Latest news with #HanaRawhitiMaipiClarke
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Categories and strategy: The path of Parliament's members' bills
The biscuit tin that members' bills are drawn randomly from at Parliament. Photo: Supplied / Office of the Clerk Some of the most socially significant law in Parliament's history originated as a member's bill. Without luck in the members' bill ballot, it is possible that gay law reform, marriage equality, end-of-life choice, or anti-smacking law reform would have waited years, deemed too controversial. But not all members' bills are social blockbusters. Many have less lofty ambitions. Members' bills often correct gaps in legislation or close loopholes - you might call them tidy-ups. They can also be political statements; to tautoko (support and affirm) party policy, or offer a counter-response to it. Bills that could be seen as examples of this are Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's Members of Parliament (Duty to Uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi) Legislation Bill / Te Pire mō Te Here ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or Hamish Campbell's Gang Free Ports Bill. Members' bills from governing-party back-benchers often have very narrow policy aims, but their very presence has a purpose, to reduce the odds of opposition bills being picked. The House chatted to National's Andrew Bayly and Labour's Phil Twyford (who have a total of 26 years of Parliamentary experience between them), about the political strategy behind what bills go into the ballot. Parliament's agenda is dominated by government bills - legislation agreed by Cabinet and put forward by government ministers to enact government policy. Non-ministers can also propose laws. Any backbench MP (non-minister) can develop an idea for a law change, write a draft bill, and submit it to Parliament's Table Office. Usually that takes the form of a member's bill. (Local bills and private bills are two other types of non-government bills.) The difficult part? Being lucky enough to have your bill drawn from the ballot. Only eight bills are available to debate at a time, from about 90 sitting in the old biscuit tin used to draw the ballot. From Bayly's perspective, members' bills generally fall into one of three types. "The first one," he says, "is backbenchers who see the opportunity to test some thinking, which they might want to put into legislation." Andrew Bayly (file photo) Photo: RNZ / Anneke Smith "Secondly, there are sort of additions to existing legislation that people want to seek clarification on, so they might be technical in nature or have some benefit when it comes to interpretation. For instance, [the current law is] not working well, it needs to be improved. "The third [type] are slightly off [from] traditional government thinking, but they are nonetheless maybe the cause of the day, and those are the ones that can extend where we are in terms of debate into new areas, and they are the more adventurous ones." Bayly's counterpart across the aisle, Phil Twyford, reckons members' bills are one of the few opportunities MPs get to break out of the confines of the partisan default they generally follow at Parliament. Phil Twyford (file photo) Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "Our parliamentary system," Twyford suggests, "is so dominated by political parties that exercise discipline and whip their MPs to vote on a party line. Members' bills have a really important function in our system because they provide a little bit of an outlet. They allow individual MPs to have a go, and to try to get some new law made outside of the party discipline." Twyford suggests that with the introduction of MMP came the hope that lawmaking would be a bit more bipartisan. The reality, he says, is that MPs are still very much locked in to their parties. "I think that members' bills offer a little glimpse of how the world could be a little bit different and a bit more spontaneous, a bit more interesting." Members' bills, while a valuable tool for any MP, perhaps mean that little bit more to opposition MPs, who have less influence in a legislature dominated by the governing parties. This also means, Bayly suggests, that they can "be a bit more adventurous". Of course, being adventurous doesn't always equate to being successful. Members' bills still need to receive a majority of MP votes in the House, which for opposition MPs is rare but certainly not unachievable. Twyford's Labour colleague, Camilla Belich, recently won support for a member's bill that made employer theft of employee wages a crime . Twyford believes it is a bill "the government wouldn't have usually supported". He says that as an opposition MP, "that's kind of a special thing". Belich's bill even split the governing coalition partners (New Zealand First voted with the Opposition in support; National and ACT voted against). Members' bills can be divisive, even within parties, especially if they relate to social or conscience issues. Bayly says those bills have the potential to "cut that social strata right across the whole party, and in many cases, there are certain issues that people have a personal vote on, even within caucuses". Traditionally these personal votes have been for bills relating to alcohol, drugs, religion, sex, abortion and so on, and they can originate from an MP anywhere on the political spectrum. Members' bills are free to deal with all the trickiest issues. They can't do everything though. Bills with ideas that would rely on a big investment of money can be vetoed by the government, even