logo
How the Opposition could derail Budget week and save Te Pāti Māori

How the Opposition could derail Budget week and save Te Pāti Māori

Newsroom16-05-2025
Analysis: After a slim majority of government MPs on Parliament's Privileges Committee handed down unprecedented 21-day suspensions for Te Pāti Māori co-leaders, Speaker Gerry Brownlee has opened a door for the sanction to be rolled back.
The aftershocks of the haka heard around the world are still playing out at Parliament, six months after the infamous first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. On Wednesday evening, the report of the Privileges Committee – the cross-party committee that investigates breaches of Parliament's rules – into Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi and MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was released.
It showed the National, Act and New Zealand First members of the committee, who hold a narrow majority, recommended a 21-day suspension without pay for Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi and seven days for Maipi-Clarke. The Opposition parties represented on the committee entered differing views, with Te Pāti Māori saying its MPs had done nothing wrong and Labour and the Greens arguing the sentence was too harsh.
The suspensions are not yet in effect, as they must be adopted by the House. That motion will be put to Parliament on Tuesday, after Question Time but before bills and other matters are considered. If approved, the suspensions would kick in immediately, meaning the MPs would miss Thursday's Budget debate – one of the biggest events of the year in Parliament.
'Unprecedented' is a word that has floated around Parliament for several weeks now.
Judith Collins, the Attorney-General and chair of the Privileges Committee, said in early April that the party's decision not to attend the committee in person was 'unprecedented'. On Thursday, she said the punishment was unprecedented because the 'situation was unprecedented'.
Te Pāti Māori has deployed the term too, with Ngarewa-Packer saying ahead of the final report that the punishment would be 'unprecedented' and the committee was trying to 'make an example of us'. After the sanctions landed, the party's press statement called it 'unprecedented' as the 'harshest punishment in Parliament history'.
Some of this is hyperbole. Some of it is true – Brownlee confirmed the suspension is the longest in the New Zealand Parliament's 171-year history.
All of it is positioning, part of escalating rhetoric for a situation truly without precedent: the complete breakdown of consensus on Parliament's usually unanimous Privileges Committee.
Notwithstanding the everyday fireworks between parties in the House, all prior Privileges Committee reports for many years have been accepted by all parties, including those whose members have been criticised or censured.
Unanimity has been broken before. In 2008, Labour and NZ First opposed the recommendation of the majority of the Privileges Committee that NZ First leader Winston Peters be censured over the Owen Glenn scandal. However, Labour's other coalition and confidence-and-supply partners voted alongside the Opposition.
The situation here is different. First, censure and suspension are substantively different – the former comes off as a slap on the wrist while the latter deprives constituents of a voice, and parties of their MPs.
Second, the dividing line falls neatly between Government and Opposition. In effect, the Government has used its majority in Parliament (and therefore on the committee) to remove several members of the Opposition from Parliament for a period of weeks.
While the proper processes have been followed and this is all within Parliament's rules, it is a drastic step that looks, on its face, undemocratic. Were the decision unanimous, or at least accompanied by support from Opposition parties other than Te Pāti Māori, it might more closely resemble a consensus about how to punish rule-breaking. Instead, it looks vindictive and – with the timing before Budget day – opportunistic.
Perhaps that is why Brownlee took the chance on Thursday, ahead of the debate, to make clear the gravity of the proposed suspensions and lay the ground for a serious clash between government and opposition MPs debating the report on Tuesday.
'As the committee's report states, the Speaker has a duty to protect the rights of members of all sides of the House. In particular, there's a longstanding convention for Speakers to safeguard the fair treatment of the minority. I intend to honour that convention by ensuring the House does not take a decision next week without due consideration,' Brownlee said.
'In my view, these severe recommended penalties placed before the House for consideration mean it would be unreasonable to accept a closure motion until all perspectives and views had been very fully expressed.'
Brownlee went on to remind the House of the rules for the coming debate, including that the recommendation can be amended, that every member has the ability to speak for up to 10 minutes and that once an amendment is proposed, everyone who has already spoken can do so again.
