay or pay parity. On Sunday, the Prime Minister again defended the approach. "We moved very quickly, under urgency. We could have done it a different way... and put a lot of people and claimants into limbo for some time. We didn't think that was fair," Christopher Luxon said. "We think we need one system, not two systems... you can argue if you've got a different view on that, but we made a decision that we wanted clarity and we wanted certainty, and that's why we did it the way we did it." Van Velden, the minister who introduced the legislation, told RNZ the changes were not in response to any particular sector or claim that was underway. Brooke van Velden. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "This is a policy that I said at the start of my term I was interested in pursuing. It became really clear this year that my Cabinet colleagues wanted me to work on this as quickly as I could. I am a team player and so I did my job," she said. "The ACT Party would love strong regulatory standards that is core to who we are as a party, but I was asked by my Cabinet colleagues to do this and I did it for the government." In her responses to Tuiono, van Velden gave him a list of the formal advice she had received on pay equity from February to April, including reports from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. They included papers on possible legislative approaches and key questions, as well as the Cabinet papers. She also confirmed neither she nor her office had communicated with any employer parties or their representatives regarding the changes, and no lobbyists or consultants were consulted. But she said officials did consult other officials in the public service in the development of the changes, including some in their capacity as employers, referring to a Reviewing Policy Settings Cabinet paper. The paper was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Crown Law Office were consulted on the paper, while the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand were consulted on the proposals. The paper also explained why van Velden did not make any announcements on the changes until the bill was introduced, saying she was "cognisant" of the risk announcing the changes before the bill could prompt pay equity claims being filed and potentially determined by the Employment Relations Authority under the then-existing Act. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences
Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences

NZ Herald

time5 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences

David Harvey: "Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations." Photo / Getty Images The courts and judges have come in for criticism of late. Roger Partridge of the New Zealand Initiative was critical late last year of recent decisions of the Supreme Court in a lengthy paper entitled 'Who makes the law?' – the obvious answer being Parliament. New Zealand First MP Shane Jones, likewise was personally critical of a High Court judge last year and 'had words' with the Attorney-General Judith Collins about his comments. Last month at a Law Association lunch, Jones criticised what he called the 'Americanisation' of the judiciary and of judicial activism, arguing it is Parliament that is sovereign. But what happens when Parliament itself travels outside its lane? What remedies are there for legislative overreach when Parliament is sovereign? An amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has been introduced. The act prescribes a number of circumstances where financiers have a duty of disclosure to customers. If disclosure rules are breached, the lender forfeits interest rates and fees on the transaction. Two banks, ANZ and ASB, failed to make proper disclosure and are subject to claims on behalf of 173,000 customers – a sizable cohort. Court proceedings are well under way. The amendment is retrospective in that it is designed to minimise the liability of the banks for actions that were unlawful at the time. So Parliament retrospectively cures their unlawful acts and the 173,000 potential claimants lose out. Parliament can do anything it likes, according to Jones. The only problem is there are rules about retrospective legislation. Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2019 states very simply: 'Legislation does not have retrospective effect.' The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also makes it clear there should be no retroactive penalties, though that rule is more applicable to criminal cases. The issue of whether laws have provided retroactive penalties have troubled judges, academics and law students in examinations for some years. One of the core principles of the rule of law is that individuals must be able to know in advance what conduct is legal or illegal. Retrospective laws can punish people for actions that were legal when committed, which violates this predictability. In the case of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance's Act, the retrospective law deprives 173,000 people of a remedy they would have had. Similarly, the retrospective changes to the pay equity process have halted 33 pay equity claims affecting many thousands of workers. Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations. This can foster fear and uncertainty. Some argue retrospective laws violate fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they remove the ability of individuals to make informed choices based on existing laws. Although retrospective laws are generally discouraged, there are rare cases where they are justified – such as when correcting legal loopholes or addressing past injustices. However, they remain controversial and should be used with extreme caution. Is there a remedy for this overreach? No, other than by way of the ballot box. We have no overriding constitution. We have no court that can say Parliament is in breach of the rules and challenging a fundamental premise of the rule of law and that changes such as those to the credit act and pay equity regime are 'unconstitutional'. But perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps we rely on Parliament too much to solve our problems. When a problem comes up it seems the government is the first port of call. Perhaps if there was less reliance on Parliament 'fixing' things, the risk of retrospective laws would be much smaller.

