Peeni Henare 'mistaken', Labour won't repeal gang patch ban
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Labour's deputy leader says Peeni Henare was "mistaken" when he told the audience at a by-election debate his party would repeal the gang patch ban.
The Labour Party has had to clarify its position on the ban, which makes it illegal to wear gang patches in public, after the Tāmaki Makaurau candidate made the comment on Wednesday night.
An audience member at the Waatea hosted debate in Favona asked the candidates "will you repeal the gang patch law if you come into government - yes or no?"
Te Pāti Māori candidate Oriini Kaipara responded "yes", and Henare can be heard saying "āe" (yes).
However, Labour leader Chris Hipkins has said in the past the party would not repeal the ban.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith released a statement highlighting Henare's comment, saying Labour had "finally announced" its first law and order policy.
"This is shocking, but hardly surprising from a party so soft on crime," Goldsmith said.
"On numerous occasions, Chris Hipkins has committed to keeping National's gang patch ban. He needs to be clear with New Zealanders - does he have any policies of his own, or is his plan dictated to him by Te Pāti Maori and the Greens?"
Labour Party Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni.
Photo:
RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni then confirmed to media this wasn't the Labour party position, "we have no intention to repeal that legislation".
She said Henare may have been mistaken.
"We did oppose the bill in the House, and so I'm wondering whether that led him to that conclusion," Sepuloni said, but indicated it was a question for Henare himself. He has been approached for comment.
Asked whether there needed to be a conversation with Henare to clear up any confusion, Sepuloni said there was "certainly no need for a telling off here".
"Peeni is doing a good job out on the campaign trail, and respect the mahi that he's doing."
When it was explained to Goldsmith Labour hadn't in fact changed its position, he told reporters Sepuloni needed to inform Henare, and the Labour justice spokesperson.
"I don't know who that is, Roger, somebody, I think his name is," Goldsmith said. Duncan Webb is Labour's justice spokesperson.
"Well, I haven't heard from him. He doesn't ask me any questions in the house."
Goldsmith said there could be two explanations for the mix-up.
"One is they don't know what they're doing, or two, they're frightened to reveal to the public what they really want to do."
"What we saw last night from Peeni Henare is actually there's a big chunk of them want to bring back gang patches, go soft on crime, return to what we had in the past."
National campaign chair Chris Bishop suggested it was always good to agree with the leader of your party, advising Henare that "freelancing away on policy is not career enhancing."
The debate also saw the reappearance of Karl Mokaraka, who ran for Destiny Church's Vision NZ party in the 2023 election. He disrupted the debate and was removed from the premises by those in attendance and NZ Māori wardens.
Waatea general manager Matthew Tukaki posted on social media saying the tikanga of the marae had been abused by his disruption.
"It was torn asunder by the betrayal of a sad few representing a political party who say they stand for Māori kaupapa but in all reality don't.
"What happened last night was a disgrace and Hannah Tamaki and her violent thugs should be called out for what they are - hooligans."
He said the behaviour had no place on or in the marae.
Oriini Kaipara told RNZ it was disappointing to experience the degradation of tikanga Māori.
"Marae are not the realm or jurisdiction of any political party.
"As politicians, aspiring or otherwise, we come as manuhiri into the domain of Hau Kāinga and Tikanga Māori. It is important when making decisions on where to hold political debates and who we invite in, we manaaki all at all times. The obligations go both ways."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Why is te reo being undermined at home while Māori culture is promoted overseas?
Chris Bayes, Torbay. Contempt for teachers Yes, I know the Government has a cost-of-living crisis of its own, but the derisory pay offer made to teachers is ample proof of their contempt for the very professionals they expect to implement the restructuring of New Zealand's education system. Accusations of endangering students' exam performance, dereliction of duty by striking, and misrepresenting the work done after hours and in the so-called holidays, are standard responses from a Government that undervalues the need for skilled practitioners. Industrial action (a misnomer anyway) is taken because teachers are desperate to provide the best possible service to the whole community. Education in all its forms is a vital asset and should be funded accordingly. Norm Murray, Browns Bay. A political act of faith In his criticism of the churches for organising seminars on Māori wards, David Seymour displays his lack of knowledge of Christian church history. Christians who follow the founder of their faith, Jesus, the Christ, and try to live by his example, will be political. Jesus' ministry was short-lived because the political leaders of the day objected to what he did and said and had him crucified. Archbishop Oscar Romero was shot while celebrating mass in San Salvador because of what he did and said politically in his own country. Te Aroha Rountree, president of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, Te Hahi Weteriana O Aotearoa, spoke at this year's Waitangi Day commemorations and was criticised by some for being too political in a service of worship when she spoke of justice related to the Treaty. She was simply following the teaching and example of the founder of her faith. Those who follow Jesus, the Christ have no alternative but to speak out on issues of justice which is what the seminars on Māori wards are all about. Mervyn Dine, Northcote. Where art thou, Luxon? The mutterings and murmurings about Christopher Luxon being ousted as leader of the National Party supposedly because of poor ratings as preferred Prime Minister reached a crescendo recently. All this because Nicola Willis stepped up to a set of microphones that were apparently reserved for the PM. As Shakespeare wrote, 'All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players.' In this case, the media had set its own stage but the main players ended up in the wrong place. But was this in fact a mistake? Was Willis showing the world that she in fact was now gunning for the top job? Will we see a reenactment of Luxon metaphorically 'falling on his sword', as Shakespeare's Mark Antony did, while relinquishing power to Willis? Or will the media decide to let this sideshow play out on its own, as it should, and concentrate on the real issues of the day such as education, rising costs, crime and a stagnant economy? Bernard Walker, Mt Maunganui. Good move by the Blues At last! Rugby union has realised that a rectangular stadium is best for spectators and promotes an atmosphere that lifts teams and ticket sales. The growth of the Blues has been stunted by the oval pitch at Eden Park, with fans seated a long distance from the action and typically only filling 20% to 25% of the cavernous stands. It has taken a long time for the Blues to recognise that Mt Smart would be worth a try. I hope this development sends a message to those involved in deciding on a new stadium for Auckland. Tony Waring, Grey Lynn. What, no spine? A note to Chlöe Swarbrick: Gutless jellyfish will never become vertebrates. Brian Dwyer, Welcome Bay.