if they are passed in the House. Governments can adopt a member's bill as their own, though it might be changed as part of the process. "[In government] you are sort of tied down into a different type of bill", Bayly says. "For instance, we've just got a new bill around phone (social media) usage and things like that for under-16-year-olds, which has come through, and is actually going to be adopted as a government piece of legislation . It can be quite useful in terms of driving the social agenda, but also government agenda over time." If the government might adopt your bill anyway, why not go straight to the boss with your idea? The answer, Bayly suggests, comes down to the fact that Parliament's legislative agenda is jam-packed. "Traditionally, we pass between about 80 and 100 bills a year, and all ministers are trying to get bills up. A lot of these [members' bills] are outside this normal cycle of going through the update of the regulatory system, and therefore, [members' bills are] a way to interject and make a change much more quickly outside of that cycle." So you've got your bright idea that you want to turn into a member's bill, what next? "This place is very collective and very tribal," Twyford says. "Group discipline is everything and I'm sure it's the same for all the parties. If an individual's got a bright idea, you have to take it to caucus, usually to a caucus committee, and get your colleagues' agreement before you are given the license to go and put it in the biscuit tin." Once your idea is sound, and your colleagues are okay with it, then you put pen to paper, and draft an actual piece of proposed legislation. This is the "nub of the work" in creating a member's bill, Bayly says. "[It's important to] draft it in a way that is appropriate and actually gets to the issue, and as the Parliamentary Counsel Office (which does all the legal drafting here in New Zealand) will tell you, it's pretty hard to do that appropriately." (The Parliamentary Counsel Office only drafts government bills, but MPs can get assistance from the Office of the Clerk for non-government bills.) Once you're satisfied the bill has been drafted "appropriately", (as Bayly put it), you knock on wood, wear your lucky tie, keep a rabbit's foot, and play the waiting game to see if it is drawn from the tin and added to the Order Paper for debate. Some MPs are lucky and get multiple bills picked from the ballot, other MPs pass long careers in Parliament without a single member's bill chosen. If your bill gets drawn and survives a first reading, then Bayly says, "you've got to go into the select committee, and often the [departmental] officials look at your bill and think it's a bit of a nuisance for them and [they] may actually be [against it progressing, as well as there being possible opposition from], government ministers or members. So, you know, it's not an easy road, but it's great when it happens." To listen to the full interview with Phil Twyford and Andrew Bayly, click the link near the top of the page. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, 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.
RNZ News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Privileges debate shortened: What was said so far?
Judith Collins begins the debate on the report of the Privileges Committee. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith To the surprise of the Opposition, and likely anyone watching Parliament TV, the highly anticipated debate on the report from the Privileges Committee was cut short on Tuesday after the government moved to adjourn the debate after just 25 minutes and two debate speeches. The report being debated yesterday concerns recommendations from the inquiry into the haka performed by various MPs during the vote on the first reading of the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill, in November 2024. The Privileges Committee report recommends that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the House for seven days, and that Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngawera-Packer be severely censured and receive an unprecedented suspension of 21 days. The government's decision to adjourn the debate and postpone it until after Thursday's budget was explained by Leader of the House Chris Bishop as a way of allowing Te Pāti Māori members to participate in the Budget Debate - a key opportunity for Opposition parties to hold the government to account. "There is no more important role for Parliament than scrutinising and debating the budget," Bishop said. "Constitutionally, it is right that they participate, so we are moving to adjourn the debate so that this week can focus rightly on the budget and the details of it rather than this issue, which has occupied far too much of Parliament's time already." There's already been plenty of coverage and analysis about the tactics and what was left unsaid after the surprise postponement. So what was said in the 20 minutes of the debate before Bishop made the adjournment motion? As there were only two speeches given, space will allow the entirety of both of them, as reported by Hansard. Tuesday's debate started with a speech from the Committee chairperson, National's Judith Collins. This is normal form. The chair delivers a summary of the committee's report. This occasion was unusual in that the committee report was not a consensus decision, but one agreed by the majority-holding MPs from governing parties. The initial responding speech, also reproduced below, was from Leader of the Opposition Chris Hipkins. National MP Judith Collins speaking during the initial Privileges Committee debate regarding the Te Pāti Māori protest haka. