Health Of The Hauraki Gulf Declines As Delay To Marine Protection Approaches One-year Mark
'It has been more than six months since the second reading of the Bill was interrupted, with no indication that it will be progressed any time soon.' says Nicola Rata-MacDonald, Co-Chair of the Forum.
'If the Bill is not passed next week, it will have been over a year since the Environment Select Committee unanimously recommended that the Bill be passed by the time Parliament reconvenes at the end of June.'
'Once passed, the new marine protections will enable us to make the most significant progress towards restoring the Gulf since the marine park was established over 25 years ago.'
Cr Warren Maher, Co-Chair of the Forum, says the constant stalling and postponement of legislative progress is impacting years of restoration efforts by communities across the Gulf.
'Constantly kicking the can down the road when we are so close to making real progress is a kick in the guts for everyone who has worked to ensure the Gulf is protected and restored.' Warren says.
'Our message to the Government is simple: pass the Bill, and let us get on with restoring the Gulf to ensure it thrives for generations to come.'
More information on the Forum and the Marine Park is available at www.gulfjournal.org.nz
Timeline: Progress of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill
22 August 2023: Bill introduced to Parliament.
29 August 2023: First reading and referral to the Environment Select Committee.
1 November 2023: Submissions closed.
6 December 2023: Bill reinstated with the Environment Select Committee following the 2023 General Election, and the Business Committee agrees that all bills before select committees shall be reported to the House by 29 March 2024.
31 January 2024: the date by which the Environment Committee must report the Bill back to the House is extended from 29 March 2024 to 29 May 2024.
March 2024: Environment Select Committee completes hearing of oral submissions on the Bill.
10 April 2024: the date by which the Environment Committee must report the Bill back to the House is extended from 29 May 2024 to 20 June 2024.
20 June 2024: Environment Committee reports the Bill to the House, with unanimous support for the Bill to be passed as reported.
13 October 2024: Minister of Conservation announces changes will be made to the Bill to allow commercial ring-net fishing within protected areas.
14 November 2024: Second reading (interrupted).
30 May 2025 (today): The Bill remains at its interrupted second reading stage, and the Government's intended changes are still to be published despite being announced 230 days ago.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Unions launch legal action over pay equity changes
When Associate Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith wrote his advice on whether the Government's pre-Budget changes to the pay equity regime breached human rights, he – likely unwittingly – provided those affected with a roadmap. 'The changes made by the Bill can be expected to have the effect of tightening access to the pay equity process and pay equity settlements,' he wrote in the document, known jargonistically as a BORA vet. These changes may result in someone facing discrimination based on their gender, he said. 'I have considered whether the combined effect of these changes may discriminate on the basis of sex by making it more difficult for a person to access a non-discriminatory rate of pay or to take steps to maintain pay equity.' But if that's the case, they could file a legal claim. 'On balance, I have concluded that these provisions do not engage s 19 because a person in this situation could still take court proceedings in order to obtain an effective remedy through other means – for example, seeking a remedy in the High Court for a breach of s19 of the Bill of Rights Act.' Cue the court case. On August 29, a collection of five unions will file their legal case with the High Court, claiming the coalition Government's controversial changes to pay equity legislation breach three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process. This comes hot on the heels of Māori health providers and the greyhound racing industry calling on the court to declare the coalition Government's changes have broken the law. The claim will see New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), Public Service Association (PSA), Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), NZEI Te Riu Roa primary teachers' union, and the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) seek declarations from the court that the Government's changes to pay equity law are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They will be represented by Rodney Harrison KC and Peter Cranney – the lawyer who argued Kristine Bartlett's precedent-setting pay equity case. These unions represent 24 of the 33 claims that were wiped when the coalition introduced legislation without consultation, and passed under urgency, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill ahead of the May Budget. The 33 claims are estimated to have covered more than 150,000 workers. The Government says this change has saved them from paying $13 billion of taxpayers' money in future wages and salaries to those working in female-dominated workforces, whose work has been historically under-valued due to gender-based discrimination. The Government also tightened the framework, by lifting the threshold for the percentage of women workers in a sector from 60 percent to 70 percent and changed the way equitable pay is determined through the comparator system. So far, no claims have been filed and all-but the nurses say they see no way towards bringing a successful claim under the new regime. 