In theory, this sets up the possibility of an American-style filibuster of the Government's plans for next week – although fall short of jeopardising the all-important Budget day debate..
A sufficiently coordinated Opposition could keep the debate going from after Question Time on Tuesday until the House rises at 10pm that evening, then resume again on Wednesday afternoon. If it were still running by 10pm on Wednesday, it would pick up again on the next post-Budget sitting day, which would be June 3.
Although Budget day would proceed as planned regardless, Ngarewa-Packer, Waititi and Maipi-Clarke would be able to participate if the Privileges Committee report had not yet been voted on.
The governing benches have one recourse to close off the debate: a closure motion, which any MP can propose but which requires the approval of the Speaker. (They could also move to adjourn the debate, but this would just delay, not stop it. Te Pāti Māori's MPs would still be able to participate on Budget day.) As Brownlee said on Thursday, he's not inclined to grant that motion 'until all perspectives and views have been very fully expressed'.
In other words, Brownlee has the final say here. He has intentionally left the door open for the Government to walk back the punishment, which could signal he has reservations about its severity.
The prospect of losing valuable time to advance the Government's legislative agenda on Tuesday is already haunting Leader of the House Chris Bishop, who queried Brownlee about the potential impact on 'timetabling'.
'I'm well aware of that,' Brownlee replied, before noting that the timing of the debate was required by Standing Orders and the rules of the debate are similarly enshrined therein.
While Bishop could tag his planned legislative actions for Tuesday onto the post-Budget urgency motion on Thursday, this would still keep MPs in Wellington for hours or days longer than planned. Instead, he might be willing to try to cut a deal with the Opposition, walking back some or all of Te Pāti Māori's sentence in exchange for the permission to get on with the Government's business in the House.
A filibuster could only succeed with Labour's involvement. The Green and Te Pāti Māori caucuses are too small to keep it going well into Wednesday without Labour's 34 MPs.
Is Labour keen to disrupt the House in this way? That's something the caucus will have to work out on Tuesday morning, when it meets to discuss the issue.
On the one hand, the party doesn't want to look like an agent of chaos to middle voters who want some sobriety restored to politics. It also doesn't want to align itself too closely to Te Pāti Māori.
There might also be a concern about precedent, but the potential for a filibuster here is the result of a unique confluence of events. The only debates that have no time limit and come before the Government's business of the day (so before urgency can be declared) are debates on reports of the Privileges Committee.
The rarity of non-unanimous Privileges Committee recommendations means such opportunities will very rarely present themselves. The Speaker can also shut off the debate at any time, so would need to be a willing implicit participant in any filibuster plot. Therefore, such an effort here is unlikely to become commonplace in Parliament.
What might drive Labour to support a filibuster are the chance to force a backdown from the Government, which comes along once in a blue moon in Opposition, and to complicate the narrative around the crown jewel of the political year: Budget Day.
Moreover, voters may well appreciate Labour standing up against suspensions that could be perceived as almost authoritarian excess, regardless of the party targeted. Flexing political muscle and shoring up democracy could be a good look for a Labour Party that has struggled to get cut-through so far this term.
Whether a filibuster actually happens thus relies on several moving parts: If Labour deems it a worthwhile risk, if Brownlee is frustrated enough to derail Bishop's plans for the week and if the Government is willing to come to the table to work out a compromise.
Regardless of the outcome, it will be a fascinating watch. As Waititi said in concluding his speech on the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill, just minutes before the famous haka began: 'See you next Tuesday'.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the debate on the Privileges Committee report could delay the Budget day debate itself. If the debate on the Privileges Committee report is still ongoing at 10pm on Wednesday, it will resume on the next post-Budget sitting day – June 3. Thursday will see the Budget debate begin as planned, followed by government business.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Space, spies, stalking, and extra sittings
Space, spies, stalking, and extra sittings

RNZ News

time10 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.