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith I move that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the House for seven days for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty; That Debbie Ngarewa-Packer be severely censured by the House and suspended from the service of the House for 21 days for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty; And that Rawiri Waititi be severely censured by the House and suspended from the service of the House for 21 days for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty. These recommendations follow the Speaker's ruling on 10 December 2024 that a question of privilege arose from the actions of the Hon Peeni Henare, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi following the first reading debate on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on 14 November 2024. At the conclusion of that debate and during the vote the four members left their seats to perform the haka, and three of the members advanced towards the seats of another party, something the Speaker has ruled cannot be considered anything other than disorderly. All four MPs were referred to the Privileges Committee and subsequently invited to appear before it. Mr Henare did so, and he accepted he should not have left his seat. The committee recommended he apologise to the House for acting in a disorderly manner that disrupted a vote being taken and impeded the House in its functions, and he unreservedly did so on 25 March 2025. However, the three other MPs declined to appear before the committee, ostensibly because the committee rejected their request to appear together rather than individually while clarifying that each member would be able to attend in the public gallery. The committee wanted to appear individually as it considered that would be of most assistance to it in considering the question of privilege. It especially wanted to clarify whether there was any premeditation behind the actions, given Ms Maipi-Clarke told media Mr Waititi was supposed to rip up the bill and start the haka but instead handed it to her to do so. The committee sought to arrange hearings twice more but the members declined each opportunity. We have therefore had to consider this matter based on observations on 14 November, including video footage. This footage clearly shows Ms Maipi-Clarke casting her party's vote before proceeding to rip up the bill and start a haka. The Speaker can be heard saying, "No, don't do that.", before rising to his feet. However, a number of Opposition party members then rose to their feet and joined Ms Maipi-Clarke in performing the haka, with Ms Maipi-Clarke, Mr Henare, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi leaving their seats. Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi moved across the Chamber floor to face members of the ACT Party, who were seated at their desks. Ms Ngarewa-Packer approached the front of the ACT Party desks and while performing the haka, pointed at ACT Party members using a hand gesture similar to a finger gun. At the conclusion of the haka, Ms Ngarewa-Packer repeated the gesture and, simulating a firing motion, said, "E noho", or "Sit down." The Speaker suspended the sitting of the House. When the House resumed nearly 30 minutes later, the Speaker ruled that Ms Maipi-Clarke's conduct was "appallingly disrespectful" and "grossly disorderly". He moved that Ms Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the House and the motion was agreed to. Based on our review of the video footage, we considered that the facts of the matter are clear and occurred as I have already outlined. We invited Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi to provide written evidence and they jointly responded, saying, in essence, that their actions were an expression of tikanga, upholding the values and obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and their tino rangatiratanga. One of their arguments was that tikanga Māori and haka were not matters for the Privileges Committee to consider. On this, the committee agrees with them. It is not there to set or debate the rules of Parliament but, rather, to uphold the rules as they are, not as some people may wish them to be. To be clear: the haka is not banned in the House. However, the rules of Parliament-the Standing Orders-under which it operates state that permission has first to be obtained from the Speaker and that any actions must not impede the business of the House. No such permission was sought for the 14 November haka, and it most certainly did impede the business of the House as it was carried out during a vote. The ensuing chaos led to the Speaker suspending the House for nearly 30 minutes - so here we are at the crux of the matter. It is not about haka. It is not about tikanga. It is not about the Treaty of Waitangi. It is about following the rules of Parliament that we are all obliged to follow and that we all pledged to follow. It does not matter our gender, our ethnicity, or our beliefs; in this House we are all simply members of Parliament and, like any institution, it has rules. The Standing Orders already include severe penalties for people who break the rules, without the requirement to even go to the Privileges Committee. For example, any member who is suspended under Standing Order 92 that subsequently refuses to obey the Speaker's direction to leave the Chamber, can be suspended from the House for the remainder of the calendar year without further question. I'm