'This is about more than pay' In a press release, TEU national secretary Sandra Grey said: 'If Brooke van Velden and Christopher Luxon thought avoiding a select committee process would allow them to dodge accountability for stealing $12.8 billion from low paid women workers, we've got news for them.' Other union heads called it a 'kick in the guts'. And now the Government is faced with striking secondary teachers and nurses. On Budget Day, when talking about her decision to overhaul the pay equity regime, in the context of delivering a 'responsible budget', Finance Minister Nicola Willis said: 'In addition to pay equity settlements, the Government will fund future pay rises for women-dominated public-sector workforces through the normal collective bargaining process.' Last month, Health NZ offered nurses a 2 percent pay increase this year, followed by 1 percent next year. They then moved to strike. High school teachers were offered 1 percent. They have voted to begin rolling strikes next month. And primary teachers are due to meet this week over collective negotiations. The Government has come out swinging at striking public sector employees – by holdings press conferences scolding the nurses' and teachers' unions. Meanwhile, Public Service Minister Judith Collins has also made comments suggesting the coalition could be considering limiting the options open to those wanting to take industrial action; if true the Government could be looking to dampen one more mechanism used by female-dominated workforces to secure pay increases. Pay equity changes and the recent strike action are no doubt linked. The new regime effectively locks out the 25,000 secondary teachers who would have been covered by the teachers' pay equity claim, as the workforce doesn't reach the new 70 percent women workers threshold. 'Our claim was built on years of rigorous, evidence-based work, carried out in good faith under a process agreed with previous governments. To have that work discarded by political decree is a betrayal—not just of teachers, but of every woman in Aotearoa New Zealand whose work has been historically undervalued,' PPTA president Chris Abercrombie said. 'This is about more than pay. It's about whether our country honours its commitments to fairness, equity, and the rule of law. We will not stand by while those principles are trampled. Our members deserve better. Our students deserve better. And our democracy deserves better.' Govt 'undermined the judiciary' PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimmons told Newsroom this litigation was about getting a fair hearing. 'We know that the High Court will give us a fair hearing, and we will be advocating similar arguments in the High Court that we would have advocated had the government run a proper select committee process.' This legal action stood alongside the country's first ever people's select committee, which was hearing from communities affected by the pay equity changes. The committee, which kicked off last week, received more than 1500 submissions. The unions' claim would asks the court to rule the changes breached section 19 of the human rights law that says everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination – in this case, gender-based discrimination. But Fitzsimmons said the Government had also breached women workers' right to a fair legal process and the executive had 'undermined the judiciary'. The executive's decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority was inconsistent with the country's constitutional foundations, which clearly stipulated a separation of the different arms of government. A Treasury paper from December, released last month, laid out the Government's options for closing the funded sector contingency – the money set aside for covering pay equity settlements for those working in privately owned businesses, but in sectors that provided a public good and were largely funded by the Government, such as the aged care sector. The paper revealed that of the $12.8b estimated total pay equity costs over the forecast period, the funded sector contingency accounted for $9.6b of that (75 percent of estimated pay equity costs). Care and support workers (and one other redacted workforce) were described as the 'key claims with significant estimated costs' in the funded sector. The care and support workers claim had already been deemed to have merit under the previous pay equity framework, and Treasury officials pointed out the Employment Relations Authority had indicated it would hear the claim during the first week of May. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the changes on May 6, without prior warning or consultation – as care and support workers were preparing briefs of evidence for the authority. The legislation passed through all stages under urgency, with no select committee process. 'We have separation of powers in New Zealand,' Fitzsimmons said. 'And what we saw from the Government, under the cover of darkness and through urgency, was the cancelling of claims that the judicial arm was about to hear through the Employment Relations Authority.' Now many of these care and support workers were back on the minimum wage, she said. While the Government released pay equity documents at the end of last month, many of them included heavy redactions – especially when it came to legal advice. Fitzsimmons said this court process would uncover elements of those documents that had been withheld. 