Latest news with #PrinciplesoftheTreatyofWaitangiBill
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Stormy seas ahead for new skipper
Depending on your political alignment, the swearing in of David Seymour as deputy prime minister on Saturday was either a glorious achievement or the stuff of nightmares. For most though, it will be business as usual. Deputy prime minister is an important role, but not one of grave constitutional importance. It being shared is a novel situation born of this government being a three-way coalition, but it was an eminently practical solution to what might have been a problem if the role had been the sole province of one person for three years. Those who doubt whether Mr Seymour has what it takes to assume command when Christopher Luxon is not about are, presumably, unaware that Mr Seymour has been acting prime minister on several occasions when both Mr Luxon and former deputy prime minister Winston Peters were out of the country. The ship of state was safely kept off the rocks then, as it will no doubt be again when Mr Seymour temporarily assumes the helm: he is a more than capable man, with a firmly ingrained sense of personal responsibility. There are others who believe that the stability of the government will be weakened by a tyro deputy prime minister taking charge, especially one who is given to speaking his mind — and who unapologetically has said that he has no intention of changing that. Those people also forget that Mr Peters is hardly a shrinking violet, and that the coalition remained stable despite some choice outbursts in the past 18 months from the elder statesman of New Zealand politics. Having said all that, much of Mr Seymour's time in the next few months will be spent trying to shepherd through his Regulatory Standards Bill, the second highly controversial piece of legislation he has sought to enact this term. The first was, of course, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Despite the inevitability of it being voted down it still attracted enormous opprobrium and inspired the largest protest march seen in Wellington in many years. Its fallout is still glowing bright, as Parliament considers what to do with the three Te Pati Maori MPs who disrupted the voting on the doomed Bill. Many of those opposed to the Regulatory Standards Bill are the same people, and for many of the same reasons. The Bill is intended to clarify and improve New Zealand's law-making process, and many of the checks and balances which it proposes are not unknown in other countries. However, in this country the Treaty of Waitangi exists as safeguard of the legal rights of Maori, and any attempt to circumvent the Treaty was always going to cause controversy. The Bill itself is largely silent on the Treaty, and its proponent did not mention it at all in his first reading speech. The Opposition surely mentioned it though and spared no punches: "an absolutely vile piece of legislation" was one of the milder condemnations, while Te Pati Maori called on people to mobilise to stop the Bill in its tracks. For Mr Seymour. the Bill is an exercise in cutting the red tape which he claims is holding New Zealand back. He is no doubt right that there are examples of overregulation, and that it can be obstructive to people's individual or corporate endeavours. But some regulations, such as environmental and health standards, exist for good reason and any effort to weaken those protections warrants intense scrutiny. Likewise, so does any attempt to diminish the guarantees afforded by the Treaty of Waitangi, which for all some may wish otherwise remains the foundation stone of New Zealand's existence. The Bill, unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, enjoys the support of both governing parties, albeit that New Zealand First has suggested that it needs improvements. That obviously enhances its chances of becoming law but equally amplifies the opposition to it. Parliament's computer system, which collapsed under the weight of submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill, has staggered again under the welter of opinion on this Bill — almost certainly negative opinion. A full and rigorous select committee process is going to be critical to public acceptance of this proposed law change: it is unfortunate that the committee chose not to extend the public submission period. Mr Seymour's leadership will now be under the spotlight. He will need to exercise Solomonic wisdom, given that battle lines are firmly drawn.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Four strikes and not out — the Regulatory Standards Bill