quoting from Standing Order 95, for the avoidance of doubt. In this instance, the Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee, which subsequently carried out a thorough inquiry over six months before coming to a majority decision. Make no mistake: this was a very serious incident, the likes of which I have never before seen in my 23 years in this debating chamber. I am a robust debater, as many of you will know, but I follow the rules of this institution and I am a proud member of it, and I appreciate and accept that my views are not those of all in this House. And that is why we are the House of Representatives. We cannot bring this House into disrepute by ignoring those rules, especially if it results in other members being intimidated, and that is exactly what happened on 14 November 2024. The behaviour of Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi was such that it could have the effect of intimidating other members of the House acting in the discharge of their duties. It is highly disorderly for members to interrupt a vote while it is being conducted. The right to cast one's vote without impediment goes to the heart of being a member of Parliament. It is not acceptable to physically approach another member on the floor of the debating chamber. It is particularly unacceptable for Ms Ngarewa-Packer to appear to simulate firing a gun at another member of Parliament. We, therefore, by majority, find that all three members have each committed a contempt of the House, and we are recommending the penalties as I have already laid out. After six months of meetings and hearings, which all committee members participated in in a professional manner and with civility, it is disappointing to now hear personal attacks and allegations of racism. I utterly reject that. We have simply done our job. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour Leader Chris Hipkins speaking during the initial Privileges Committee debate regarding the Te Pāti Māori protest haka. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith I move that all the words after the first instance of "That" be replaced with "Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi be censured by the House for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty, and that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi be suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours, to take effect on the first sitting day following the conclusion of the Budget debate, and that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke face no further sanction, having already served a period of suspension." This is a serious matter. Deliberately disrupting the business of the House is serious, interrupting a vote of Parliament is serious, and I would say to the Māori Party that when you interrupt a vote of the House, you're not just interrupting the votes of those who are voting in favour; you're interrupting the votes of those who are voting against something as well. All members of the House deserve to have their votes recorded, and when members deliberately disrupt the House, there should be some sanction for doing so. It is never okay to intimidate another member of the House. But the sanction being proposed by the Privileges Committee is totally out of line with existing parliamentary practice and is disproportionate to the allegations that have been posed. Let's be clear about what the Māori Party are not being sanctioned for. They are not being sanctioned for doing a haka, because haka have been performed in this House and that is acceptable. They are also not being sanctioned for refusing to appear before the Privileges Committee, because that is completely legitimate, as well. No one is obliged to appear before the Privileges Committee and the Māori Party chose not to, and that is their right and they should not be sanctioned for that. They are being sanctioned because they broke the rules of the House, they behaved in a disorderly manner, and they interrupted a vote of the Parliament, and there should be a sanction for that. But we have never seen a sanction of this nature in New Zealand's history before. We've had members undertaking fist fights in the lobbies, and they were not suspended at all; we've had members driving tractors and Land Rovers up the front steps of Parliament, and they were not sanctioned; we have had a recent case where a member left their chair, walked to the other side of the House, and stood over a member and thumped the table, and they were not sanctioned by the House; we've had a recent instance in this term of Parliament where a member was prevented from leaving a select committee because another member was standing over him, and they were not sanctioned by this House, and yet we seem to have gone from a situation where members were not sanctioned to one where a 21-day sanction-the harshest by a factor of seven-is being applied to these members. It is disproportionate. A sanction is appropriate; this level of sanction simply is not. I draw on the advice that was provided by the Clerk of the House to the committee. The Clerk's job is to provide advice to the Parliament on its proceedings in a way that is not political but that upholds the traditions and the conventions of this House, and the Clerk made the advice clear that suspension of members is a rare occurrence and that a long period of suspension would represent a substantial change in the House's practice. Let's be clear: the recommendation of the Privileges Committee is exactly that. The Clerk further advised that the committee ought to recommend