'We will see the full horror of the betrayal of New Zealand women by this government, and we will be taken seriously, and women will be given a voice.' What a win in court could mean While the High Court could rule that the Government's pay equity changes had breached human rights law, that doesn't mean the Government has to change the law. And the court has no power to tell the Government what it can and can't do when it comes to legislating. But Fitzsimmons tells Newsroom a win would still be a big deal. It would also add an immense amount of scrutiny to the law and the legislative process. If the court was to declare the pay equity changes are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act then Attorney-General Judith Collins would have to notify Parliament within six sitting days. From there, the matter would be referred to a select committee for scrutiny, where they would have four months to report back to Parliament. The Government would then have a further six months to present its response to the declaration and the committee's report, and from there a parliamentary debate would be held within the next six sitting days. 'The consequences for the Government and for Parliament are significant.' Legal challenges piling up The unions' legal challenge comes as the Government faces off in court against other aggrieved communities. The pay equity case will come after a High Court hearing of an unprecedented claim from a group of Māori health providers over the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. The providers, led by Lady Tureiti Moxon, are also calling on the court to declare the shutting of the Māori Health Authority breaches the Bill of Rights Act. And, in the first case of its kind, the group is also asking the court to declare the move inconsistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi. Last week, Greyhound Racing NZ had its case for interim relief heard, ahead of a more substantive judicial review of Cabinet's decision to ban greyhound racing in New Zealand. The decision, which was announced without consultation with the industry, didn't follow the proper process, making it unlawful, former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson KC told the High Court last Thursday. But those acting on behalf of the Crown – and ultimately Racing Minister Winston Peters – said the Government was within its rights to make a decision to ban greyhound racing on political ground, then legislate to do so. Crown lawyer Katherine Anderson KC raised the example where the Government had made a political decision to legislate, without consulting the affected communities, saying it was the executive's right to do so. This coalition has also faced a series of challenges at the Waitangi Tribunal, and it's unlikely these legal cases will be the last to come. Earlier this year, Newsroom revealed the Government would be reinstating a full prisoner voting ban. And last month the coalition announced it was overhauling voter registration, meaning voters would not be able to enrol or update their details in the 12 days ahead of election day. This move is expected to impact more than 100,000 people and disproportionately affect young people, Māori and Pasifika. Jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor, alongside the Human Rights Commission, successfully sought a declaration of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act last time a Government removed prisoners' right to vote. This led to a process that ultimately resulted in the previous Labour-led Government giving the vote to everyone who was serving a sentence of less than three years. It would be unsurprising to see someone take essentially the same case back to court when this new prisoner voting ban comes into effect, given the court's already ruled it breaches human rights law once before. Meanwhile, Attorney-General Judith Collins told her colleagues, including the minister responsible and her associate attorney-general Paul Goldsmith, that the proposed changes to voter enrolment breach the Bill of Rights Act, saying Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities will pay the 'heaviest price' by being disenfranchised. Once the law has passed, someone could call on the court to declare inconsistencies with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. A win in any of these cases doesn't necessitate a law change, but they will put the spotlight on the coalition's process and the weight it puts on human rights. The union's case will be filed at the High Court on August 29, alongside a protest rally held by women whose claims were cancelled.
Otago Daily Times
20 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee
Analysis by Phil Smith of RNZ Parliament's Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, had a rough week. He made a series of novel, escalating rulings, with later rulings to justify the earlier ones, all after, arguably, digging himself into a procedural hole. Any discussion of it should probably start at the beginning. First though, it is plainly not easy being Parliament's Speaker. Speakers are often a lightning rod for opprobrium and discontent - and that is when they're doing well. The role walks a tightrope, caught between two sides, trying to avoid one's own natural bias; attempting to maintain order in a chaotic House that has more attention-seeking rascals than haunt a teacher's worst nightmares. The inciting debate On Tuesday, the Speaker allowed an urgent debate on the issue of New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. The situation in Gaza is desperate and horrific, so understandably the debate was impassioned. It probably didn't help that National Party MPs declined to contribute any speeches to the debate. Very strong language was frequent. Labour's Peeni Henare asked "how many more people will die because of the government dragging its heels?" and accused the government of "walking blissfully into the sunset of ignorance". ACT's Simon Court accused MPs of bandying around "Hamas propaganda", described Chlöe Swarbrick's description of the situation in Gaza as "hallucinating outrage", and intimated that the UN agency UNRWA was "enabling terrorism". Labour's Vanushi Walters accused the government of waiting "until the very last possible moment to make the morally correct decision". Te Pāti Māori's Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said "this is ethnic cleansing. This is genocide and apartheid, and I have never been more ashamed to be in the House than I am today." What irked the Speaker, though, was some rhetoric from Green Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick who said, "I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history". Gerry Brownlee interjected, saying: "that is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise". Swarbrick declined to do so, and the Speaker ruled "then leave the House for the rest of the week". Hansard, which describes Parliament with Georgian nicety, records that "Chlöe Swarbrick withdrew from the Chamber." 