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
Scoop
5 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."
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
The Value Of Youth MPs Put Under A Question Mark
Every three years young aspiring politicians flock to the Beehive for the Youth Parliament. Their debates are fiery and passionate, but are they ultimately pointless? A former politician says change is needed to the Youth Parliament system if it's to stay relevant. MP-turned political commentator Peter Dunne says the scheme isn't just "a rag-tag collection of young people coming together for a couple of days to play at being MPs", but if the event is going to be taken seriously, more consistency is required around its processes. That's not the case at the moment, in everything from how the teens are selected to the quality of the mentorship they're getting. The tri-annual event usually passes under the media radar, but this year's event was overshadowed by what a handful of Youth MPs said was censorship of their speeches. Dunne says he could understand the intention behind the message from the Ministry of Youth Development, which asked some students to remove parts of their speeches where they lacked political neutrality, but the issue could have been handled better. In the end, none of the students were stopped from making their speeches, even if they didn't make the changes. Youth Parliament has been held every three years for the past three decades and is described by the government as, "a unique opportunity for young New Zealanders to learn first-hand about our democracy, influence government decision-making, and have their voices heard". In many ways it's like the real thing, with MPs selecting teens to represent them for a couple of days in Parliament where they debate, give speeches and discuss fictional legislation. Dunne says often the young adults outshine the older MPs. "The contrast has usually been between the impeccable behaviour of the youth MPs and the somewhat unruly behaviour of their adult counterparts," he says. The first Youth Parliament was held in 1995 and initially was just a couple of days. Now the programme has expanded, running from April to August and Dunne questions how much teens take out of those extra two months and 29 days. "And more importantly, what weight is attached to that? They've got no formal status in the community, so what role can they play?" he asks. Dunne says much of what the young aspiring politicians learn and do is dependent on the MP they are mentored by. "In some cases they won't do very much, in some cases the MP will work actively with them and assign them a particular project," Dunne says. There also aren't any rules around how MPs select their mentee. Some get applicants to write essays, this year David Seymour held an election, and Dunne says a couple just shoulder tap the kids of a mate. "The time is right to have a proper review into its function and purpose, including the role of the Youth MPs, how they're selected and what are reasonable expectations of them. "Because I think that with a much clearer focus the youth parliament can play a much greater role than it has done to date," Dunne says. Oscar Duffy, representing List MP Melissa Lee became interested in politics last year when his nan was in hospital. "She's a Māori lady and she didn't have the best experience ... so that was a pretty key driver in me being interested in what's going on. "Obviously there's so much tension between Māori and the Crown ... and that affects my family really directly," he says. Duffy agrees that the degree of mentorship varies. He spent substantial time working on projects in his community and in Lee's Mount Albert office but says others didn't have the same experience. "[Ministers] have no time right? Ministers are so busy, I roomed with Simeon Brown's Youth MP and he didn't really see Simeon a lot, if at all," he says. Duffy sees youth parliament as an opportunity for those interested in politics to get an insight into the system. He says everyone attending this year had a keen interest in advocacy and change-making, but he admits that at times some see their role as more important than it is. "There's just a lot of politically charged people in one room. "Putting them all in the same room is great and it gets everyone talking to each other and firing off really good initiatives ... but yeah I guess some of them do think they are a bit more important than they are which is a shame because they probably should be more important and have more of a say," he says. But if he could change one thing Duffy would raise the age bracket because he thinks 16 is too young. "Even just move it up one year, 17-19, so there's more first year uni students who have been through high school, who have seen the whole system," he says. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
1News
6 hours ago
- 1News
NZ passport redesign to have English words above te reo Māori
New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text — with the new look being rolled out atl the end of 2027. Since 2021, newly issued passports have had the words "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above "New Zealand Passport". Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden today confirmed the positions of the text would be swapped in future to reflect the coalition's commitment to using English first "as it is the language most widely spoken by the New Zealand public". 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. Passports with the new design would start being issued only after the existing stock of booklets had been used up. ADVERTISEMENT A spokesperson for Internal Affairs told RNZ the department was working towards an "end-of-2027 release date" for the updated passport. 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 Department of Internal Affairs, in 2021, promoted the passport's existing "unique design" as one to "be proud of" and highlighted the more prominent use of te reo Māori both on the cover and throughout the book. The change came 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 stipulated that public service departments had their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also included an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand. On Wednesday, NZ First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters objected to the Green Party's use of the term "Aotearoa New Zealand" during Parliament's Question Time. ADVERTISEMENT "No such country exists," Peters said. "The name of this country in all the documents, and the membership of the United Nations, is New Zealand. "We are not going to have somebody unilaterally – without consultation, without consulting the New Zealand people – change this country's name." Speaker Gerry Brownlee insisted Peters respond to the question in a "reasonable fashion" and pointed to his ruling earlier this year that it was not inappropriate for MPs to refer to "Aotearoa New Zealand". "The New Zealand Geographic Board also recognises and uses the term 'Aotearoa New Zealand'," Brownlee told MPs. "It would be utterly ridiculous for this House to ban such use if the Geographic Board itself is using that." Returning to the issue yesterday, Peters requested Brownlee reconsider on the basis that the Geographic Board had no jurisdiction to alter the country's name. But Brownlee was unmoved. ADVERTISEMENT He noted that the word "Aotearoa" was regularly used as a name of the country, including on New Zealand passports, which he said Peters would be familiar with — given his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs. "He would have – over some five years or more – presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it," Brownlee said. "I'd further say that through all of those years ... there has been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever from a government he was part of. "That is the end of the matter."