a long suspension only with the broad support of members, not simply a bare majority. That has not happened in this case. The Clerk also advised that the committee should clearly set out its rationale in arriving at the particular penalty so that a consistent approach could be followed in the future. I've read the report several times. There is no rationale. There is no criteria that could be followed in the future. This is an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air. How can that possibly stand in this Parliament? Why do we choose a 24-hour suspension? It's quite simple, Mr Speaker: because it's already in the Standing Orders. Had you, as Speaker, named those members at the time, given this is the first instance in which they had been named, they would have been suspended for 24 hours, as one of the members was. If they did it again, they'd be suspended for seven days, and if they did it again, they'd be suspended for 28 days. Those are the existing rules of the House. The Privileges Committee is departing from the well-established practice of this House in its recommendations, and the sanction they are proposing is totally disproportionate. It is wrong and against the traditions of our democracy for a government to use its majority in Parliament to suspend and remove from the service of the people of New Zealand its political opponents. The reason the Clerk advised that the committee should seek near unanimity on this matter is because of exactly that. Other parliaments around the world have seen members of the Opposition suspended by the Government, and we in many cases have criticised them for doing that. What moral authority will we have to do that again in the future if this House engages in exactly the practice we criticise other countries for doing? I am not defending the Māori Party, and I'm not saying that their actions should be without sanction - they should be. They motion that we have put forward would see them sanctioned in line with the previous practice of this House, and that would be appropriate. Departing from that and imposing the harshest sanction the New Zealand Parliament ever would have imposed would be wrong. I was absolutely shocked to learn that a member of the Privileges Committee asked about the committee's supposed power to imprison a member of the House. That happens in tinpot dictatorships and banana republics. No member of this House should be inquiring about whether they can imprison a member of their Opposition. It is undemocratic and it is wrong, and the fact that the question was even asked is a stain on this House. Respect for democracy means respecting the rights of all members of Parliament, who are elected by their people, to represent them in this House. Taking away that right should be only after a very, very high threshold has been met, but the government haven't even articulated what that threshold should be. If they are going to impose the harshest sentence ever recommended by the Privileges Committee, they should be very clear on what the criteria were that they weighed that against, and they have not done that. They should be very clear on what the future criteria for this nature of sentence - if you like - should be, and they have not done that, either. They are accusing one party of breaking the rules of Parliament - which I happen to agree they did - whilst also not following the rules themselves. Any moral authority they want to claim here has been severely diminished by the fact that they themselves are not following the existing rules of the House. The sanctions that this House imposes are set in the Standing Orders - 24 hours, seven days, 28 days; in that order - and the Privileges Committee have not followed that. But the last point I want to make is perhaps the most important of all. Looking around the world - and I say this to all members on all sides of the House - democracy is quite literally hanging by a thread. Days like today hold a razor blade up to that thread. When people around the country look at this House and say, "Why should I have any faith in the institutions of democracy?", this is a very good example of why. Parliament is spending more time talking about itself than talking about the issues that matter to them. And before the government members go "the Opposition have a choice", the government scheduled this debate for today. They had that choice. The government recommended a penalty that is harsher than any the Parliament has ever imposed before, and that was their choice. The government chose to impose that penalty by majority rather than seeking consensus, as the Privileges Committee has almost always done in the past, and that was their choice. They have brought this before the House today and they have made that choice, and it should be subject to scrutiny. What they're doing today is wrong. Imposing a penalty that removes three members of the House during Budget week-preventing them participating in one of the two occasions the Opposition has in a year to vote no confidence in the government - is simply wrong. This is not a tinpot dictatorship or a banana republic. We should stand up for the values of democracy, even when they are inconvenient and even when people are saying things that we disagree with. That is not what the government are doing today. At the conclusion of Chris Hipkins' speech, National MP and Leader of the House Chris Bishop moved that the debate be adjourned until Thursday 5 June. That vote was agreed 68 to 55, along governing coalition/opposition lines. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