'Spineless' There were a few different elements to that ruling, and its immediate aftermath. Let's take them in order. A wag might point out that, on paper, the ruling from the Speaker was that hoping to find six governing-party MPs with a spine was "unacceptable". Of course it was the implication rather than the literal phrase that he found problematic. The Speaker later remembered the offending phrase as that governing MPs were "spineless", which is easier to say - so let's go with that. There are many examples of MPs using similar language in Parliament to describe an MP's opponents: "get a spine", "have the guts", "spineless", "gutless", etcetera. They have been made on both sides of the House, including a few times this Parliament. Sometimes MPs are told off, sometimes no one notices. One previous Speaker, when an MP complained about the use of "spineless", ruled that the term was not disallowed at all. Upon request, the Parliamentary Library collated 17 pages of recent examples, and it wasn't exhaustive. Other claims are much more assured of getting an MP in trouble. Particularly implying dishonesty, lying, or corruption. I found no reference to insults relating to bravery in the collected Speakers' Rulings that, akin to common law, guides interpretation of Parliament's rules. Swarbrick was definitely taking a swipe, but she was also calling on governing-party MPs to break ranks and vote for a Green bill. It's an old and ineffectual political tactic - insulting your opponent into joining you. On the other hand, doing what Swarbrick suggested would take an unusually strong spine. Disobeying your own party to vote with the opposition is very rare. Tariana Turia and Marilyn Waring had spines of steel. Ejection, overreach and justification Gerry Brownlee's typical approach is to gently reprove MPs, telling them not to repeat poor behaviour - sometimes repeatedly, and with repeated final warnings. Occasionally an MP is asked to "withdraw and apologise" which is genteel parliamentary language for taking back a remark. Refusing to withdraw a remark is considered highly disorderly, whatever was said. When that happens MPs are usually asked to leave the House. But the Speaker overreacted. Speakers are only empowered to eject an MP for a single day. Gerry Brownlee jumping straight into a week's absence brought to mind the speech that former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe gave in June, when arguing against the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation to impose unprecedented punishments on three Te Pāti Māori MPs. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt-a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. You can also guarantee that governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents." A little while after Swarbrick had departed the Green's musterer Ricardo Menéndez March pointed out the punishment itself was against the rules. The Speaker returned to the Chamber, not to retract, but to justify his mistake with a brand new rule (emphasis added). "The comment that I made was that it could be for the rest of the week. That was because, while it is true the member can only be removed from the House for the sitting day, the requirement for an apology does not lapse. And so if the member comes back in tomorrow and, at the start of proceedings after the prayer, takes a Point of Order and withdraws and apologises for the offensive remark, then that will be fine. If she doesn't, then she'll be leaving the House again. "I'm not going to sit in this Chair and tolerate a member standing on her feet or his feet or their feet and saying that other members in the House are spineless. That is completely unacceptable. I made it very clear at the start of the special debate that I expected it to be conducted in a manner that was respectful of the various views that are held across the House. So I've come back in here to make it absolutely clear that there is still an expectation that there will be a withdrawal and apology; and until there is one, then the status quo will continue." Arguably, that explanation dug the procedural hole deeper. Brownlee was now demanding an apology before Swarbrick would be allowed to return. That could turn a day-long suspension into a permanent one if the MP in question decided it was an issue on which they wouldn't back down. Searching back more than 22 years and at least 585 MPs ejected from the chamber, Parliament's Library couldn't find any example of a Speaker demanding an apology before an MP could return. There's a reason for that - Brownlee's demand directly contradicts a current Speaker's Ruling (ruling 21/1, from Speaker Hunt in 2001), which concludes "where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point". Brownlee's insisting on an apology before an MP can return is both new and, in this case, retrospective and retroactive. Parliament, as an institution generally frowns on retrospective