Penalty proof Maori MPs facing disproportionate scrutiny
It was grotesque. And entirely expected.
Collins, who chaired the privileges committee, argued that their decision to impose the harshest penalty in the Parliament's history against Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was based on "fairness".
It was vengence, not fairness.
Her public statements about Te Pāti Māori and the excessive sentence belong to a colonial bias that maliciously targets the Māori presence in the House.
The government has well-signalled its intention to force a confrontation with Māori in the Parliament.
At every opportunity, the government has chosen the worst behaviour and the most offensive route.
When Maureen Pugh refused to allow a karakia from a rangatira after the passing of Whakatōhea Claims Settlement legislation, the Speaker was unapologetic and defensive, relying on their own rules to justify this insult to kaumatua.
The Treaty Principles Bill was another way to do the same thing — threaten Māori people and their Māori MPs with a legal tool to eliminate te Tiriti rights, justified on the basis of "process".
The Parliament, in the grip of the coalition government, has been anything but civil where Māori are concerned.
It was right then for Te Pāti Māori to reject the privileges committee request to appear without collective representation or tikanga expertise. There was no civility to be found among the government members of that committee.
The MPs would only have used the opportunity to harass and denigrate the MPs, their representatives, their communities and tikanga Māori.
The problem that incites the government MPs to such tumult is that Te Pāti Māori are not sorry.
They are not sorry for expressing tikanga in the Chamber. They are not sorry for being Māori. That act of defiance infuriates and embarrasses the government.
The haka humiliated the coalition. It has now been watched over 700 million times across the globe.
That single act of indigenous strength has led literally millions of people to support Māori cultural expression that challenges colonial violence.
For government this is abhorrent. Māori must comply, must concede, must assimilate, and must make no fuss.
If we are to perform our culture it can only be in accordance with the rules they set to tame and domesticate it. If we insist on being Māori, we are treated like criminals.
The privileges committee has done exactly that in its ruling. It has declared that being and expressing Māori in the Parliament is a crime, weaponising the Parliament's rules against Māori MPs.
Māori MPs now face disproportionate scrutiny and excessive punishment for an act of cultural resistance.
The privileges committee does not operate in a vacuum. New Zealand's political landscape has seen a rise in anti-Māori rhetoric, particularly from right-wing factions.
By leading the committee's biased enforcement of the privileges committee rules, the government drives a culture where Pākehā MPs are held to different, lower, standards and Māori MP's are disproportionately punished.
What a familiar story.
The lack of integrity in the committee's process means that Māori MPs are judged not the rules, but by a Pākehā-dominated interpretation that reinforces inequities.
If Parliament refuses to address this, it further erodes respect for an institution already, and rightly, considered a relic of colonial power.
Next week, when the House resumes, we will see whether the Parliament as a whole is prepared to pull back on its rules-based racism. That is one of the constitutional struggles here.
The privileges committee's historical practice of reasonableness and collegiality was captured by the coalition government's political agenda, exposing a deeper hypocrisy in New Zealand's democracy.
The committee became a tool for the government's political retribution.
New Zealand's political institutions are rooted in colonialism. The privileges committee, in overseeing parliamentary conduct, still operates as if Māori should not exist.
First the Parliament needs to reject the vicious recommendations of the privileges committee.
The rules governing the privileges committee now also need an overhaul. The government should not be able to use it for vengeful purposes. A bare majority should never be enough for a censure recommendation.
Tikanga Māori needs to be safeguarded against the racial bias we have witnessed.
Without some change, the committee will continue as an arm of the state's assimilationist agenda, punishing those who dare to be Māori in that place.