RNZ News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
ACT asked for advice on imprisonment for Te Pati Maori MPs over haka
ACT asked for advice on the full range of possible punishments for Te Pati Maori MPs following last year's Treaty Principles haka - including imprisonment. The Privileges Committee ended up recommending a 21-day suspension for the Te Pati Maori co-leaders and a week for Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar, who is on the Privileges Committee, sought advice on possible penalties and asked if this could include a range of examples, including imprisonment. She spoke to Charlotte Cook. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Celebration on court, censure in the House: Te Pāti Māori MPs' suspension sparks kōrero
Marutawhaorere Delamere (Whānau Apanui, Whakatōhea, Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Maniapoto) says the growth of the tournament was proof that te reo Māori and te ao Māori continue to flourish. Photo: RNZ / Layla Bailey-McDowell While tikanga Māori is being sanctioned in Te Whare Pāremata, te reo Māori is alive and thriving on the netball courts of Tāmaki Makaurau. Only two days before Puni Reo Poitarawhiti, the country's largest te reo Māori only netball event , three Te Pāti Māori MPs were temporarily suspended from Parliament for "acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House" after they performed a haka during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke will be suspended for seven days, while co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be "severely censured" and suspended for 21 days. Suspension also meant those members would not receive a salary for that time. The suspensions were recommendations from the Privileges Committee, and will come into force after a vote in Parliament on Tuesday, where all government MPs are expected to vote in favour. Puni Reo Poitarawhiti organiser Marutawhaorere Delamere (Whānau Apanui, Whakatōhea, Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Maniapoto) said while it dampened his spirits to see Māori MPs suspended for embracing their tikanga, kaupapa like Puni Reo Poitarawhiti showed just how much te ao Māori continued to be celebrated. "Kei te tino kai tērā i te ngākau i te kite atu i te ahurea Māori e whakaatu ana ki te ao, haunga anō a Aotearoa - me te kaha tāmi pea o tērā. "No reira koira pea te tino kaupapa mō Puni Reo - kia kite atu i te ahurea Māori te whātoro atu ki ngā tamariki kāre pea e tino mau ana ki tērā ahurea, me te kite atu i te ātaahuatanga o te reo e taea ai te puāwai i te ao o te tamaiti, i te ao o te whānau. "Koira pea te kaupapa nui me te whakaaro me pēhea te uru atu i te reo ki ngā kāinga, i te mea kei te mōhio tātou koira pea te hua e kite ai i te kotahi miriona tāngata e kōrero Māori ana. "He tino kāre i pai ki taku ngākau i tērā mahi. Engari he tino waimarie kua whai wāhi tonu te kaupapa nei - haunga te kāwanatanga o ia rā, o ia rā, kei te aruaru tonu ngā mahi." "It really dampens my spirit to see that happen. Meanwhile at kaupapa like this you can clearly see the beauty of our culture celebrated - it's not just celebrated here; our culture is revered around the world. Globally people are fascinated, and then things like that happen. "The good thing though is we are resilient people, and we have a generation of young people being placed into environments like this, being raised to understand the mana and beauty of their culture. Kaupapa like this will continue regardless. Out here on the ground we are actively finding ways to revitalise and maintain our language, and I'm confident we will get to the goal of 1 million people speaking our language soon. "You've got generations coming through who are unapologetically Māori and who are smarter and more intelligent as a result. "It's so disappointing to see people punished for their culture, but governments come and go - this isn't the first time to try and stamp out our culture, and it won't be the last." Professor Jenny Lee-Morgan (Waikato Ngāti Mahuta, Te Ahiwaru) who helped champion Puni Reo Poitarawhiti at the 2025 event. Photo: RNZ / Layla Bailey-McDowell Professor Jenny Lee-Morgan (Waikato Ngāti Mahuta, Te Ahiwaru), who championed the kaupapa alongside her husband Eruera (Eru) Lee-Morgan in 2018, shared the same whakaaro as Delamere and said she was "disgusted" by the Privileges Committee's decision. "Pukuriri katoa ahau, mātou ko tōku whānau i tērā āhuatanga, kei reira te tūmanako te hiahia ki te whakaora i te reo kia whakaora i ngā tikanga me kite tatou i tērā āhuatanga i ngā wāhi katoa i roto i te Pāremata hoki kua tae te wā kia uru atu o tātou tikanga, i tō tātou nei whenua i ngā tikanga, i te reo katoa." "My whānau and I were disgusted to see that happen. You see what's happening here and all around us - our people are doing everything they can to keep their language and culture alive. When you see something like that happen it makes you more determined. Who are they to tell us we cannot be who we are on our very own whenua? I say we as Māori need to start making it happen everywhere, and I encourage everyone to do so." Rihi Te Nana at Puni Reo Poitarawhiti 2025. Photo: RNZ / Layla Bailey-McDowell Rihi Te Nana, who has been working in the kaupapa Māori research space for over two decades, attended this year's Puni Reo Poitarawhiti to watch her mokopuna play. She said she was "sick" of the government's "constant racist attacks" on Māori, and that rangatahi were aware of what was happening and would respond at the ballot box. "Kei te tino hōhā mātou ki te kāwanatanga o mātou kaikiritanga kia mātou