The Regulatory Standards Bill — Government Bill 155-1 under the name of the Minister for Regulation — was introduced to Parliament on May 19. It received its first reading on May 23 and has been referred to the finance and expenditure select committee. As alluded to previously in this publication (ODT 4.1.25), earlier attempts to introduce this legislation failed in 2006, 2009 and 2011. In 2021, with the support of the National Party, a Bill to this effect was introduced by the (now) minister, but did not get off the ground. It was condemned as a dangerous constitutional shift undermining public and collective rights and threatening parliamentary sovereignty. Nothing about this Bill has changed except that the National-Act New Zealand coalition agreement provides for support of the Act policy programme by National. In this regard, the situation is different from that of the failed Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, which National and New Zealand First supported only to the select committee stage, then voted it down. Why is this Bill of such concern? The reasons are the same as they were two decades ago, being: — That the proposal represents a constitutional entrenchment of neo-political principles with an accumulation of power in the hands of the minister of regulation; — Tying principles of good regulation to property rights as a fundamental of good lawmaking overlooks entirely the ancillary fundamental of good lawmaking being strengthening communities, enhancement of environmental standards and protection of vulnerable groups. The proposed primacy of free market and individual rights is false as both are reliant on law and order and inherent obligations to protect the vulnerable (persons or environment) and maintain a reasonable balance where equity and justice is accorded the same value. Existing legislative guidelines from 2021 provide that "legislation should be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and should reflect the fundamental values and principles of a democratic society". This Bill does neither. Current guidelines identify the principle that "everyone is subject to the law". This Bill changes that to "every person is equal before the law" which reflects the Act party's policy to eradicate equity-based programmes which seek to redress systemic inequality. Equality in this sense is a procedural right, free of class or status. It is not, and never has been, the right to be treated the same. Equating property rights with personal liberty creates dangerous territory, the focus on which will obliterate the duty to preserve the environment and address substantive inequality issues. Going down this path will open the door to compensation claims in the event of any actions impacting adversely on property rights. There are already in place substantive regulatory controls. The advice to the minister in this instance is, in essence, that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. The extent of powers placed in the hands of the minister, the proponent of the Bill, is excessive. The objective of the Bill is to encapsulate more than 20 years of neo-liberal, libertarian dogma, designed to elevate and protect the interest of property above all else. Successive parliaments have soundly rejected this legislation in the past. The prime minister must ensure that the Bill is amended to recognise all of its defects or simply decline to support it on the basis that it is not good law. Act NZ leader David Seymour would be unlikely to surrender his upcoming deputy prime ministership given the patience shown to date in getting this hobby horse across the line. — Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer and past president of the Otago District Law Society.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
How a Maori haka protest brought New Zealand's Parliament to a halt
A Maori haka performed in New Zealand's Parliament has triggered one of the most heated political standoffs in recent years. At the centre of the storm: A November 2024 protest by three Maori Party MPs, including New Zealand's youngest lawmaker, who used the traditional Maori dance and chant to voice opposition to the controversial Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. The government has since proposed the harshest suspensions ever handed down in the Parliament's history, reported The Associated Press. What exactly is the haka? The haka is a traditional chant and dance from the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand. Known through the All Blacks rugby team's iconic pre-match performance, the haka is more than a sports ritual. It is a sacred expression of identity, emotion, and unity — often performed to mark important life moments like births, funerals, graduations, and major public ceremonies. While it originated as a war dance, today the haka is performed in both celebratory and solemn settings. While it is rooted in Maori culture, the haka can be performed by people of any race — as long as they are taught the correct movements, words, and cultural significance by Maori custodians. What happened in New Zealand's Parliament? On November 29, 2024, tensions flared inside New Zealand's House of Representatives during debate over a bill that would have changed the country's founding treaty — Te Tiriti o Waitangi — an agreement made in 1840 between Maori tribal leaders and the British Crown. Te Pati Maori, the Maori Party, strongly opposed the bill, saying it undermined the rights of indigenous people. During the session, 22-year-old MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, the youngest ever elected lawmaker in New Zealand, stood up, tore a copy of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and performed a haka. Two of her party colleagues joined in, walking across the chamber floor toward government MPs while chanting. The protest stopped proceedings, interrupted the vote, and immediately drew criticism from some lawmakers who called it disruptive and intimidating. ????Unprecedented & simply magnificent. That time in Nov 2024 when a haka led by Aotearoa's youngest MP 22yo Hana-Rawhiti Kareariki Maipi-Clarke erupted in the House stopping the Treaty Principles Bill from passing its first reading, triggering the Speaker to suspend Parliament.