■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Te Pāti Māori, Greens outraged at 'marginalising' passport changes
Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Te Pāti Māori says the government's changes to passports are an attempt to whitewash the national identity. The government confirmed on Friday New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text. The new look won't start being rolled out until the end of 2027. Since 2021, passports have had "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above New Zealand Passport. Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden said the positioning of text on passports will change to reflect the government's commitment to using English first. She said the redesign - which would be unveiled later this year - was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport-holders. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the change diminishes the visibility of tangata whenua. "Our passport is not just a travel document, it's a statement of who we are as a nation. So, the stripping down of te reo Māori, or marginalising our indigenous identity, reflects this government's sad obsession with erasing Te Tiriti o Waitangi and dragging us back to a monocultural past," she said. Ngarewa-Packer said the move undermined Aotearoa's reputation as a leading nation in recognising indigenous rights. "Restoring our reo took a long time. I mean imagine doing this in Ireland, imagine doing this to the Welsh. This was hard fought for. It's not re-ordering of words, the reformatting is deliberately done to undermine the mana [and] to sideline us tangata whenua." Benjamin Doyle Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle said the move is not what New Zealanders need from the government. "We are seeing day by day, the rights and dignities of minority communities being stripped away while they leave the majority of New Zealanders suffering under the government's current decisions," Doyle said. "This is not a positive vision for Aotearoa, this is not a positive step towards unifying kotahitanga and it's not benefiting anyone. Really, its just dog-whistling politics. It's the tail wagging the dog." The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori - without costing taxpayers". The change comes as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulates that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also includes an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand.
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Space Bill debate: I think it's gonna be a long, long time
Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking speaking in the house earlier in the year. Photo: Parliament TV Rachel Brooking gets plenty of time speaking in the House on her main portfolio responsibilities. However the Dunedin Labour MP seldom gets the opportunity to put her party Space spokeswoman astronaut helmet on ... at least not until this week, when the government unexpectedly took urgency to push through all stages of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. It is rare for a government to push through an entire law change in 24 hours — pandemic safety requirements or Budget-critical law changes are recent occasions. Security is another reason for haste, and Space Minister Judith Collins said that law change was needed to manage "risks to the national interest posed by the misuse of ground-based space infrastructure". All very James Bond. She later expanded on that, saying that during the past five years "there have been several deceptive efforts by foreign actors to establish and/or use ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security." Eek! It turns out that the existing law does a good job of covering things happening at high altitude or in actual orbit, but a rubbish job of ensuring that the terrestrial operators of that high tech were authorised, risks were properly assessed, and that enforcement powers were available when needed. "By introducing a clear and modern framework for ground-based infrastructure, we are enforcing New Zealand's reputation as a responsible spacefaring nation," Ms Collins concluded ... and who wouldn't want to live in one of those nations? Certainly not Ms Brooking, who agreed that this country's ventures to infinity and beyond — especially those which emanate from nearby Awarua — needed to be regulated so that they were in the national interest. But ... and there is always a but ... she was not happy that the law change to protect "ground-based infrastructure" such as satellite tracking stations and telemetry systems was rocketing through Parliament. "I understand there may have been some prior consultation on aspects of it, but in general nobody has been having any public discussion about this Bill, and so there may be parts of it that have inadvertent, unintended consequences," she said. "So we do want to go through, in the committee stage, and take it seriously so that we all understand the Bill as best as we can. And I hope the minister is of that view." Given that "taking it seriously" entailed debate taking up all of Tuesday and a decent chunk of Wednesday, Ms Collins' view may have steadily become less favourable as things progressed. What Ms Brooking wanted — and given the circumstances it seemed a not unreasonable request— was a post-enactment review of the law. Her proposed amendment to add one was ruled out of order, but Associate Defence Minister Chris Penk (subbing for Ms Collins) left that "thoughtful suggestion" firmly anchored to the launch pad: "The Minister for Space feels — and I, in her place, am happy to relay but also support the notion — that we don't need to specify a mandated review mechanism, be it in front of the intelligence