More than half of voters back proposed penalty, or harsher, for Te Pāti Māori MPs, poll suggests
Photo:
RNZ/ Samuel Rillstone
More than half of voters consider the proposed penalty for three Te Pāti Māori MPs over the Treaty Principles haka to be either appropriate or too lenient, polling shows, ahead of the debate on the matter resuming on Thursday afternoon.
That debate
- which had
potential to become a filibuster
- was cut short when Leader of the House Chris Bishop
unexpectedly postponed it
last month.
The Privileges Committee - which recommends punishments for breaking Parliament's rules -
proposed a 21-day suspension
for the co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and seven days for MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. It means no pay, no ability to vote on legislation, and no presence in Parliament for the duration.
The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll asked for voters' views on whether the punishment fit the crime.
Overall, more people - 37.0 percent said it was "about right"; while 36.2 percent said it was "too harsh"; 17.2 percent said "too lenient", and 9.6 percent said they did not know: a 54.2 percent majority then backing the punishment or thought it should be stronger, in line with the coalition parties' view.
The result puts opposition parties - which all labelled the three-week ban disproportionate - in a difficult position.
Broken down by voting preferences, more than half of Labour's supporters (51.2 percent) backed leader Chris Hipkins' view the suspensions were too harsh, but a sizeable number thought the punishment fair (29.8 percent) or too lax (8 percent).
Greens supporters were more convinced with three quarters (75.3 percent) calling the punishment too harsh, but still 12.4 percent said it was about right and 3.8 percent too lenient.
Surprisingly, 9 percent of Te Pāti Māori's supporters also labelled it too lenient, although a clear 80.8 percent called it too harsh, with just 6.2 percent saying it was about right.
The results for the coaltion voters were more predictable, far more National, ACT and NZ First supporters saying it was too lenient, compared to those calling it too harsh.
But Speaker Gerry Brownlee, of the National Party, appears to be in the latter camp - he
called the punishments "very severe" and "unprecedented"
when setting down the original debate on Parliament's calendar.
He pointed out no MP found guilty of contempt had previously been suspended for more than three days. The Privileges Committee recommendation was also only backed by coalition parties, despite convention dictating the MPs on the committee should aim for consensus.
Those responding to RNZ's questions may have known these facts from media reporting - or they may not.
Bishop's postponement of the debate took the teeth out of opposition criticisms the government wanted to keep the punished MPs from commenting on the Budget - as it turned out, the co-leaders did not speak in the Budget debate anyway.
Budget delivered, MPs return to the debating chamber to discuss the punishment after Question Time today. The length of the debate rests ultimately in Brownlee's hands, and he has signalled a willingness to let it continue until all views were thoroughly aired.
Whether parties actually want to filibuster - given the poll, and the risk of voters' patience for politicians talking about themselves wearing thin - is far from certain.
Hipkins says a few of his MPs will speak, but they will not be running down the clock with endless speeches.
The Greens' co-leaders have said they think the MPs should not be suspended, and they plan to scrutinise the decision "to the highest degree".
But Te Pāti Māori is eager to put the matter to bed.
"Just got to hurry up and get it over and done with and let's sort it out, otherwise we'll be hanging around here waiting and waiting and waiting. Just, they've made their verdict - let's just get it done," co-leader Rawiri Waititi said.