law. Gerry Brownlee has, in the past, described laws that may have effect prior to their passing as "dopey" and "the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have". Ejection redux: Naming On Wednesday, the House began with the Speaker inviting Swarbrick again to "withdraw and apologise for an offensive comment made in the House yesterday". She declined again. Therefore, he again required her to leave the chamber. At this point Chris Hipkins tried to raise a Point of Order, but the Speaker declined to hear it. A very brief standoff ensued when Swarbrick stayed put, which only escalated things further. The Speaker asked "Is the member refusing to leave the House?" No response was recorded in the video or Hansard. Brownlee continued, "I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick". Naming is more serious than just being kicked out. It includes a loss of both a day's wages and the ability to vote or participate in committees or the House. Only the House can name a member, so a vote was required. The vote was contested and a party vote showed the governing parties in favour and opposition parties against. Swarbrick departed to a call of "Free Palestine" and some applause. Brownlee is a former classroom teacher, and - nodding back to the metaphor we began with - it's not a great sign when a teacher ejects a student from class and the departing student is applauded on their way. Once Swarbrick had departed Chris Hipkins rose again with a Point of Order. Parliament's rules (The Standing Orders) include a specific wording for the vote to name a member. Brownlee had evidently been flustered and bumbled it. "So I wonder," asked Hipkins, "whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was, because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does". This brings to mind Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride telling Vizzini "I do not think it means what you think it means". Inconceivable! Brownlee had a second crack at it, and there was another vote, with the same result. Reflections on the Speaker Chris Hipkins rose again with a second Point of Order, which began a broader discussion about the correctness and appropriateness of the Speaker's ruling. This itself was unusual. When an issue has been raised in the House it is not unusual for there to be a few contesting Points of Order before the Speaker makes a ruling. But after a Speaker makes a ruling such challenges are only allowed formally, by a later motion with notice (Speakers' Ruling 25/1). By contrast, on Wednesday there was an extended debate on the appropriateness and the correctness of the Speaker's fractions and rulings. That debate only drew out more contestable rulings. The core of Hipkins' Point of Order was whether the Speaker, in demanding an apology the following day, was acting in contravention of the rules. "I've been in the House quite a long time and there have been plenty of instances where members have been ejected from the Chamber for the rest of the day for doing exactly what Chlöe Swarbrick did. There is not a single instance where a member has been asked to withdraw and apologise the following sitting day, and then named for not doing that. "There has only been one instance that I can recall where a member was subsequently asked to withdraw a comment, and that was the Rt Hon John Key when he said that members of the Opposition supported rapists and murderers. At the time, he received a standing ovation from the National Party. That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost. "I think the naming of a member for something they had done the day before is not something that has ever happened in the House before. I wonder whether you can reflect on what precedent or Standing Order you're relying on in asking Chlöe Swarbrick to apologise for something [done] the day before, because I did check the Speakers' Rulings, and Jonathan Hunt back in 2001 specifically ruled that 'where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point' [Speakers Ruling 21/1]. So that has been the established practice of the House since 2001, and I wonder if you could indicate why that has changed." Speakers' Rulings referenced in this article are quoted in full at the bottom. Brownlee responded "because the Standing Orders Committee met in July of 2017 and brought down a new Speaker's ruling, Speaker's Ruling 23/1. I refer the member to that." A new Speaker's Ruling (23/1) was added in 2017, but it has two problems. Firstly, it plainly did not supersede the 21/1 ruling (that being sent out is the end of the matter), because 21/1 is still extant in the Speaker's Rulings. Kieran McAnulty also pointed out the contradiction. Brownlee disagreed. Furthermore, 23/1 doesn't seem at all relevant. It reflects the John Key situation that Hipkins referred to. It allows a Speaker to deal with a situation retrospectively but assumes it hasn't already been dealt with. And it has conditions. It is to be used only in serious cases, and only where not doing so would have a continued impact on the House's ability to conduct its business. In the John Key situation the Opposition were so offended at the Speaker's refusal to demand a retraction that they walked out en masse. The Speaker asked Key to apologise later to restore order. The Swarbrick situation had been dealt with at the time. Unlike Key, Swarbrick had been ejected from the Chamber. Hipkins and Menéndez March both argued against this unusual ruling. Menéndez March immediately and Hipkins later. Hipkins argued that "The [23/1] ruling ... specifically states that the threshold should be very, very high for that type of action. There was no disorder in the House once Chlöe Swarbrick had left yesterday, nor was there any today. The very high threshold that was envisaged by the Standing Orders