and security committee or, indeed, the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee as per the original proposal." Thus stymied, Ms Brooking moved into fresh fields of inquiry, such as the Bill conferring the minister with the authority to stop providing electricity or internet services to any offending space infrastructure: "are there any examples of that sort of thing happening anywhere else in the world?" she wondered. Mr Penk said the idea, essentially, was to "buy a bit of time" while someone figured out what to do next. Options which the legislation said, "may include, without limitation," — which offers quite the toolbox to utilise. "It's deliberately not excluding the range of conditions or actions that might be taken — noting, of course, that in this highly technical realm and with developing technology, it might well be the case that there are conditions or actions that might be necessary in the future that we're not able to contemplate now," he added, opening the possibility of all kinds of science fiction ideas being placed in a future Space Minister's hands. Which sounds preposterous — but so, too, and not too long ago, did the idea of New Zealand having a space industry. Hence, eventually, the Bill became law. Hard quiz You know that Tuesday was a big day because Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez had dug out a tie. He had to wait a long time to display his sartorial splendour, but eventually he got to ask Q12 — just his second primary question in the House — to the Minister of Universities, on the establishment of the new Waikato medical school. As it turned out, the minister was not in the building, so Mr Hernandez instead quizzed Health Minister Simeon Brown — which, one suspects, Mr Hernandez was quite pleased by. It was a good quizzing too, as Mr Hernandez asked pertinent questions such as: will it build a strong, more diverse work force, as claimed; will it generate new doctors faster than the proposal to increase class sizes at Otago and Auckland universities, and — quite frankly — just why does the government think building a new medical school is a good idea when there are two perfectly good ones already, which have the capacity and willingness to expand their rolls? The answers were not that pertinent sadly, Mr Brown favouring sloganeering — such as "we're getting on with it and we're delivering"; "this is a great day for New Zealand"; and "Just say yes. Get on the side of the positive news this is for our country, rather than keeping on complaining." However, keeping on complaining is exactly what Mr Hernadez is likely do. Firstly, about the still unreleased business case which underpinned the decision — which the government said on Monday would be proactively released, and which as of late yesterday was still not public. And secondly, when it finally does see the light of day — and it should have done when the post-Cabinet announcement was made — if the arguments in it do not seem to back up a final decision which has huge ramifications for the University of Otago.
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
How And Why Artificial Intelligence Is Being Used To Process Your Submissions To Politicians
Explainer - The public likes to have their say. Tens of thousands of public submissions come in every year to bills before Parliament and to local government entities. With large-scale campaigns and website submission forms, the ability to speak out is easier than ever - but that's causing a problem on the other end of the system, where planners and politicians can struggle to keep up. Artificial intelligence has increasingly been drafted to go over public submissions. Some have applauded the technology's ability to process data quicker than humans, while others fear the human touch may be getting lost in the shuffle. What exactly does AI processing of public submissions mean, how does it work, and are everyone's views getting a fair shake in the process? Here's a breakdown of it all. First, how do public submissions work? It's a chance for people to get their voice heard in local and national government. People can make submissions to both their local councils and to Parliament. Submissions can be made to local councils on things like planning and urban development, while the public can make submissions to Parliament select committees on upcoming bills. Submissions have been sky-high in recent months, where the Treaty Principles Bill received more than 300,000 submissions, while the Regulatory Standards Bill which is now before Parliament also has had huge interest. Final submission numbers on that have not been released, but even the early discussion on the proposed bill at the end of last year received about 23,000 submissions. Dr David Wilson, Clerk of the House of Representatives who oversees the business of Parliament's rules and procedures, said public input is at a high. "The Treaty Principles Bill had more submissions than the last two parliaments combined," he said. At one point submission numbers were so large the website suffered technical difficulties. Wilson said the number of submissions does put a strain on resources in Parliament. "If that is the sorts of volumes we're going to see on more and more bills, the days of human beings being able to deal with them in a sort of reasonable time will be past." When submissions come to Parliament, staff of the Office of the Clerk first process them to make sure they are relevant to the bill and not defamatory or insulting before they go on to select committees. Select committees then process and consider feedback before making possible changes to a bill ahead of a final vote on it. "It's great that the public want to engage with Parliament and see the value in making their