ao noa po wāhi haumaru ma mātou. "Kia mātou nei taiohi me ngā whānau katoa kia kaha. He wa poto noaiho kei reira tērā pāti a te wa, ka haere tātou ki te pōti ae panaia atu pana atu i a ratou katoa." "We're sick of this government and its constant racist attacks on us night and day, it's relentless... Māori youth understand what's happening and they will vote, and I encourage them to vote. These parties have a finite amount of time in Parliament, and I firmly believe we will vote them out in the next election." Taiwhanga Wichman-Kelly (left) alongside his mum and sister at Puni Reo Poitarawhiti 2025. Photo: RNZ / Layla Bailey-McDowell Among the many supporters on the day was Taiwhanga Wichman-Kelly, a raukura of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Kotuku. He was at this year's Puni Reo alongside his whānau to tautoko the kaupapa, his teina and fellow tauira. Reflecting on the suspensions, he said it was both disheartening and infuriating to see Māori MPs be punished for who they were. "Kei te pōuri me te pukuriri ano hoki. Nā runga i ngā āhuatanga o te whakahē i te tangata Māori i runga i tō tātou ake whenua - i konā i pouri ai te manawa, te ngākau." "I'm feeling sad and angry because of the way our people are condemned on our own land - that's why my heart and soul are heavy." Te Pāti Māori's Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke interrupted the vote on the Treaty Principles Bill's first reading with a haka taken up by members of the opposition and people in the public gallery. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The Privileges Committee said the issue was not the haka itself, but the way and timing it was performed - during a vote in the House. "It is highly disorderly for members to interrupt a vote while it is being conducted," the committee said. They also found the MPs knew they needed permission and did not have it. "The threshold at which an interjection during a vote may be considered a contempt is where the interruption could be considered intimidatory." Parliament will debate on Tuesday whether these suspensions handed down to Te Pāti Māori MPs should be adopted. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
PM on haka punishment: 'If they want to muck around, so be it'
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon speaks at today's media conference. Photo: Screenshot Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has flatly rejected the possibility of watering down the proposed punishment for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. He says his party accepts the unprecedented recommendations by the Privilege Committee, which Speaker Gerry Brownlee has called "very severe". MPs are preparing for what could be a long debate tomorrow night, when Parliament's Privileges Committee report comes up in the House for discussion. The committee last week proposed suspending Te Pāti Māori's co-leaders for 21 days for their haka during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who instigated the haka but subsequently expressed some contrition, faces a seven day suspension. The Speaker last week stressed the need for MPs to give the matter "due consideration" before confirming the punishment : "A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision." Brownlee also pointed out that the recommendation could yet be amended. But addressing media on Monday, Luxon told RNZ he was not open to any concessions, and he supported the determination of the Privileges Committee. "We have a Privileges Committee that's empowered to make those decisions and determine what's the appropriate punishment." Asked whether all National MPs were comfortable with the length of the recommended suspension, Luxon said: "Yes, our caucus position is really clear." He said he had not discussed the matter with his MPs as that was not necessary. "We know our position." Luxon said it was ultimately up to the opposition whether to drag out the debate, but he suggested "reasonable minded New Zealanders" would disapprove. "Frankly, if they want to muck around, so be it." Watch the full post-Cabinet press conference here: Also speaking on Monday afternoon, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his MPs would discuss their strategy as a caucus tomorrow morning. "Unlike the prime minister, I'm not going to unilaterally cut my caucus out of any conversations on this, I do want to hear from them first." Hipkins expressed some discomfort with the prospect of filibustering - intentionally prolonging a debate - saying he thought there were "far more important" matters to debate. But he also said the proposed sanction was a "massive escalation" on the previous harshest punishment - just a three day suspension. "No government has ever used its majority to suspend its opponents for 21 days in New Zealand's history," Hipkins said. "It is the sort of action you'd see from a tin-pot dictatorship, not a thriving democracy." He said Labour had contacted National to offer a conversation about reaching a more "appropriate and proportionate sanction". "I'm taking it from the prime minister's comments at his press conference just now that they're not interested in that conversation." A spokesperson for the Green Party told RNZ: "We are going to be scrutinising this decision to the highest degree." If the debate is still continuing when the House rises at 10pm on Tuesday, the Speaker will decide whether it takes precedence over members' day on Wednesday, or is adjourned until the next sitting day after the Budget, in early June. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
