Up For Debate: Which Party Gains From Haka Privileges Surprise?
Analysis – The government blindsided the opposition by postponing a debate about punishments for Te Pti Mori, but the delay gives all sides time to plan.
, Political Reporter
Analysis – The government blindsided the opposition by postponing a debate about punishments for Te Pāti Māori, but the delay gives all sides two more weeks to plan and rally support.
MPs had prepared for a possible filibuster to enable the presence of Te Pāti Māori's co-leaders Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke on Budget Day.
Such an extended sitting would appeal neither to the opposition MPs wanting to prosecute the bigger issues, nor to the coalition wanting to pass legislation and focus on its Budget.
Perhaps then, Leader of the House Chris Bishop's surprise motion to postpone the debate to 5 June, should have come as no surprise.
'We've just deferred the debate, take the temperature down a notch,' he told reporters afterwards. 'There will be a debate, and the government will be voting in favour of the the full penalties as indicated by the Privileges Committee. So there will be a debate on it, and there will be a vote, it's just not going to be today.
'This week is Budget week, and frankly, the New Zealand people expect us to focus on growing the economy and getting back to some sort of fiscal sustainability.'
The opposition parties had been criticising the government for the moves which could have seen the MPs suspended from Parliament for an extended time, including during the Budget.
Their en masse votes against Bishop's motion may then come as a surprise too. It seemed to be to Bishop.
'Well that was a bit strange … it's over to them to explain it but I don't think they quite worked out what was going on. I mean Chris Hipkins said – I saw him repeat it in the media, saying on the way in 'we could always adjourn it and come back another day' – well we just literally did that and they voted against it.
'It's over to them exactly what they want, I suspect they probably voted the wrong way, but it's over to them. You have to put that to them.'
Labour's leader Chris Hipkins said it was not quite what he had been aiming for.
'What we argued for was for the sanctions to be deferred, not for the debate to be deferred. And there is a difference there, because I think the Māori Party are entitled to know what they're up against. I think this now means that the whole thing hangs over the Parliament for another couple of weeks.'
His speech ahead of Bishop's motion laid out the case calling for co-leaders' suspension to be reduced from 21 days to 24 hours – based on the punishment recommended in standing orders for a first offence – and for Maipi-Clarke's to be jettisoned.
'They are being sanctioned because they broke the rules of the House, they behaved in a disorderly manner, and they interrupted a vote of the Parliament, and there should be a sanction for that. But we have never seen a sanction of this nature in New Zealand's history before,' he said.
'The committee should clearly set out its rationale in arriving at the particular penalty so that a consistent approach could be followed in the future. I've read the report several times, there is no rationale, there is no criteria that could be followed in the future. This is an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air.'
Hipkins said Labour had been trying to negotiate a solution since Sunday, but Prime Minister Christopher Luxon ruled out any compromise over the lengthy suspensions on Monday.
'We reached out to the government and said 'look, we need to draw this to a close, we need to get back onto debating the issues that matter to New Zealanders' … They didn't even bother to ring us back, so ultimately, the circus that played out today was entirely in the hands of the government.'
No contact from National since Monday – but Bishop seemed unbothered.
'Well, it's not my responsibility to keep the opposition informed of everything, it's over to them,' he told reporters.
Hipkins told RNZ it may not play out the coalition hoped it would.
'They've given the Māori Party what they want, which is they put the Māori Party back right in the centre of everything and actually I don't think it's reflected very well on Parliament as a whole.
'There's a whole lot of things going wrong for the country. And the government are focused on suspending opposition members of parliament rather than fixing the issues facing the country. I just think it makes the parliament look ridiculous.'
He said the government had chosen the timing of the debate, and suggested the coalition should have backed his amendment instead of delaying the inevitable.
'They chose instead to turn it into yet more of a circus, which means the Maori Party will be out there doing their campaigning for the next few weeks, brings the whole thing back again, turns Parliament back into a circus the next time it comes back again, I don't think that's really what the government should be focused on doing.
'I'm concerned about the damage this is doing to New Zealand's reputation as a democracy, but also the damage it's doing to our reputation with New Zealanders, who basically see parliamentarians just squabbling with one another.'
Of course, it also distracts focus from the things Labour wants to talk about during Budget time – like the pay equity reversal.
The Budget on Thursday is the next step.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis had a similar view to Hipkins.
'I think New Zealanders don't want to see Parliament tied up with a prolonged debate about procedural matters when there's a Budget to pass,' she said.
Te Pāti Māori's Tākuta Ferris said they would be there to contest it.
The party exited Parliament after the adjournment to speak to the protesters gathered on the forecourt.
'We're not here for the accolades, we're here to be a voice for you, so stand with us. What is the call to action? We turn punishment into power,' Waititi told the roughly 1000 supporters.
