Why contempt needs to be met with contempt
To publish the draft Privileges Committee report on the actions of three of their MPs on their social media feed is a provocation that should result in consequences.
Radio NZ reported:
Te Pāti Māori has apologised for posting a draft report from the privileges committee on Instagram, which breaches the rules of privilege.
It comes ahead of the committees meeting tonight to discuss complaints against three of the party's MPs who conducted a haka in the House in November.
Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the Instagram post was a mistake made 'internally', and the party was reviewing it.
'We were aware that an Instagram put up last night created a little bit of tension for the chair of the Privileges Committee.'
She said no MP, including the co-leaders, were responsible for that.
This is just mendacious bullshit. There is no way a staffer would publish a confidential privileged draft report from the Privileges Committee, without authorisation from an MP and/or the leadership. In fact no staff should even have had access to the report.
Te Pati Maori think the rules don't apply to them. No matter what decision the Privileges Committee makes, they will claim it is racist and unfair.
The only thing that will result in a change of attitude, is serious consequences. They should not be rewarded for treating this as a giant joke and PR exercise.
I have no idea what the Privileges Committee has or will decide, but I hope it along the lines of a 28 day suspension for the three MPs involved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Labour candidate Peeni Henare stands by gang-patch law repeal claim
Peeni Henare insists he was replying to a question with his personal view, not the party line. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour's Tāmaki Makaurau candidate stands by saying he'd repeal the gang patch law at an event on Wednesday night, despite the party's deputy leader insisting he was "mistaken" . Peeni Henare told RNZ he was asked his personal view on the issue, which was informed by his whānau experience, and understood that differed from his party's view. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said it showed the type of campaign currently underway, where one candidate spoke for Māori and the other spoke for a "mainstream party". An audience member at the Waatea-hosted debate at 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 could also be heard saying "āe" (yes). However, Labour leader Chris Hipkins has previously said the party would not repeal the legislation making it illegal to wear gang patches in public, prompting the government to hit out at Labour for inconsistency and question whether the party was telling the truth. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith highlighted the comment, saying Labour had "finally announced" its first law and order policy. Henare acknowledged his view was not the "party view", but indicated he provided his own opinion, which he "stands by". He also said he would continue to advocate for better legislation to support Māori communities and dismissed the criticism as another distraction by the government to "disguise their anti-Māori agenda". Ngarewa-Packer indicated it was symbolic of the different voices vying for the Tāmaki Makaurau seat. She told RNZ there were two different candidates and two different parties. Labour wouldn't push the "Māori agenda", she said. "They're going to push an agenda that, sadly, is focused on middle voters, so that's why we have to be in there." She hoped that distinction would be "disclosed" through the campaign. It was a "poignant reminder for Māori" that Labour would defend "a system", while Te Pāti Māori would "defend and transform our people". "That's a tough gig for Peeni to be in, to be really honest." Ngarewa-Packer said Henare may personally feel a certain way, but "he's got to toe the line," adding the talented, young Māori leader was "shackled". Deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni explained Labour had "no intention to repeal that legislation" and 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," she said. 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 we respect the mahi that he's doing." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
16 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.
NZ Herald
18 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government buying helicopters with Hellfire missiles, ‘precision kill system' as global tensions ramp up
New Zealand currently has Seasprite helicopters, which themselves have anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and machine guns. Collins took a model of the Seahawk helicopter into the House, telling reporters on the way in about a sonar buoy dangling off it 'that goes down into the ocean and detects things'. That could include submarines or 'drug shipments that multinational crime [organisations are] dropping off at various reefs as they do time to time'. She showed off the model as she explained the helicopters' capabilities. 'The five new Seahawks will replace the ageing Seasprite fleet, and when I say ageing, I mean four of these were around in the 1960s. I'm reliably assured that one of the airframes was actually used in the Korean War. 'The new air maritime helicopters are versatile at combat and deterrent capability to our naval fleet. It's the helicopter used by Australia, the United States, and seven other countries. 'These five Seahawks will increase the offensive and defensive capability and surveillance range of New Zealand's frigates, and ensure we're interoperable with our ally Australia, and our partner defence forces.' A Royal Australian Navy MH-60R from 725 Squadron launches a Hellfire missile in Florida, United States. Photo / Australian Defence Force Over recent years, Kiwis have been warned by various government agencies and ministers that the country is no longer in a benign strategic environment and is facing greater regional security challenges. A Ministry of Defence report last year said the 'use, and threat of use, of military power is increasingly shaping states' interactions' and explicitly stated that China's 'assertive pursuit of its strategic objectives is the new major driver for the new era of strategic competition among states'. Though China wasn't mentioned on Thursday, the deteriorating security environment was mentioned by both Collins and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters. 'It's really clear that we live in a very difficult time at the moment, and things that we would never have dreamed of 10 or 15 years ago are happening right now,' Collins said. 'We need to be very aware of the fact that anyone who thinks that we live in a benign strategic environment and wants to relive their glory days is obviously wrong.' Peters said, 'global tensions are increasing rapidly' and 'we must invest in our national security to ensure our economic prosperity'. He said the Government's Defence Capability Plan, of which today's investment announcement is part, allowed New Zealand 'to adapt to an ever-changing security environment'. Defence Minister Judith Collins brought a model helicopter into the House on Thursday. Photo / Adam Pearse But just last week, after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's deputy Foreign Affairs Minister said New Zealand didn't 'really need an Army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat'. Who are New Zealand's enemies? Collins wouldn't specify on Thursday, other than to say, anyone who wanted to hurt our interests. She indicated that could include other nations. Peters, on the topic of the new precision kill systems and New Zealand enemies, said, 'This is not a pacifist convention, we're talking about defence, hoping never to use it.' He said part of the purpose of the Defence Force was deterrence. 'The reason why you have defence is so you can secure [the country]. The number one obligation of any member of Parliament or Government is the safety and security of their people. If you can't meet that number one obligation, how many others are you going to fail on?' Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says tensions are rising. Photo / Mark Mitchell Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said there are 'bad people in the world' who are 'seeking to do harm to us'. 'Even as we speak, there are people online who are trying to disrupt New Zealand politics. They go into our communities and try and incite people. This kind of thing, unfortunately, is a reality.' Asked about the need for a precision kill system, Seymour suggested deterrence was critical. 'We are part of an alliance of countries who share our values, who value democracy and universal human rights, and we need the ability to deter people who might try and attack us,' Seymour said. 'Can New Zealand defend itself alone? No, it can't. Can we defend ourselves in an Anzac alliance? Maybe. Can we defend ourselves as a wider democratic alliance? Definitely. But we have to play our part. 'One of the deterrents to people who would attack us is that if they attack us, we might kill them. That's how wars work, unfortunately. I'd rather not have one, but that's how they work.' Labour's deputy leader, Carmel Sepuloni, said her party thought the defence investment was necessary but acknowledged there would be New Zealanders 'out there who think the optics of this are terrible' given cost-of-living pressures and teachers' strikes this week. The Greens' foreign affairs spokesman, Teanau Tuiono, said the Government was sending the 'wrong message'. 'Particularly at this point in time, in the middle of the cost of living crisis and teachers are striking, nurses are striking, and people are really concerned about that,' he said. 'Here's the thing, they always seem to be able to find money for military spending and not enough for food on the table.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
