Employer of man who heckled Winston Peters criticised for launching probe into 'disruption'
By Kate Green of RNZ
The employer of a man who heckled Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has drawn criticism after apologising for the behaviour and saying it had launched an investigation.
Peters, the Minister for Rail and Transport Minister Chris Bishop yesterday announced the government would spend more than $600 million to upgrade New Zealand's rail network as part of this year's Budget.
At the end of the news conference at the Wellington Railway Station, a member of the public heckled Peters as he was answering questions about the potential punishment to be given to Te Pāti Māori MPs, set to be debated in Parliament later that day.
The man yelled: "What a load of bollocks", which prompted an exchange between the pair.
Peters told Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking this morning he would not feel bad if the heckler lost his job, saying the man's behaviour was "disgraceful" and this had become far too prevalent in New Zealand.
In a statement last night the man's employer - engineering company Tonkin + Taylor - apologised, and said a code of conduct investigation was under way.
"At Tonkin + Taylor we take our responsibilities as a major New Zealand employer seriously. We do not condone behaviour that falls short of our Code of Conduct.
"We sincerely apologise to the event organisers, attendees, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Bishop for the disruption caused."
But the Free Speech Union said the incident had nothing to do with Tonkin + Taylor. Apologising off the bat set a "dangerous precedent" and a message that expressing political opinions in public was unacceptable.
"Individuals don't forfeit their right to express political views just because they have a job," spokesperson Nick Hanne said in a statement.
"Employers don't own employees' time when they are commuting to work, and the choice to heckle Winston Peters has nothing to do with Tonkin + Taylor."
Hanne said the Free Speech Union would be contacting the company "urging them to respect their employee's speech rights, and not to set a poor example to other Kiwi businesses".
"The heckler was wearing a Tonkin + Taylor lanyard at the time, but it's common practice for employers to ask employees to wear items like lanyards to help with workplace identification for reasons such as security.
"Companies can't have it both ways: requiring employees to be identifiable for branding or security purposes, but not when expressing lawful personal views on their own time."
Tonkin + Taylor declined to make further comment, as the matter was under investigation. Tonkin + Taylor's full statement
"We are aware of an incident at a media event at Wellington Railway Station this morning.
We have confirmed the person involved is a Tonkin + Taylor employee. We are investigating in line with our Code of Conduct and for privacy reasons we won't be commenting any further.
At Tonkin + Taylor we take our responsibilities as a major New Zealand employer seriously. We do not condone behaviour that falls short of our Code of Conduct.
We sincerely apologise to the event organisers, attendees, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister Bishop, for the disruption caused."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Jail for a haka? The arrogance of ignorance in Parliament
Act MP Parmjeet Parmar wanted to know if imprisonment was an option for Te Pāti Māori members who did a haka in Parliament. Photo / Supplied Recently, I took a crack at Te Pāti Māori for being big on theatre but not backing it up with being an effective opposition party. The obvious example was their haka in the House in protest at the Treaty Principles Bill. But I didn't think the haka was the problem. Since then, the government has focused on dishing out utu for Te Pāti Māori daring to bring its brand of political theatre into the House. A privileges committee headed by Judith Collins – who inaccurately claimed the haka prevented Act from voting at the bill's first reading – recommended a punishment of 21 days' suspension from Parliament for Te Pāti Māori's co-leaders and a week for Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. Even that delicate flower Gerry Brownlee, Speaker of the House, seemed uneasy about the harshness of the proposed penalty. But not Act MP Parmjeet Parmar. She wanted to know if prison was an option. When questioned about this, she rolled out the 'just asking questions' line, supposedly wanting to know what the whole spectrum of options were to punish the unruly natives. So, in the spirit of just asking questions, here's a few Parmar might like to consider. Speaking of a whole spectrum of options, does she realise Te Pāti Māori MPs not only represent but belong to communities who had members who were imprisoned, raped, hanged or shot for expressing their political opinions in ways the crown objected to? Does Parmar know the white feather Debbie Ngarewa-Packer often wears in her pōtae is a symbol and reminder of Parihaka and the government invasion of the Taranaki pacifist community where men were imprisoned without trial and, as the Waitangi Tribunal reported, women were raped? Does she know this community was resisting the confiscation of land taken by the crown she represents? Does she know UK newspaper reports about the leaders of Parihaka, Te Whiti and Tohu, influenced Gandhi, who influenced Martin Luther King? Does Parmar know Rawiri Waititi is from the Whakatōhea iwi, whose rangatira, Mokomoko, was hanged in 1866 for a murder he did not commit? That it and the neighbouring iwi Waititi also belongs to had their land confiscated? Does she know Mokomoko's body was exhumed from Mt Eden Prison and taken back to be buried with his people in 1989 and he was eventually pardoned by the crown in 1992? Does she know his final words before he was hanged were a request to sing: 'Tangohia mai