Coalition Of Colonisers War On Trans Rights Is Colonial Violence
Coalition Of Colonisers War On Trans Rights Is Colonial Violence

Scoop

time13 hours ago

  • Scoop

Coalition Of Colonisers War On Trans Rights Is Colonial Violence

Te Pāti Māori stands firm in upholding mana motuhake over our bodies, identities, and spaces. We reject unequivocally the Crown's latest attempt to erase trans inclusion from sport. It is not only discriminatory, it is a direct continuation of colonial gender imposition. 'We reject all policies that seek to exclude our rainbow whānau from public life including sport' said Te Pāti Māori Co-leader, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. 'Te Tiriti o Waitangi demands equity for all tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti. Government sport codes must reflect Tiriti justice not weaponised 'fairness'. Rainbow inclusion is a human right.' 'Our whakapapa includes ira tāne, ira wāhine, and ira atua. Our duty is to uphold mana for all not to replicate the violence of Western binary systems' added Co-leader Rawiri Waititi. 'This is nothing more than dog-whistle politics a deliberate attempt to inflame colonial fear and hatred instead of fostering understanding, education, and aroha within our communities.' Te Pāti Māori affirms that the existence, safety, and participation of our Rainbow and Takatāpui whānau are non-negotiable. We will always stand to protect the mana, rights, and whakapapa of our people.

Nicola Willis: NZers not getting a 'raw deal' on butter
Nicola Willis: NZers not getting a 'raw deal' on butter

Otago Daily Times

time17 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Nicola Willis: NZers not getting a 'raw deal' on butter

By Giles Dexter of RNZ The Finance Minister does not believe New Zealanders are getting a "raw deal" on butter, but has accepted there is no getting away from how expensive it is right now. Nicola Willis met Fonterra's chief executive Miles Hurrell at Parliament on Tuesday evening. While the two meet regularly, there was increased interest in the meeting due to the current price of butter. Willis had earlier said it was something she would discuss with Hurrell. Characterising the meeting as "constructive and engaging," Willis said Hurrell was candid about the way butter was priced in New Zealand. Her summarisation of her meeting with Fonterra largely zeroed in on her drive to increase supermarket competition. The large proportion of what people pay for butter is dictated by global demand, which is something the government could not control. "Were that price to come down, you would expect that to be reflected in the prices that New Zealand shoppers pay," Willis said. Hurrell had told her that butter had once been the hardest product for Fonterra to sell globally, but the increasing demand was due to reporting on its health benefits. "It was once viewed as a bogeyman," she said. The meeting had reinforced Willis' interest in increasing supermarket competition to put downward pressure on the price of butter. "All roads lead back to supermarket competition. I continue to believe that is the most powerful lever that the government has on this issue. We will never be able to control global dairy prices. What we can influence is the amount of competition in New Zealand's grocery sector and we have a lot of work under way to address that." Fonterra had also observed the supermarket competition. "Miles specifically conveyed that Fonterra operates in a number of markets around the world, most of which have a more competitive supermarket sector, and that it does feel different in New Zealand." She would leave it to supermarkets and Fonterra to argue who was charging what margin. "The sense that I got from my engagement with Miles is that it's a constant battle between them. Each party are probably going to point fingers at the other." Hurrell would not answer questions when RNZ approached him outside Parliament on Tuesday night, but a Fonterra spokesperson said the meeting was "constructive". Willis said she had encouraged Hurrell to front, in particular to explain what proportion of the margins go to Fonterra and what goes to supermarkets. Acknowledging that Fonterra's job was to get the best possible price for its shareholders, Willis also accepted New Zealanders saw the downsides of that when they were shopping. "I've been satisfied that I don't think consumers are getting a raw deal. I think that there is good work going on to ensure that there is pressure and competition from Fonterra to try and keep its prices low. But I get it. Butter is expensive right now. There's no getting away from that."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store