Opposition calls for tikanga committee following haka debate
Speaking to 1News after the debate, Labour MP Willie Jackson said Speaker Gerry Brownlee should put a tikanga committee in place to be chaired by fellow Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe.
Jackson said he was worried the New Zealand Parliament would be "misrepresented around the world" over "the worst suspension" in its history.
"That would be disgraceful, given the amount of offences and what's gone on in this House for many years.'
He said Parliament could be perceived as being "absolutely racist, which it is not". He acknowledged efforts were being made, but not enough.
ADVERTISEMENT
'But if we put Adrian Rurawhe there chairing a Tikanga Committee, we'll be on track.'
During the debate, he called on the house to consider a tikanga committee that "all MPs" could work on, to go through Parliament's processes in terms of tikanga Māori and tikanga Pākehā and "come up with a sensible way and strategy going forward".
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said her party would have preferred to pause the Privileges Committee proceedings until the tikanga committee could evaluate the "incorporation of tikanga in Parliament".
"This would then allow the Privileges Committee to evaluate the conduct of MPs with any new Standing Orders that arise from this work."
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. (Source: 1News)
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the Privileges Committee was not "fit for purpose" and a tikanga committee should have enacted the decision, the discussions and feedback.
1News sought a response from Speaker Gerry Brownlee to Jackson's request for a tikanga committee chaired by Rurawhe. Brownlee's office said: "Mr Speaker has no comment."
ADVERTISEMENT
Other members of Parliament made reference to the importance of a discussion on tikanga during last night's debate.
Interpreting the haka with 'no experience or knowledge'
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said it was an "absolute insult" to Māori to hear people with no experience or knowledge about haka interpret the haka.
'Whether they believe it disorderly, whether they believe it violent, it is an absolute insult to sit here and listen to peoples' interpretation of haka.'
ACT MP Karen Chhour agreed discussion around tikanga, te ao Māori, and "all those other issues" may need to be addressed in the future.
Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March said he welcomed the call to review the rules of Parliament to better incorporate tikanga.
Labour MP Arena Williams said the debate wasn't just about disorder but the "discomfort that happens when Māori protest in a way that the House hasn't learned to accommodate".
ADVERTISEMENT
"Let's learn from this. Let's bring tikanga into our practice. Let's do our best to understand it, so that we can represent the people who need us."
Haka echoed through Parliament and beyond
Last night's vote brings to a close a six-month-long process that has resulted in a 21-day suspension for Te Pāti Māori leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and a seven-day suspension for MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke.
Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House. (Source: 1News)
In November, the three MPs and Labour MP Peeni Henare performed a haka in response to the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill.
Henare appeared in front of the Privileges Committee in March, and it was recommended he apologise to the House.
The three MPs for Te Pati Māori were referred to the committee but ignored initial summons to appear in-person, claiming an injustice as they had been denied legal representation and were unable to appear together.
ADVERTISEMENT
Last month, the Privileges Committee found the trio had acted "in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty".
The report said it was not acceptable to approach other members on the debating floor and "particularly unacceptable" for Ngarewa-Packer to "to appear to simulate firing a gun" at another member of Parliament.
The committee's recommended suspensions drew criticism from the three Opposition parties.
The Speaker said it was 'unprecedented', and that no member of Parliament has been suspended for more than three days since it first sat in 1854.
He said it was important all perspectives and views were shared before a decision was made on the recommendation, meaning all MPs would be able to voice their opinion if they wished.
The debate was initially set to take place on Budget Day (May 20), but Leader of the House Chris Bishop deferred it to last night.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
Healthworkers want MPs to waive private healthcare while in office
A group of healthworkers — including specialists, GPs, nurses and paramedics — have signed an open letter to MPs asking them to waive private healthcare during their time in office. Politicians making critical decisions about the public health system system — to cut funding, defer maintenance, or implement restructures — should not be allowed to "insulate" themselves against the consequences, they write. Their prescription? All MPs — and the families of Cabinet ministers — should rely on the public system. The group's spokesperson, Northland cardiologist Marcus Lee, said the public deserved leaders who were so committed to public healthcare that they were willing to stake their family's wellbeing on it. ADVERTISEMENT "Essentially, we want fair and transparent leadership with integrity. We want people who have skin in the game." The test was whether politicians were "comfortable and confident" enough to rely on the public health system for their families, he said. "If it's good for them, it's good for us. If it's not good enough for them, it shouldn't be good enough for anyone." Nicola Willis and Simeon Brown in 2020 (Source: Getty) The letter asks MPs to consider questions including: Would I be comfortable with my child waiting six months for this procedure? Is this emergency department adequate for my elderly parent? Are these staffing levels sufficient for my family's safety? Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not believe having private health insurance meant he was out of touch with the problems besetting the public system. ADVERTISEMENT "I think we're well aware of the challenges in the healthcare system, which is why we've put a record amount of investment in," he said. "We inherited again a botched merger that just created a layer of bureaucracy and we've put the money in, we're hiring more people, we've got clarity on the targets. "We're starting to see some stabilisation of those targets and in some cases improvements on those health targets. "But we now need a high performing Health NZ, and that's what we're fixated on." Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall said MPs with private health insurance were "betting their own money against the public system". "Ministers of Health should place a bet on the public health system succeeding and meeting New Zealanders' needs. Having private health insurance is a sign that you're not willing to place that bet." Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — a former health minister — took a less hard-line approach. "I got health insurance 20 or 30 years ago as a union membership benefit and I've kept it since then, although I'm fortunate I haven't really had to use it. "I'm not going to begrudge people who have it. But I want to make sure that, if you haven't, you still get the standard of care you deserve." Health Minister Simeon Brown said he did not have private health insurance but he would not impose that choice on anyone else. "Ultimately there's a large number of New Zealanders who use health insurance, that's a fantastic part of our health system, and ultimately people make individual choices." Brown said his focus was on timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders, which included making better use of the private sector. "We will work with private hospitals to unlock capacity, publicly funded [patients] but in private hospitals to speed up access." ADVERTISEMENT Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Education Minister Erica Stanford both had private health insurance. Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey did not, saying he is "happy using the public health system". Other National MPs were more coy. Minister of Climate Change, Energy, Local Government and Revenue, Simon Watts: "I won't answer that, it's a personal question." Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Disability Issues, Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston: "That's not a question in the public interest." Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford: "I'm not interested in talking about that. It's not necessary for people to know — I don't go out into the general street and ask people about their health insurance." Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March said it was "quite rich" to see politicians not being worried about the state of the public healthcare system, when they had the means to pay for private insurance or private care. ADVERTISEMENT "That is why we are really concerned with the Government's flirtation with privatising more of our public healthcare system, which will ultimately see our poorest less able to access basic healthcare." For some Labour MPs, it was a matter of principle. Kelston MP Carmel Sepuloni: "I believe, as politicians, if we're going to be working to ensure the healthcare system works for everyone, we should be reliant on it too." Nelson MP Rachel Boyack: "My father was a public health chief executive so I've always had a strong belief in the public health system, and that the health system should be available to all New Zealanders, and that includes me as an MP." Mt Albert MP Helen White could understand why some people opted to have it, but it was not for her: "I just think that I should live by my principles. Also I probably couldn't afford it. I know I'm on a decent salary, but it's a lot of money." Mt Albert MP Helen White says she probably couldn't afford health insurance. (Source: 1News) Labour MP Ginny Andersen said health insurance was not in her budget: "By the time I pay my mortgage and my insurance and my rates and feed my children." ADVERTISEMENT ACT Party leader David Seymour, who is also the Associate Health Minister, said the healthworkers made "an interesting argument" — but, in his view, MPs should come from a broad range of backgrounds. "I don't think you should have to fit into a sort of ideological straight-jacket to do that." The healthworkers behind the letter said MPs who refused to give up their private safety net would be revealing "exactly what they really think about our healthcare system". "We'll be watching to see who has the courage to put their family where their policies are."
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Space, spies, stalking, and extra sittings
National MP Judith Collins speaking during the initial Privileges Committee debate regarding the Te Pāti Māori protest haka. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith The House took urgency on Tuesday evening which extended Tuesday's sitting until lunchtime Wednesday, then it returned on Thursday morning - that time as an extended sitting. As a result, most select committees are not meeting this week. Some have had to cancel their plans or squeeze some work in at lunchtime. With a few exceptions - and excepting bills that committees are given special permission to consider outside normal rules - Select Committees and the House cannot sit at the same time. Spare a thought for submitters and those who schedule them, who have had their plans upended again by urgency. The opposition did ask the Leader of the House last Thursday whether there would be urgency this week but was told to "wait and see". Last minute reveals of urgency are not unusual. Extended sittings (like Thursday morning) are signposted a week or two in advance, but usually little warning is given for urgency. Tuesday's urgency was aimed at two bills - one relating to space and the other about international crime cooperation. The Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill isn't so much about space as it is about the ground bases for satellites or other extra-terrestrial objects. The Minister for Space, Judith Collins was the bill's sponsor. "This bill introduces a new authorisation regime for ground-based space infrastructure. Until now, these activities have not been subject to a dedicated regulatory framework." The reason for the bill, revealed in the second reading debate, upped the interest. "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. They have deliberately disguised their affiliations to foreign militaries and misrepresented their intentions. To date, these risks have been managed through non-regulatory measures, including relying on the goodwill of ground-based infrastructure operators. These measures are no longer enough." That sounds like the pitch for a thriller just begging to be written. This was a bill that the parties largely agreed on. They even agreed that urgency was reasonable, but opposition speakers complained about the push-push pace of urgency after the Committee Stage, as governing-party MPs worked to abbreviate what Labour's Rachel Brooking called "very civil, thoughtful debates." The pace really started to drag once the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill was the focus. Its sponsor, Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith said the bill "aligns New Zealand's laws with the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention. The Budapest Convention is the first binding international treaty on cyber-crime, and it aligns members' national