Labour and Greens queried possible punishments, Act took it further
Act MP Parmjeet Parmar only raised the idea of imprisoning MPs after her Privileges Committee colleagues requested information on the full range of penalties and international precedent.
The advice was sought during deliberation of punishments for Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in the House during a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill last year.
Parmar's request was singled out by Labour leader Chris Hipkins as a 'stain' on Parliament, but the committee members representing the Labour and the Green Parties also requested advice to the same effect as Parmar.
The point of difference between Parmar's request and the requests made by Duncan Webb (Labour) and Ricardo Menendez-March (Greens) was the word 'imprisonment'.
Parmar's fellow committee members requested advice from the Clerk of the House around the range of punishments available and international comparisons. Parmar went further, and specified that she would like advice on the full range from the minimum to imprisonment.
In a statement the Act Party told Newsroom the specified range was 'an exercise to help the Committee to put any proposed penalty in context'.
The party rejected claims that it argued in favour of imprisonment of MPs, but said 'we like to keep our options open'.
Labour's committee representative Duncan Webb says he didn't ask specifically for imprisonment advice. 'I asked for international comparisons – we were discussing suspension. Despite suggestions to the contrary only the Act member was keen on imprisonment,' he says.
Parmar's question was not asked in a vacuum. It followed requests made by the Green and Labour MPs around the possible punishments and, according to the Party, was intended to provide context around the maximum possible punishment.
The Act Party rebuked criticisms of the three-week sentence, and instead called for further measures to be taken.
The advice given to the committee, from the Clerk of the House David Wilson, recommended reaching broad consensus if intending to recommend a punishment that went beyond previously imposed. This did not happen.
The Act Party was targeted by Te Pāti Māori during their haka, as the Treaty Principles Bill came from their leader David Seymour.
This was ruled out of order by Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee.
In the six months that followed, the Privileges Committee deliberated on what the offending MPs would receive as punishment. Each party is represented on the committee by a senior member.
Te Pāti Māori MPs did not engage with the committee after their request to appear as a group was rejected. Party leaders have previously expressed frustration with the mechanisms of a Western parliament, and have called for the formation of an alternative Māori parliament.
A fourth MP, Labour's Peeni Henare, also joined the haka. He did not advance towards the Act MPs, and engaged with the Privileges Committee. Following an apology to the committee, Henare's sanctioning process concluded.
The committee's final report detailed a majority recommendation to issue a three-week suspension to the co-leaders of Te Pāti Māori, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, and a one-week suspension to MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, who initiated the haka. Their refusal to attend committee hearings was not considered in the sentencing.
Previously, the longest suspension suggested by the committee – and agreed to by Parliament – was three days. Then-Prime Minister Robert Muldoon criticised the Speaker in a 1987 press release, netting him the suspension.
In another departure from the norm, the committee's recommended suspension was not a unanimous opinion. Efforts to meet in the middle evidently failed, and the Government's majority won out. Leader of the House Chris Bishop said there was 'too much of a gap between the parties'.
Hipkins said: 'It is wrong and against the traditions of our democracy for a Government to use its majority in Parliament to suspend and remove from the service of the people of New Zealand its political opponents.'
Before eventually deciding to delay the vote to confirm the suspensions, House members delivered speeches. During Hipkins' speech, he said he was 'absolutely shocked' to learn a member of the committee had asked about the possibility of imprisoning another MP.
He likened the behaviour to that of 'tinpot dictatorships and banana republics', and said 'the fact that the question was even asked is a stain on this House'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Cartoonist's view — YeoToday's cartoon from Shaun Yeo.
Now that the Treaty Principles Bill has been consigned to the bin some who want to keep up the conversation about sovereignty and rangatiratanga (Māori self-determination), are refocusing on the...