Otago Daily Times
40 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Te reo Maori is ‘normal'; stop treating it like it is not
Not ''abnormal'' language. PHOTO: ODT FILES If you can say the word "car", you can say the word "karakia". If you can say the word "for" you can say the word "koro". Unless of course if you are the minister of education, in which case, the complexity of using the same vowel sound for the same letters in both English and Māori words is too great a language hurdle. This is the official reason for the elimination of common reo Māori being removed from the Ready to Read Phonics Plus series of books. This decision by the minister has caused widespread condemnation and was recently described as "white supremacy". Some people will struggle with this term being used to describe the actions of the minister and ministry. White supremacy invokes the common image of skin-headed Nazis, hateful violence and destruction. So, is the minister's decision an act of white supremacy? White supremacy is a term that is not just used to describe individuals. It is an ideology that arises from the settler-colonisation of Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu and from a desperate grip on monolingualism seen almost nowhere else in the world. It is a term used to describe how racism is built into the systems that govern us. When racism is built into our systems of governance in Aotearoa New Zealand, we see it when the language, culture and people of Māori and other non-Pākehā ethnicities are treated like an aberration or not "normal". The treatment of non-Pākehā culture and language as "not normal" is evident in many ways. We saw an example recently when the minister for justice described the haka in Parliament as lacking "civility". But it is most prominent in the different ways te reo Māori is being eliminated from public view. The argument government uses is English is "normal" and te reo Māori is not "normal". It is untrue, and when this false argument drives government policy, that policy can be rightly described as white supremacy. The Māori Language Act 1987 made te reo Māori an official language of New Zealand, the first time any language was legislated as an official language. Legislation confirming New Zealand sign language as such followed in 2006. The effect of these two Acts is to give all New Zealanders the right to use te reo Māori and New Zealand sign language in legal proceedings and it places obligations on public services to make provision for their use. The use of te reo Māori is therefore protected by law. This was a great start. The kohanga reo movement, kura kaupapa Māori and the oversubscription of adult te reo Māori classes across the country all pile on evidence of the fact New Zealanders are increasingly using and wanting to use te reo Māori in their everyday language. It would be quite reasonable to think then te reo Māori is normal. And it is. Most likely, whether you "speak" te reo or not, you also use Māori words like kiwi, kai, waka and mana. You may often say "ka pai" when your kids do something well, "ka kite", or the peculiarly New Zealand slang of "ka keets" when you drop your kids or your "moko" at their "kura". You might baulk at the use of the word "Pākehā", but you still say it and know what it means. You almost certainly say, or know what kia ora means, especially when someone overseas says it to you when they discover you are a New Zealander. You may sign your colleagues' leaving cards with aroha and know what it means when it is written in yours. You might even say taihoa when someone needs to slow down and "holy hika" is making a lovely comeback when something seems surprising or undesired. These are the words our children see, hear and say everyday in some form in the reading, listening and speaking of "English". For the Ministry of Education to now classify these words as "abnormal" in New Zealand English can only be an act of racism built into our system of governance, and therefore rightly described as white supremacy. I admit to being particularly offended at the elimination of the word "koro" from the Ready to Read books. That word means our grandfather, our beloved elder and when it is used by us and by our mokopuna it refers to the utter love and affection we hold for those older men in our lives. To eliminate this word in the readers is to eliminate the depth of that relationship from the language of our moko who are learning to read. If the ministry continues with its plans, the precious relationship that mokopuna Māori have with their koro will disappear in their books. The only elder men who will matter will be Pākehā grandfathers. That is white supremacy. ■ Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill banning protest outside homes passes first hurdle
By Giles Dexter of RNZ Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors including how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values." Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable." The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, his party did not support the bill. Labour's justice spokesman Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." She disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill and report back within four months.