laws relating to computer-related offences, improves investigative techniques, and streamlines evidence sharing." Labour supported the bill but played hardball in the Committee Stage, concerned about the possibility of the convention leading to New Zealand accidentally helping countries that don't share our values control their citizens. Duncan Webb put it like this. "We need to be vigilant that we are not being unwittingly used to further either political ends or to allow a foreign state to pursue a proceeding against something that might be a crime in a foreign nation, but it certainly isn't a crime in New Zealand and shouldn't be something for which criminal sanction follows." The opposition made the Committee Stage of the Budapest bill last through most of the rest of Wednesday. The government's original plan was to pass it through all remaining stages, but late on Wednesday evening, they abandoned it after the Committee Stage and moved on to their other priorities. The Budapest Convention Bill was left with just a third reading to complete. Those were not the only interesting bills under discussion this week. Three other bills are of particular interest, relating to Health, Secondary Legislation, and Stalking. Tuesday saw the first reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill which will now be considered by the Health Select Committee. Among its measures, that bill enacts health targets, and also alters or removes Māori consultation and obligations from the health administration. The Minister of Health, Simeon Brown described his bill succinctly. "This bill is about cutting through bureaucracy, restoring accountability, and most importantly, putting patients first." Opposition MPs had numerous gripes including this one from Dr. Tracey McLellan, regarding bringing Health New Zealand under the public service obligation for staff neutrality. "That is a chilling thing to do. Frontline health workers who have a professional obligation, an ethical and a legal obligation to call out things that they see in their professional practice. It is not political, it is professional, and they should not, in any way, shape, or form, have this hanging over them, this concept of-the misuse of-public service neutrality." Also on Tuesday, the Legislation Amendment Bill had a first reading and now heads to the Justice Committee for public feedback. The Legislation Amendment Bill has been in development for a few years, and among its aims are making secondary legislation (e.g. regulations) more easily accessible and more likely to be pruned once obsolete. Secondary legislation includes all of the various kinds of laws that don't come directly from a piece of legislation but from power that legislation delegates to ministers, ministries, agencies, councils etc. There is much more secondary legislation than primary legislation but it isn't as easy to search or access. Primary legislation is all stored on a legislation website managed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO); currently secondary legislation is not. In debate, Labour's Camilla Belich observed that, "the main big change will be the single point of access that it will allow to secondary legislation. The point of the work that we do is to try and make sure that when either primary legislation or secondary legislation has an impact on people's lives, they have access to that. It shouldn't be something which is hidden away and it shouldn't be something which is difficult to find." Don't confuse the Legislation Amendment Bill with ACT's Regulatory Standards Bill which is also going through parliament and which appears to be trying to do something rather different. The Regulatory Standards Bill has influenced the shape of the Legislation Amendment Bill though, which Opposition MPs were unhappy with in debate, despite supporting the wider effort. The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill had its second reading late on Wednesday. It creates a new offence specific to stalking and harassment and the myriad forms that these can take. It includes indirect harassment like undermining reputation, opportunities or relationships. The bill itself is a fascinating read as an example of how much cleverness is required to effectively draft law for crime that is, by definition, quite nebulous. Policy staff at Justice and legal drafters at PCO may have taken to heart the idiom 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one'. National minister Erica Stanford outlined changes made to the bill as a result of public feedback to the Select Committee. "To be convicted of the new offence, the prosecution will need to prove the person engaged in a pattern of behaviour towards their victim. The committee recommended a broader definition for the pattern of behaviour. The offence will now require two specified acts within two years, rather than three specified acts within one year. This broadens the pattern of behaviour by capturing fewer acts across a longer time frame. I agree that this change will better address strategies such as anniversary-based stalking..." "A further recommendation made by the committee was to add doxing to the list of "specified act". Doxing is the publication of personal information such as addresses or contact details, including whether a stalker claims to be their victim. It encourages third parties to contact, threaten, and intimidate the victim…" "The committee also added two further important amendments to the bill. Firstly, to allow the courts to order the destruction of intimate visual to allow a court to make restraining [orders], firearm prohibition [orders], and Harmful Digital Communications Act orders, where a defendant is discharged without convictions." There are other bills of note on the Order Paper that the government would have hoped to progress, but progress this week has been slow. Opposition MPs have taken their time working through bills in the committee of the whole House, whether they support them or not. This will likely annoy the government, but thoroughly testing bills is the job of all MPs in the House. That sluggish pace meant the second reading of the Parliament Bill also slipped down the Order Paper (along with the third reading of the Budapest Convention Bill). One bill the House may reach is worth noting. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill would be a second espionage-related bill for the week. This one hopes to plug gaps in the law around things like treason, espionage and even incitement to mutiny. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Former Whangārei Mayor Sheryl Mai to speak on Māori wards
Former Whangārei Mayor Sheryl Mai is among a trio of local leaders speaking at a 'Why Māori wards?' panel discussion in the city next week. The Network Waitangi Whangārei event aims to highlight the benefits of Māori wards, before the local elections in October. Mai will join sitting Whangārei District