… — Kelvin Morgan ???????? (@kelvin_morganNZ) November 14, 2024 Why was it so controversial? Haka has been performed in Parliament before — typically during celebrations or the passing of significant legislation. But this instance was different. This haka was used as a form of protest— a live disruption during an official debate, involving movement across the parliamentary floor. Critics say this broke established rules and created an atmosphere of confrontation. Supporters, however, view it as a powerful, peaceful act of dissent rooted in cultural identity — a form of protest deeply connected to Maori heritage. What penalties were proposed? A special Parliamentary Privileges Committee reviewed the incident and, in a rare move, recommended formal suspensions: - Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: 7 days - Two other Te Pati Maori MPs: 21 days each These are the longest suspensions ever proposed for MPs in New Zealand. The previous record was just three days. The committee noted that Maipi-Clarke had submitted a letter expressing regret, which is why her penalty was lighter. Why hasn't Parliament acted yet? Usually, disciplinary measures are agreed upon quickly and quietly. This time, that hasn't happened. Opposition parties, led by Chris Hipkins, argue that the punishment is disproportionate and unfair, especially when compared to past incidents. Hipkins pointed to previous protests where MPs brawled on the floor or drove a tractor up Parliament's steps, yet were not suspended. National MP Judith Collins, who chaired the committee, disagreed. She insisted the issue was about rule-breaking, not culture. 'This is not about the haka,' Collins said. 'It's about behaviour. This was the most serious breach I've ever seen in the chamber.' Why was the debate delayed? Meanwhile, a special debate on the suspensions began on Tuesday, but it was unexpectedly adjourned within minutes. The reason? The government allowed the Maori MPs to remain in Parliament for the week's budget session, a critical part of the legislative calendar. That move avoided immediate conflict, but only temporarily. The debate will now resume on June 5, and unless all parties reach a consensus, it could gridlock Parliament again. What is the public reaction? Outside Parliament, support for the Maori MPs has been strong and vocal. On Tuesday, hundreds of protesters gathered in Wellington, performing a haka of their own in solidarity. Signs, chants, and social media posts have framed the suspensions as an attack not just on individuals, but on Maori identity and freedom of expression. Activist Eru Kapa-Kingi, speaking to the crowd, said, 'The haka is a source of fear in Parliament — even though when the All Blacks do it, it's a good thing.' What happens next? The disciplinary debate will pick up again on June 5, and unless parties agree on what constitutes a fair penalty, it could cause further delays in government business. The government remains firm on pushing through the sanctions, while opposition MPs insist the punishment is excessive.
Newsroom
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
In full: Collins and Hipkins on Te Pāti Māori punishment
Privileges Committee chair Judith Collins (National) Mr Speaker, 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; and 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 follows 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 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 March 25, 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 them 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 pre-meditation 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' [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 consider that the facts of the matter are clear – and occurred as I've already outlined. We invited Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi to provide written evidence and they jointly responded, saying 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 are 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 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 – states 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 the 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 pledge 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. Standing Orders already include severe penalties for people who break the rules, without the requirement to 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 the debating chamber. I am a robust debater, as many of you will know, but I follow the rules of the institution I am a proud member of and I appreciate and accept that my views are not those of all in this House. That is why we are the House of Representatives. We cannot bring this House into disrepute by ignoring those rules, especially if that results in other members being intimidated. And that is exactly what happened on November 14 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 find by majority all three members have each committed a contempt of the House and are recommending the penalties as I have already outlined them. After six months of meetings and hearings – which all committee members participated in in a professional manner – 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 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 OK 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.