thoughts known even in such volumes," Wilson said. "I think people understand that no individual MP could read 300,000 submissions. We can't create more time for MPs to read them." Eddie Clark, a senior lecturer in public law at Victoria University of Wellington who is critical of AI use in public submissions, noted that large numbers of submissions have been processed before AI became widely available, such as the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill in 2021 which received more than 100,000 entries. "So it is possible for very large numbers of submissions to be actually read and processed by actual human staff. What was required was time and resource, and in my opinion the denial of both is a reason the huge number of submissions has become such a problem several times over the last couple of years." Enter artificial intelligence This is where artificial intelligence is starting to come in - both in local and national government, where it's being used to help process, sort and analyse public input. The Office of the Clerk does not use AI in processing submissions, but it's up to the individual committee overseeing the bill to decide whether to do so when the bills come to their end, Wilson said. For instance, it's been used along the way for the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Committees make their own individual decisions; they don't have any central guidelines around it at the moment." Wilson said the Office of the Clerk is looking at how it might use AI in the future, but is being cautious and "not rushing into it". "I still think ultimately we need to have human decision makers but AI has capacity to do things more quickly than people can - such as flagging submissions that are irrelevant or defamatory. Most submissions are absolutely fine." AI processing has been taken up by local councils, too. In Nelson, the city council worked with local firm the AI Factory to process submissions to their long term plan, Group Manager for Strategy and Communications Nicky McDonald said. "We used the tool to analyse views on issues, including numbers for/against, and to provide us with a summary of views which we then used when writing the first draft of our deliberations report to council. "This report went through multiple iterations as we edited it, but AI was able to give us a starting point which we then developed into a final draft." Xinyu Fu, a senior lecturer in environmental planning at the University of Waikato, organised a pilot project with Hamilton City Council analysing thousands of public submissions on planning proposals. "A lot of them are facing stresses on analysing public submissions," he said of local planners. "Planners spend a lot of time going through those public submissions and those are very laborious work." What exactly are they using AI to do? Prompts - instructions, questions and information put into generative AI - are used to direct it. In Hamilton, Fu's research paper explained that "we tasked ChatGPT with extracting five key elements from public feedback: 1) political stance (support, opposition, or unspecified), 2) reasons from submitters, 3) decisions sought by submitters, 4) sentiment of the submission (positive, negative, or neutral), and 5) relevant planning topics." "AI models are sensitive to prompt phrasing so a slight change in prompt may result in changes in its responses," Fu said. With the Regulatory Standards Bill, public feedback on the discussion document last year drew 22,821 submissions. (The feedback to the select committee on the bill itself is still being processed and is confidential until the Finance and Select Committee releases that information.) In a summary of submissions, the Ministry for Regulation said that all submissions on the then-proposed bill were analysed using a Large Language Model (LLM) AI, and it worked with the independent research organisation Public Voice. "All emails and Citizen Space submissions (a digital tool that submits an online form) were assigned a preliminary classification by Public Voice using a LLM that followed a logic model created by the Ministry, analysing it and classifying it as supporting, partially supporting, opposing the bill or unclear on its stance." The majority of submissions on the proposed bill were analysed by AI. However, the summary also said that in a qualitative analysis sample, 939 of those 22,821 submissions were examined by Ministry for Regulation staff to "analyse the themes raised in submissions and feedback on specific policy proposals." That process "involved several staff across the Ministry manually reviewing the sample of submissions (both email and Citizen space submissions) and applying thematic tags." Another 605 submissions were also looked at separately. Submissions made in te reo Māori were translated. "Our approach was carefully designed to reflect all submissions in the final analysis, noting there were many similar points made across most of the submissions," the ministry's deputy chief executive Andrew Royle told Newsroom. How much human scrutiny is applied to the process? Can the AI avoid a bias? "As a rule of thumb, having humans in the loop will be the best practice - humans in charge and AI as a co-pilot," Fu said. "The risk is very high if we completely rely on AI to do the work. To put simply, such biases are generally embedded in our institutions as well as the information humans generated, and these biases are then input into the model to train. Then they become inherent to the model. Because AI systems are black boxes, it is uncertain and unclear about the nature and degree of these biases." Nelson Council's McDonald said they were transparent about how they were using AI. "Every submission form included a statement saying we'd