Committee at the time certainly does not appear to have been met in this instance." Menéndez March, referring to the condition that acting retrospectively was only allowable if not doing so would affect the House's ability to function, asked: "Is it your view that this meets that threshold?" The Speaker's answer to Menéndez March took the debate somewhere new. Unprecedented? The Speaker did not attempt to argue the facts or the rules, he went with a claim that Swarbrick's behaviour was ... newly offensive. "If that's how the member wants to take it, but if you think about the comment that was made, 68 members of this House were accused of being spineless. There has never been a time when personal insults like that delivered inside a speech were accepted by this House, and I'm not about to start accepting it." Setting standards in the Debating Chamber is the Speaker's prerogative, but it was far from the first time that such a comment had been made. Remember the 17 pages of occasions referenced by the library? Gerry Brownlee has himself questioned the courage of his opponents en masse, but couched in slightly politer terms. First on his feet to respond was an unexpected ally for the Opposition - Winston Peters (who typically has no time for the Greens). "Mr Speaker, I've been in this House when a Prime Minister accused the Opposition of [needing to] '[get] some guts' - it was a serious accusation; nothing happened - and then, worse, I've heard the "c" word being accepted as language that can be used in this House. My personal view is that I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted. That's my position." As it happens, the "c" word, as Peters referred to it, was used again later in this debate without remark. Winston Peters' confidence may come from the fact that he himself has called governments and government MPs spineless, in both a General Debate and in Question Time - without punishment. On the other hand, confusingly, his party had also just voted that Swarbrick be "named". As a result of that contradiction, Menéndez March inquired whether the vote to name Swarbrick could be taken again. The Speaker did not allow this. Brownlee did not respond to Peters' opinion, other than to introduce some context for the new interpretation of Parliament's rules. The Speaker's context, and a new decency? "There [are] considerable efforts being made at the moment," said Brownlee, "across the Parliamentary Service to deal with what might be described as cyberbullying, and, essentially, what it comes down to is a question of: 'what standard does the House want to set for itself?' I've decided that there are two things that can be looked at. One is that if there are interjections across the House and they are reactionary ... then that is not as egregious as someone taking their speaking time to include a gratuitous insult inside a speech. That is, in my opinion, from this point on-while I'm in the Chair-unacceptable. I take the point the member makes about the House being a robust place-it most certainly is. But if members are going to be disrespectful of one another in such a demonstrable way, then how on earth can we be upset about members of the public taking a similar approach to dealing with MPs?" Within the above quote is another new edict from the Speaker (emphasis added). The Speaker also noted on Wednesday that, in the wake of Tuesday's Palestine Debate and his ejection of Swarbrick, he had raised the issue in the cross-party Business Committee. "There's a point where things change, and I've reached the conclusion that we had so many threats and other stuff being directed at members of Parliament that if we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside. So that is part of my rationale as well, and I made that very clear to the Business Committee yesterday." The Speaker participated in a recent forum with other MPs on the subject of cyberbullying. We reported on it at the time. Apparently, he took to heart the impact of hateful communication on some (particularly female) MPs. It is well-intentioned to posit that if MPs were polite about each other's policies and beliefs, then trolls and lunatics would no longer send them hate mail and death-threats. It seems a little hopeful, but modelling respectful behaviour is a nice start. However, opting to begin a campaign to make female MPs feel safe by coming down like a tonne of bricks on a female MP, (probably one of the female MPs most commonly attacked online), may have missed the mark. Regardless, the Speaker's role includes maintaining "order and decorum in the House", so setting standards (within the rules), is fair enough. But again, while the intent is good, it is a post-hoc ruling, and given after the punishment. If that ruling and warning had been made before he sanctioned Swarbrick it may have made a lot more sense to everyone. The debate with the Speaker on this matter continued for quite a while. We can't include it all. But two more moments are worthy of note. First, Kieran McAnulty wondered how a punishment could be escalated when the original punishment was itself outside the rules. Brownlee's response included more new rules. "...The fact that someone is asked to leave the House for a comment that has caused offence, and they do so for that day, does not mean that the offence has gone away. That can be a new thing written into the Speakers' rulings, if that's what it takes ... and there is a huge difference between the sort of commentary that you get by way of interjection-which should be rare and has become far too frequent-and a comment that is inside a speech delivered deliberately to the House." Those are both new ideas, and again, they are retroactive. One more moment worthy of noting was when Labour maverick Willie Jackson offered his own