Letters to the Edtor: Māori, supermarkets and Israel
Letters to the Edtor: Māori, supermarkets and Israel

Otago Daily Times

time7 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Letters to the Edtor: Māori, supermarkets and Israel

Woolworths and Foodstuffs are effectively the only two players in New Zealand's grocery sector. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi, Simon Rogers Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including bullying language from Pākehā males, supermarkets rorting the public, and Israel's "vibrant democracy". Outrage fair response to response to column I cannot stand by in silence after reading letters from Pākehā males (Russell Garbutt and David Tackney) responding to the May 30 opinion column by Metiria Stanton Turei. We could choose to think with respect about the experience of our tangata te whenua, our Māori brothers and sisters. Quite simply, and it is simple, could we not take a moment to put ourselves in their shoes. The Treaty Principles Bill had the potential to reduce our first peoples to be stamped upon again; to arrest memory of taking their land — only five, six or seven generations ago. Not to mention the shutting down of te teo — their language, through the numbers of their people lost by way of influenza and war, by government policies including the punishment of school children for utilising te reo, and by integration policies designed to stamp the Māori way out. Imagine having our generationally owned farm taken off us, along with our language. How might we feel? Undoubtedly, enraged. A haka could be considered to be an appropriate way to express their rage. More appropriate than some of the behaviours we have seen previously by others in the Parliament. Mr Garbutt's letter was an outright personal attack on Mrs Stanton Turei, both as a person and on her professional life using very patronising language. His reference to "Mrs Stanton and her ilk" and then stating that he has "no desire to see this country return to tribalism" is unsavoury. Mr Tackney's dramatic language referred to anarchists and Māori radicals and further referred to Māori's need to "grapple with the darker aspects of their culture instead of trying to bring this country to its knees". This is bullying. Frances Anderson Alexandra Inquest coverage Recently the ODT reported on the inquest into Ian Loughran's death. I, and many others were dismayed at the level of detail that was reported. A family member who I spoke to discussed their distress when the article appeared on the ODT Facebook page in a subscriber-only article that they could not access. When the family member queried the ODT, the response was that it was in the public domain. While I understand that it is news that should be reported on, I implore the ODT to reconsider how it is reported. What we need to know is how the system failed him. Holly Aitchison Mornington [The Otago Daily Times recognises that coronial proceedings can canvas material which friends and family may find distressing. We attempt to report these proceedings carefully and responsibly as part of a public judicial process. Editor.] Dastardly duopoly For many years now we have put up with supermarkets rorting the public. Likewise we have all seen numerous insipid reports, investigations, recommendations and consultant's opinions on how to deal with the public perception of being ripped off. What has happened? Nothing. If this or any government is serious about stopping us being ripped off, the solution is simple. To solve our being overcharged for any supermarket offerings, simply force Foodstuffs and Woolworths to sell off all their supermarkets to the highest bidder, ending this insidious duopoly, making sure of excluding anyone or any entity that has any connection to aforementioned businesses. Suddenly, you have something not seen here in an age, competition. We all have a right to be able to eat and feed our families at a price we can all afford. Graham Bulman Roslyn I've lived there and trust me, it ain't that great A. Levy argues with Mark Hammond (29.5 and 6.6.25) whether "happy Israel" is a contradiction. Hammond wonders how Israelis can be happy and at war; Levy gives us typical Zionist propaganda on this "vibrant democracy". I have lived in Israel most of my life and can assure you it is neither. Israel is an apartheid state that derides international law, where open racism is the norm, and expressing your opinion can land you in prison. Israelis are, as a rule, tense, unhappy, aggressive and rude to each other. I am still regularly struck by New Zealanders' kindness and generosity. My family and I are happy here, and were deeply unhappy in Israel. It is no wonder a million of its Jewish citizens left "happy democratic" Israel in the past 10 years. Rod Pik Dunedin Smiles per capita According to A. Levy, a country that has militarily occupied and displaced another people for decades somehow holds unique moral clarity. This, we're told, is confirmed by its high smiles-per-capita — as if national happiness somehow absolves systemic oppression. Oppression that has been recognised by humanitarian organisations and the International Criminal Court as a form of apartheid. Levy also presents Israel as a uniquely persecuted victim, surrounded by enemies and unfairly maligned by criticism and rhetoric. But a recent Penn State University poll shows that this very population overwhelmingly supports actions many scholars and legal experts have described as ethnic cleansing, or even genocide. So is Israel really unfairly targeted by criticism? P. Maloney Dunedin Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store