Otago Daily Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Te Pāti Māori decision: Debate primed for filibuster
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke rips up a copy of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill at the conclusion of the Bill's first reading last year. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Labour is unlikely to engage in filibustering to slow progress of a debate into whether three Te Pāti Māori MPs should be suspended from Parliament after performing a haka during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. And the president of Te Pāti Māori says Parliament needs to recognise that society is evolving and tikanga Māori should be incorporated increasingly more into the House. It has been recommended to the Speaker of the House by the Privileges Committee that Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngārewa-Packer, and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke (who led the haka Ka Mate but showed contrition) receive stand-downs of 21 and seven sitting days, respectively. The debate is set to begin on this afternoon and could go on well into the night - or even for weeks. The Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT party, aimed to clarify the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and to establish a clear legal framework for how these principles should be understood and applied in New Zealand law. It was defeated at a second reading last month. Unusually for New Zealand's Parliament, it will be a debate primed for filibuster. Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee set out the parameters last week, including that all 123 MPs will be allowed to speak. If any amendment is put forward, they would then be allowed to speak again. Such amendments could include a change to the length of the suspensions. Should the debate continue long enough, the Budget, to be delivered on Thursday, would take precedence over it and Te Pāti Māori MPs would be able to participate - including having their votes against the Budget recorded. Parliament's public gallery will be closed today, but a protest is planned on the forecourt in Wellington. Te Pāti Māori MPs Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke face ACT MPs as they perform the haka. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Green Party musterer Ricardo Menéndez March said the proposed ban was unprecedented and of concern to all the party's MPs, so it was likely they would want to speak during the debate. "It raises really really serious concerns about whether this new standard only applies when haka, waiata or tikanga Māori is used in the House." The Greens were hoping to be able to speak with government MPs and ultimately be able to reduce the penalty that had been given, he said - but elected Te Pāti Māori MPs should be able to vote during the Budget procedures. "We will be using the tools available to us to ensure that we can challenge this decision however we can." Menéndez March said he would not accept "performative outrage" on the issue of filibustering from government MPs. "They're the ones who have chosen to deal an unprecedented punishment and are unable to reflect on the issue that many have been raising about how tikanga can be better incorporated in the House." Labour leader Chris Hipkins agreed the proposed punishment was disproportionate. Hipkins told RNZ's Morning Report programme today there should be some kind of sanction, but the penalty on the table was too extreme. "Two other MPs have been sanctioned in this term of Parliament for bullying and intimidating behaviour - one National MP and one Green MP. Neither of them was suspended from the service of the House at all." Te Pāti Māori had a right to protest against the Treaty Principles Bill, he believed. "Frankly if they'd done the haka 90 seconds later I would've supported it - because the vote would've been declared, they would've been doing the haka after the vote as a form of protest to the law that Parliament had just passed." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon yesterday ruled out any compromise, so a deal between the government and Opposition for a shorter debate seems unlikely. ACT leader David Seymour, whose bill prompted the haka, told RNZ Te Pāti Māori's actions showed its MPs believed their behaviour was acceptable. "I hope the debate will be over very quickly ... this is Budget week and New Zealanders deserve to see how the government will manage the economy over the coming year, not hijinks in response to very wrong hijinks of Te Pāti Māori. "These are unprecedented offences and they deserve unprecedented penalties." He said the previous record of three days suspension, handed to former Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon for publicly criticising the Speaker of the House, was "very different from breaking ancient laws of our Parliament - tikanga if you like - that you should not leave your seat". "If they believe that is a legitimate way to do business, the punishment should be strong enough to persuade them of that belief, and I'd give them three months. "If it was up to me, a 90-day sentence of suspension but then subtract all the days they haven't shown up anyway. Like time served." New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who was on the Privileges Committee that proposed the punishments, has long decried what he sees as falling standards at Parliament, putting the first-reading haka into that category. It will therefore be up to the Speaker and the opposition parties how long the debate lasts, and Brownlee has stated his willingness to support the minority in this case. Whether the disruption to the government's agenda is worth potential backlash for time wasting will be the political calculation being made.