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Growth and the environment
As if we needed reminding. The government reinforced its emphasis on growth by releasing three discussion documents, which cover 12 national policy statements and national environmental standards. The aim is to have 16 new or updated statements and standards in place by the end of this year, well ahead of legislation to replace the Resource Management Act. They would underpin both the RMA and its replacement. The consultation covers infrastructure and development, the primary sector and freshwater. It opened at the end of last week and runs until July 27. The scope is vast, leaving much to digest and react to. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop described the changes as both complex and technical, but also essential. The government claims its balanced approach represents the biggest change in national policy statement direction. The present regime was a "direct contributor to infrastructure deficits, driving up costs and slowing down projects". The measures would help "unclog the arteries of the economy". However, others see these changes as an assault on the environment and a win for the wish lists of lobbyists, such as farmers and miners. Freshwater will be a fierce battleground, and the government is consulting on options. After feedback, specific proposals will be released for further submissions. The government plans to "rebalance" Te Mana o te Wai, while Act New Zealand would like it scrapped altogether. Te Mana o te Wai placed the health of waterways as the priority, followed by drinking water, with economics and social matters secondary. New objectives propose that councils should "safeguard the life-supporting capacity of freshwater and the health of people and communities, while enabling communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being, including productive economic opportunities". In other words, neither priority is ranked above the other. Councils would also be required "to consider the pace and cost of change, and who bears the cost". The government, occasionally correctly, claims that practical realities were sometimes ignored when previous standards were applied. Yet, strong action is vital to reverse the degradation of wetlands, lakes, rivers and aquifers. There are also loosened provisions for vegetable growers and water storage. The definition of wetlands is "clarified". It is claimed that the costs were disproportionate to the benefits, with fencing requirements for non-intensive grazing a notable example. In some cases, dilution is the solution. Consenting for quarrying and mining and clean energy projects would be streamlined, described as "cutting red tape and not corners". Commercial forestry changes may lead to slash mobilisation plan assessments, although questions have been raised about their enforcement. Granny flats of up to 70sq m would be allowed without consent in specific zones, and rules for housing on Māori land would be made more consistent and accessible. Consultation on housing direction as a whole is expected soon. Of course, the government claims environmental protections are important and will be retained. Rightly, there is scepticism. The devil lurks within a hell of a lot of detail across the standards. They will each need to be carefully and fairly scrutinised, although the results will inevitably fall short of satisfying competing views and interests. It has become clear that the narrow majority of Otago Regional councillors were quixotic when they fought on for their land and water plan. The government was always going to change the rules, and they should have accepted that sooner. National regional council representatives this week expressed frustration at policy swings. They are on the front line of RMA (and any replacements). They seek greater certainty and bipartisan agreement, as substantial changes bring upheaval and expense. The RMA itself was a bipartisan measure, once a pioneering piece of legislation internationally. However, it became more complex and criticised from all quarters. National promptly discarded Labour's 2023 RMA replacement. Lasting and consistent laws and standards built on practical environmental protection would necessitate major compromises. Yet, such a consensus is increasingly unlikely as National and Labour move further apart.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘Just let them do it' an ideological attack on regulations
For a Bill set to transform New Zealand into a libertarian nightmare, it has an extremely boring name. The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) sounds like one of those pieces of legislation debated on a dreary Thursday afternoon in an almost empty House of Representatives. Not because anyone in particular wants it, but because those whose job it is to monitor the efficacy or otherwise of government regulations declares it to be necessary. MPs protesting to their respective party whips that they know absolutely nothing about this sort of Bill's content are told that participation in such debates is good for them. Speaking for 10 minutes about something one knows absolutely nothing about is key political skill. Without it, no politician should expect to do more than shepherd boring Bills through a nearly empty House for the rest of their (short) political career. The RSB may sound like one of those Bills, but it is anything but. According to one critic, the Bill will "neuter the ability of lawmakers to consider anything outside of individual liberty and property rights". That this proposed piece of legislative dynamite is the product of the Act New Zealand party is entirely unsurprising. David Seymour and his caucus are the most disciplined band of ideologically driven politicians in our Parliament. Liberty and property are their twin lodestars, and by them they navigate the choppy seas of New Zealand's resolutely non-ideological politics. Knowing exactly where they want to go has made it much easier for Act to determine, often with alarming and near-revolutionary clarity, what they ought to do. Boiled down to its essence, Act's political mission is captured in the French expression laissez-faire — loosely translated as "let them do it". If the actions of individuals cause no harm to others — let them do it. If those actions involve only their own property — let them do it. Contrariwise, if some individuals seek to compel other individuals for any reason other than preventing them from causing harm to others, then don't let them do it. And if that compulsion involves regulating the use of other individuals' private property, then definitely don't let them do it. Understandably, socialists are not (and never have been) great fans of laissez-faire. The collective welfare is (or used to be) their lodestar. Individuals determined to put themselves, and their property, ahead of measures designed to serve the common good should not be allowed to do it. Obviously, a great deal rests on how "harm" is defined. If your dairy farm is polluting the streams and rivers that others are accustomed to fishing and swimming in, does that constitute harm? If it does, then, surely, the state is entitled to regulate your farming practices? To restrict the ways in which you can legally use your private property. Alternatively, if a friend undertakes to sell you a few grams of cannabis, what business is it of the state's? Why should smoking weed, which most medical scientists have determined to be essentially harmless, be punishable by law? Why aren't individuals, if they're old enough to assess and accept the consequences of using cannabis, and it causes others no harm, allowed to do it? If pressed, Act will always put the rights of individual New Zealanders, and the sanctity of their private property, well ahead of the nation's collective welfare. These twin principles are what, with National's and New Zealand First's backing, Act intends to enshrine in the RSB. If it becomes law, then all regulatory legislation will be weighed carefully by an appointed board against the rights of liberty and property. If Parliament, in its wisdom, elects to override those rights, then the citizens required to surrender them must be fairly compensated. Naturally, environmental groups, iwi, trade unionists and the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of NGO-land regard the RSB with horror and dismay. They no doubt believed that, having been soundly defeated several times already, such libertarian legislative forays were things of the past. The Left, generally, is flabbergasted and outraged that the coalition remains committed to the RSB's passage. Boy, are they making a fuss. To hear them talk, the Bill might have been co-sponsored by Sauron and Voldemort. But, don't be alarmed. One parliament cannot bind another. If the RSB looks like transforming Aotearoa-New Zealand into Mordor, then the next government can simply repeal it. ■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.