This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure a representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available
here
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
21 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Green's co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick to decide whether to apologise and return to Parliament
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick will today decide whether she will return to Parliament and apologise, or continue to be barred from the House for the rest of the week. During an urgent debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said government MPs could grow a spine and support her bill imposing sanctions on Israel. The Speaker suspended her from Parliament and said unless she apologises, he will do so again every day this week. Swarbrick said the party will follow the correct processes, and will ask the speaker to reflect on previous language in Parliament. She said she's angry people are being massacred in Gaza, and politicians need to do their job. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
21 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Government undoes RMA Bill discharge rules, farmers won't need consent to pollute waterways
The government's changes mean thousands of farmers won't need resource consents to discharge pollutants into waterways. Photo: 123RF The government has taken what it is calling urgent action to save thousands of farmers from having to lodge resource consents to discharge pollutants into waterways. It said changes to the Resource Management Amendment (RMA) Bill meant farmers could carry on the routine work they had been doing for years without needing consent. Federated Farmers has welcomed the move, but critics called the environmental law changes a last-minute smash and grab that was being rammed through Parliament RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said last month Waikato Regional Council told the government that unless urgent changes were made to water discharge rules in the RMA, approximately 2800 Waikato farms would require resource consents for on-farm activities. "The Waikato region generates 20 percent of the nation's primary exports, with dairy farming supporting the employment of over 9000 Kiwis in the Waikato alone. If we don't act, the economic heart of New Zealand's primary sector could grind to a halt under what would effectively be a 'stop work' order," he said. Horizons Regional Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tasman District Council and Environment Southland all requested further changes to water discharge rules as well. The amendment would broaden what water discharges could be allowed as a permitted activity. But Tom Kay, from the freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water, said local councils would be stripped of the power to have any meaningful say over the future for their communities and environment. The changes would, among other things, prevent councils writing or changing plans and policy statements until 2027, give the minister the power to modify or remove provisions of a Regional Policy Statement or regional or district plan, and weaken restrictions on commercial fishing and farming industries, he said. "Despite claiming to be for the benefit of council efficiency, these changes effectively grind vital planning to a halt while allowing increasing pollution. Councils won't be able to move ahead with protecting things that are important for their communities-like drinking water sources or coastal fisheries-until the government says so." He said the government was doing what agricultural lobby groups Federated Farmers, Beef & Lamb and Dairy NZ had asked for in their submissions on the Bill. Federated Farmers applauded the changes, saying they would spare thousands of farmers from needing an unnecessary resource consent just to keep farming. "I'd love to say this is a practical and pragmatic change from the government - but it's actually just commonsense," its RMA reform spokesperson, Mark Hooper, said. Councils would still be able to require consent for genuinely high-risk activities but would not be forced to do so when something such as a farm plan was a better option, he said. The Bill was expected to pass into law by the end of next week. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
21 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Government undoes RMA discharge rules, farmers won't need consent to pollute waterways
The government's changes mean thousands of farmers won't need resource consents to discharge pollutants into waterways. Photo: 123RF The government has taken what it is calling urgent action to save thousands of farmers from having to lodge resource consents to discharge pollutants into waterways. It said changes to the Resource Management Amendment (RMA) Bill meant farmers could carry on the routine work they had been doing for years without needing consent. Federated Farmers has welcomed the move, but critics called the environmental law changes a last-minute smash and grab that was being rammed through Parliament RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said last month Waikato Regional Council told the government that unless urgent changes were made to water discharge rules in the RMA, approximately 2800 Waikato farms would require resource consents for on-farm activities. "The Waikato region generates 20 percent of the nation's primary exports, with dairy farming supporting the employment of over 9000 Kiwis in the Waikato alone. If we don't act, the economic heart of New Zealand's primary sector could grind to a halt under what would effectively be a 'stop work' order," he said. Horizons Regional Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tasman District Council and Environment Southland all requested further changes to water discharge rules as well. The amendment would broaden what water discharges could be allowed as a permitted activity. But Tom Kay, from the freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water, said local councils would be stripped of the power to have any meaningful say over the future for their communities and environment. The changes would, among other things, prevent councils writing or changing plans and policy statements until 2027, give the minister the power to modify or remove provisions of a Regional Policy Statement or regional or district plan, and weaken restrictions on commercial fishing and farming industries, he said. "Despite claiming to be for the benefit of council efficiency, these changes effectively grind vital planning to a halt while allowing increasing pollution. Councils won't be able to move ahead with protecting things that are important for their communities-like drinking water sources or coastal fisheries-until the government says so." He said the government was doing what agricultural lobby groups Federated Farmers, Beef & Lamb and Dairy NZ had asked for in their submissions on the Bill. Federated Farmers applauded the changes, saying they would spare thousands of farmers from needing an unnecessary resource consent just to keep farming. "I'd love to say this is a practical and pragmatic change from the government - but it's actually just commonsense," its RMA reform spokesperson, Mark Hooper, said. Councils would still be able to require consent for genuinely high-risk activities but would not be forced to do so when something such as a farm plan was a better option, he said. The Bill was expected to pass into law by the end of next week. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