be trialling AI to help speed up submission processing and reduce the resource burden on staff. "We intentionally ensured there was always a (sceptical!) human in the loop sense checking the tool's outputs. Staff (and elected members) read every submission and we had processes to check AI responses." Fu said there are differences in how AI approaches looking at thousands of public submissions. "AI is really good at consistency (if instructed properly) whereas humans are likely to miss things due to fatigue, boredom, or bias towards particular viewpoints (humans are biased too). "AI can do things much faster than humans, and AI's work can be more transparent if designed well because you can ask AI to document its processes and responses for later review and replication. On the downside, humans excel in knowing about the contexts, while AI knows little about the local contexts and backgrounds." Is there a risk that people's voices aren't being heard? "I absolutely think that a regular practice of AI analysis of submissions risks undermining people's confidence in the democratic process and thus the legitimacy of government," Victoria University's Clark said. He said there was a need for more options for people to consult on legislation. He noted in the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, the pre-legislative consultation was conducted mostly over the holiday period from mid-November to mid-January. This "leads to people seeing the Select Committee stage as their only real chance to comment, incentivising mass submissions expressing simple opposition or support", Clark said. "Giving people a chance to be heard throughout the process, not just at Select Committee, could help deal with the problem. There is a reason the legislative process is generally slow and deliberate, and derailing that good, democratic process has consequences. In my opinion the glut of submissions at the Select Committee stage is one of them." Labour MP Duncan Webb spoke out about the government's use of AI on the Regulatory Standards Bill submissions, writing on social media site BlueSky that it "turns out democracy under this government is real people making submissions and computers reading them". When contacted by RNZ, Webb said he is not opposed to the use of AI, but concerned about how it is used in the democratic process. "New Zealanders who take the time to share their views deserve more than a computer reading their submission. "AI can help with sorting large volumes of submissions, but it can't replace the value of reading someone's views, like the handwritten letter from an 85-year-old or a bundle of colourful drawings from school kids. These submissions often reflect deeply held experiences and emotions, and politicians need to read them." However, Fu said that in local government planning the use of AI in analysis could give staff more time to work with local and underrepresented communities. "Planning has become very reactive," he said. "If we can use AI planners then planners can actually do better work because otherwise they're overwhelmed." A lot of the submissions made on local planning tend to be by developers, Fu said. He said planners could use the time to reach out to communities whose voices aren't heard as often in public submissions, including Māori. What about privacy? When it comes to privacy, public submissions are already just that - public. All submissions sent to select committees become public and are posted on Parliament's website and become part of the permanent parliamentary record - they can only be removed in exceptional circumstances by the Clerk of the House. "They know their submission will become public," Wilson said of submissions. "Our staff are going to read it, officials will read it." "The main privacy concern is about people's contact details - they are always separated from submissions now." Contact information is removed from public submissions before they are posted publicly but Wilson said privacy is one reason to be cautious of the use of AI in analysing them. "We want to make sure we've got a key set of principles and some business rules in place," Wilson said. The government unveiled its first national AI strategy earlier this month mostly aimed at economic growth, "unlocking innovation, productivity, and smarter decision-making across New Zealand" and responsible AI guidance for businesses "to overcome concerns about ethics and complexity." In Nelson, McDonald said they also considered privacy issues. "The submissions, numbering 1505, were redacted of all personal data before they were processed to ensure there were no privacy issues - this is something we would do anyway, before all submissions are uploaded to the Council website for public view." Where should AI not be used? Most agree AI should never be making decisions on policy, however. "What I don't think I can do - and I wouldn't trust it to do anyway - is make judgements," Wilson said. "Nobody's going to predict what's going to happen next month in the AI space because it's evolving so rapidly," Fu said, noting that hyperbole over AI is everywhere at the moment. "We're still in that hype space ... I think we need to start thinking about the responsible use." And for some, there's still a question as to whether the technological advances of AI might be leaving something behind. "In short, democracy takes money and time," Clark said. "Trying to avoid the necessary costs of democratic infrastructure has consequences, and while I understand why the hard-working people in our underfunded and rushed systems might see AI as helpful in these circumstances, in my opinion it will not solve the underlying issue and could unintentionally undermine people's faith in a democracy that cares about their voices."