experience. "With respect, I think that this is outrageous. I ask you, with respect, to reconsider this, given that you have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes and you gave a direction that I could come back into the House. We need some clarity on this. This is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and asked to come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required. ... I did not apologise and I would never apologise." Possibly at the core of all of this is a confluence of factors. The war in Gaza is a highly emotive issue, and, as Brownlee termed it, a "tragedy of humanity". It's surely an issue where every MP, regardless of their current relative power, probably feels powerless to genuinely effect useful change. That combination of impotence and tragedy is quite a tinderbox to toss provocations into. There were plenty of provocations. In retrospect it seems odd that, of all the statements made in Tuesday's Palestine Debate, the Speaker did not react to Simon Court accusing MPs of repeating "Hamas propaganda"; or Peeni Hemare claiming that people were dying "as a result of" the government's reluctance to act. He did though ask Court to withdraw his claim that Swarbrick was "hallucinating outrage". Instead it was a challenge to not be spineless that sparked the whole affair. As the Speaker admitted, it was a very personal reaction: "That, I think, in the context of that debate, was completely unacceptable, and - I've got to be quite straight up with you - I personally found it deeply offensive." Spare a thought for Parliament's Clerk's who will have the job of untangling all those new rulings and deciding which to include in the official guide to Speaker's Rulings, and which rules they may supersede. Speakers' Rulings referenced above Speakers Rulings are a collection of important decisions made by various past Speakers that are used to guide the current interpretation of the Parliament rules (The Standing Orders). They are akin to the Common Law of previous judicial decisions that can influence future interpretation of legislation in the courts. 21/1 Where a member has been asked to apologise and has left the Chamber rather than comply, the Speaker always insists that the member return to the Chamber and apologise. Members cannot avoid complying with the Speaker's direction by just leaving the Chamber. (But where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point). 2001, Vol. 596, p.13100. Hunt. 23/1 We consider, however, that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it important and in the House's interests to do so. The Speaker's primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House's ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address the matter. Retrospective intervention by the Speaker should be infrequent and used only in serious cases. In such situations, the Speaker could ask the offending member to withdraw and apologise, or could take stronger action if necessary. Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker, outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed, and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still, of course, a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. Report of the Standing Orders Committee, July 2017 (I.18A), p. 14. 25/1 (1) The Speaker's ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice; (2) such notice cannot be accepted immediately after the ruling has been given. It must be given at the appropriate time. (1) 1891, Vol. 72, p. 7. Steward. 1903, Vol. 125, p. 523. Guinness. 1931, Vol. 228, p. 725. Statham. 2017, Vol. 726, p. 733. Mallard. (2) 1960, Vol. 322, pp. 161-62. Macfarlane.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
The House chips away at lawmaking, amid distractions
Photo: 123RF A brouhaha about unparliamentary language, an eviction from the House, and apologies, or a lack of them, stole the spotlight from the legislative agenda this week at Parliament. At the beginning of the week, the government had planned to get through as many as 12 legislative stages. By the time the MPs were allowed to go home on Thursday evening, the House had completed just seven of those scheduled debates. After a fiery Question Time and an even fierier Urgent Debate on Palestinian statehood , the legislative agenda began on Tuesday with two new bills. The first, a relatively uncontentious regulatory systems bill for internal affairs, making minor technical changes; and the second, a bill trying to curb 'antisocial' conduct while operating a vehicle. The Greens opposed the Transport Bill, but without their usual Labour ally. Labour had agreed to support the bill, at least to select committee, with the caveat that the committee would be Transport and Infrastructure, rather than Justice. With the first two readings out of the way in just under an hour, the government was making good time on its business. Enter the committee stage of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, when progress got a whole lot slower. The opposition interrogated the minister in charge, Chris Bishop, over what they described as controversial last-minute amendments, one of which would allow farmers to pollute waterways without consent. The House spent all of Tuesday night and most of Wednesday evening debating that bill, before moving on to the committee stage of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, which they eventually finished on Thursday morning, thanks to an extended sitting. Thursday afternoon saw the completion of three stages: To learn more about the bills that are going through Parliament this sitting block, have a look at our article from earlier in the week . RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, its legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