te taura i taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata' (Take the rope from my throat that I may sing my song)? Then his neck was broken. Does Parmar know Maipi-Clarke whakapapas not only to Taranaki but also Waikato, who were invaded by the crown and lost a million acres through confiscation? Does she know about Rangiaowhia, where civilians, including women and children, were burnt and shot as they sheltered in a whare? Does she know Waikato men were imprisoned when they refused conscription in World War I because of the invasion and confiscation of their lands? Since Parmar objects to Māori gathering in their own spaces at universities, does she know government policy was opposed to Māori even attending university until the 1960s? Has she heard of Sir Āpirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pōmare and Te Rangi Hiroa, who went to Te Aute College and on to university to become lawyers and doctors, only for the government to pressure the school principal to desist from preparing Māori students for tertiary study? Does she know these three men, along with many iwi leaders, led a targeted – ie, race-based – health campaign that helped save Māori from extinction after the population plummeted due to poverty and disease resulting from land loss? I recently spoke to a leader of an NGO that supports Māori and Pasifika children in education who told me many of the kids they support end up dropping out of university because they are suddenly alone in an alien environment without community support. Does Parmar think that is a problem that should be addressed? Has she ever bothered to read the history of Māori political figures like Ngata and Pōmare, whose portraits hang in the halls of Parliament? Does she know Pōmare walked those halls with a limp, due to an injury he suffered when he was one of the children who welcomed the troops who invaded Parihaka with singing, only to be trampled by horses? In March, Parmar pronounced the University of Auckland should scrap its compulsory Waipapa Taumata Rau course. Does she think a history lesson might be of use to MPs like herself who claim to represent the country but know little of its history? Or does she take her history lessons from her party leader, who mangles or ignores the past to create a constant stream of political controversies to hold the media's attention and misinform and distract the public? And was Parmar's question about the option of sending Te Pāti Māori to jail for a political protest really her question? Or was she simply doing the party leader's dirty work for him?
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Call For CNMI Leaders To Fight Back On High Airfares
Article – RNZ The former representative shared his frustration after attempting to book a four-day roundtrip ticket from Guam to Saipan. Mark Rabago, RNZ Pacific Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas correspondent Former Northern Mariana Islands lawmaker Edwin K. Propst taken to social media to urge leaders to 'go to war' with United Airlines over what he claims are exorbitant airfares between Saipan and Guam. The call to action comes amid renewed efforts to reinstate the Essential Air Service program in the CNMI and push for a cabotage exemption. 'Attention all leaders of the Marianas in the public and private sector, it is time to go to war with this airline,' Propst wrote. The former representative, who now works at the CNMI broadband policy and development office, shared his frustration after attempting to book a four-day roundtrip ticket from Guam to Saipan in June – to find the lowest available fare was US$767. 'For a 25-minute flight?! 'They have just made record-breaking profits and instead of rewarding their customers, they increase their prices.' Propst called the airfares 'devastating' to the local economy and tourism. The CNMI is currently seeking exemption from federal cabotage restrictions, which bar foreign airlines from operating domestic routes between US territories such as Guam and the CNMI. Governor Arnold Palacios mentioned this effort during his State of the Commonwealth Address, saying he had 'actively advocated for potential cabotage waiver [and] essential air services' in recent talks with federal agencies and congressional leaders. Palacios emphasized the importance of improved regional connectivity to support the CNMI's tourism-dependent economy. Senate public utilities, transportation and communications committee chair, Senator Jude Hofschneider called Propst's complaints a 'sad reality of economic times,' adding that United's pricing is 'likely a business decision by the air carrier'. Still, Hofschneider said the moment calls for greater support of Congresswoman Kimberlyn King-Hinds' bill introduced in April to requalify CNMI airports for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. If passed, the measure would allow federal subsidies to fund daily round-trip flights even if commercial carriers withdraw service. A quote from CWM Travel International showed a Saipan-Guam roundtrip departing 8 June 8 and returning 12 June costing $420 – significantly cheaper than Propst's booking but still high for an inter-island flight. The EAS program, created in 1978 and stripped from CNMI eligibility in 2012, was intended to preserve air access for small US communities. King-Hinds' bill seeks to restore eligibility to Saipan, Tinian, and Rota by placing CNMI alongside Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico in exemption status.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori attack Greta Thunberg's ‘abduction', Israel says she's safe and on her way
Te Pāti Māori has strongly condemned the 'abduction' of crew on a Gaza-bound ship by Israeli forces, calling for the Government to demand their safe release. Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the party had 'grave concerns' for the safety of those on board the humanitarian aid vessel. 'Israel have proven