That sentiment, and the haka the protesters performed, surely sets the tone for how Te Pāti Māori intends to respond to the government's punishments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
33 minutes ago
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence – from employers at a government roadshow – that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses – demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia – it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that – only a few months ago – took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. 'It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up – because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said – 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made – simultaneously – for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard – and their international students – has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently – since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA – we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose – or would it support – the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT – as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues – support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or … the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) – the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior – Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked – before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable – incomprehensible – we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
Scoop
37 minutes ago
- Scoop
Te Pāti Māori Demands Safe Passage Of Madleen To Gaza
Te Pāti Māori condemns the Israeli navy's armed interception of the Madleen, a civilian aid vessel carrying food, medical supplies, and international activists to Gaza, including Greta Thunberg. Communications of the Madleen have been cut, and there is no knowing if the crew are safe and unharmed. This is the latest act in a horrific string of violence against civilians trying to access meagre aid. Since May 27, more than 130 civilians have murdered been while lining up for food at aid sites. 'This is not an arrest, it as an abduction. We have grave concerns for the safety of the crew. Israel have proven time again they aren't above committing violence against civilians' said Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. 'Blocking baby formula and prosthetics while a people are deliberately starved is not border patrol, it is genocide.' Te Pāti Māori calls on the New Zealand Government to: 'This is the Mavi Marmara all over again—but the world has no excuse for silence now. We stand with the people of Gaza. We stand with the Madleen'.
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Nationwide public transport card delayed again, minister 'concerned'
Transport Minister Chris Bishop has urged officials to get "back on track" as fresh delays hit the roll-out of NZTA's new national public transport ticketing system. The Motu Move system was supposed to launch in Timaru and Temuka by mid-2025, but has since been delayed due to "challenges with delivery". Transport officials didn't provide an updated date for when the new card would actually launch, when queried this week. It's the third missed launch target the project has faced in the past nine months. The setback comes as an independent review has been launched into the National Ticketing Solution (NTS) by the programme's governance group. ADVERTISEMENT Bishop told 1News he met with the group to "stress" the significant sums being spent and to encourage them "to exercise leadership to get the project back on track". Chris Bishop said he wants the governance group to "exercise leadership". (file image). (Source: Getty) A spokesperson for NZTA said: "Work is underway to understand the options with a revised delivery plan for Canterbury expected to be confirmed in the next few months. "The National Ticketing Solution team is also working on a revised regional roll-out plan and timeline for the rest of the country. This is expected to be confirmed in August." The NTS project will replace all transit cards used on buses, trains and ferries around the country with a single national card, which will be branded under "Motu Move". It will include the phasing out of several existing payment methods, including Snapper in Wellington, Metrocard in Christchurch and Bee cards. The project has cost $146 million since 2018, according to figures up until December and released to the Taxpayers Union. NTS has been budgeted to cost $1.3 billion over 15 years. ADVERTISEMENT An initial December 2024 launch date in Timaru and Temuka - a smaller region with relatively limited public transport services - was pushed to early this year and then mid-2025. A January launch date for Greater Christchurch was also delayed to September. It follows a tortured multi-year process to develop the national smartcard system, which includes the ability to pay with contactless debit cards and smartphones. Kiwis will have the option of paying for public transport with their debit or credit card, or digital payment method. (Source: 1News) Bishop said he was "concerned" about the programme and "delays to rolling it out". "I have recently met with the National Ticketing Solution governance group to stress the significant investment the Government is making in the project, and to encourage them to exercise leadership to get the project back on track," he said in a statement. "The group has commissioned an independent review into the project to identify opportunities for improvement in the programme, and I expect to receive a copy of its findings in July, along with a plan to deliver the project." 'Alternative delivery approach' being considered ADVERTISEMENT In December, a "pilot" of the system was deployed on one bus line in Christchurch, which allowed people to use contactless cards to tap on if they were paying adult fares. The pilot hasn't included the wide distribution or use of Motu Move cards. An NZTA spokesperson said findings from the pilot would be used to potentially roll out "features" of the new system sooner in "phases". "The NTS programme team has been exploring alternative delivery approaches for Canterbury to implement Motu Move features in phases, building on the success of the contactless payments pilot on the route 29 bus." A Motu Move card reader. (Source: Supplied) They said the independent review of the programme was "expected to be completed with a final report presented to the NTS governance board at the end of July". The most recent delay follows a long development process for the smartcard system, which has been put together by NZTA in various forms since 2009. Subsequent developments have seen a litany of delays and posited launch dates scrapped. In March, Bishop was briefed that US system supplier Cubic was bringing in "additional capacity" to "accelerate progress" on the project after the first set of recent delays. ADVERTISEMENT Release one testing of the system was expected to be finished in early May, the Transport Minister was told at the time. Meanwhile, a review carried out on the NTS project in October found "significant issues already exist requiring management attention", according to a brief summary provided by NZTA. The agency refused to release a full copy of the report to 1News. The review came shortly before the roll-out was first delayed from its December target. It also concluded the programme was "well governed, led and resourced" and that the significant issues were "viewed as resolvable at the time of the review".
