Latest news with #GerryBrownlee
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
The House: Parliamentary agency resources under pressure
Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Parliament risks being overwhelmed by an increase in public engagement on bills, Clerk of the House David Wilson told MPs this week. Wilson, along with Speaker Gerry Brownlee and Parliamentary Service Chief Executive Rafael Gonzalez Montero, joined the Governance and Administration Committee on Wednesday. The event was part two-albeit a month late-of the Estimates hearing for the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service. Brownlee is not a cabinet minister, but even so, he is the minister responsible (as Speaker) for Parliament's agencies, the Office of the Clerk (OOC), and the Parliamentary Service (PS). He oversees the PS but the OOC is independent. Much of Wednesday's hearing was focused on a perceived strain on the OOC's staff and resources. The source of that strain has apparently come from the increase of three things: the increased use of urgency, the number of public submissions on bills, and the amount of scrutiny by select committees. Such technical, behind-the-scenes parliamentary issues are dry but crucial to the effective oversight and transparency of government, and to participation in the law-making process. Both are sacrosanct to a functioning democracy. Wilson said the Office of the Clerk currently has the resources to cope with the aggregate demand for its services. His concern though, is being able to cope with a potential "new norm" of having unprecedented submissions on bills, which he said they would "really struggle to deal with". "We can deal with one or two bills that attract a huge amount of public interest [but] we couldn't deal with those simultaneously, though, with current resources," Wilson said. So would such a shift mean that some public submissions will not be able to be processed because the Office of the Clerk wouldn't have the capacity? There is potential mitigation on the horizon in the form of the Parliament Bill, which is currently waiting for its second reading. While not a silver-bullet, the law change would enable Wilson to make a case directly to Parliament for sufficient resourcing to deal with the increased scale of submissions, and not rely on the discretion of the Minister of Finance. The current session of Parliament changed how select committees scrutinised Government spending and performance. This included the introduction of two dedicated scrutiny weeks a year (one for Estimates and one for Annual Review), longer hearings and cross examinations, and more for committees to report. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins All that extra scrutiny increases labour and time costs. Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March expressed concern about whether Parliament has the resources to do justice to the new arrangements. "The feedback we have received [is] that there's a genuine trade-off that happens with increased scrutiny and ability to produce substantive reports," he said. Wilson said it's a matter of priorities. "More so than previously, there is the need to weigh up where the energy and attention of the committee and therefore the staff are going to focus... If you're doubling the amount of time spent on scrutiny, there's not double the amount of resource to support that," he said. Other than hoping for respite from the Parliament Bill's new funding mechanism, MPs could also propose changes to Parliament's rules and processes in the Standing Orders Review, which happens at the end of each Parliamentary term. That would be expected to occur in 2026. Brownlee, who chairs the Standing Orders Committee, suggested this as a method for countering the increased strain on Parliament's staff and resources. He told MPs on Wednesday the trend is that there are more submissions on all bills at the moment than there has been in the past. "I think it's for the Standing Orders Committee of Parliament to make some decisions around that, so if you've got some ideas, then feed them in," Brownlee said. You can listen to the audio version of this story by clicking the link at the top of the page. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
1News
06-06-2025
- Politics
- 1News
Opposition calls for tikanga committee following haka debate
Opposition parties have called for a tikanga committee for Parliament following last night's vote on record suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka to protest the Treaty Principles Bill. 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.
RNZ News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Parliament faces a debate primed for filibuster in Budget week
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke rips up a copy of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill at the conclusion of the Bill's First Reading. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Parliament could be debating the potential punishment of Te Pāti Māori MPs for last year's Treaty Principles haka well into the night, if not for weeks or even months. The opposition parties say the proposed punishments - 21 days for the co-leaders and seven for Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, who led the haka but showed contrition - is too severe. They will have the opportunity to explain that at length when Parliament sits at 2pm. Unusually for New Zealand's Parliament, it will be a debate primed for filibuster. Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee set out the parameters last week, including that all 123 MPs will be allowed to speak - and if any amendment is put forward they would then be allowed to speak again. Such amendments could include a change to the length of the suspensions. Parliament's public gallery will be closed on Tuesday, but a protest is planned on the forecourt. Should the debate continue long enough, the Budget would take precedence over it and Te Pāti Māori MPs would be able to participate - including having their votes against the Budget recorded. Parties will carefully consider how to handle the debate in caucus meetings this morning, weighing how long the punishment should be and how long the debate lasts. Te Pāti Māori said the proposed punishment was unjust and unfair, silencing them and a quarter of te iwi Māori. Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Photo: RNZ / Russell Palmer Labour was undecided on its approach, with Chris Hipkins saying he would take the issue to his MPs at their caucus meeting this morning. He felt there were more important things to be debated - like pay equity - and he did not think New Zealanders wanted to see politicians continuing to talk about themselves, but also said the three weeks put forward by the Privileges Committee was a "massive escalation" on the previous harshest penalty - a three-day suspension. A spokesperson for the Green Party said they would be "scrutinising this decision to the highest degree". Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Monday ruled out any compromise , so a deal between the government and opposition for a shorter debate seems unlikely. ACT's David Seymour, whose bill prompted the haka, told RNZ Te Pāti Māori's behaviour showed its MPs believed their behaviour was acceptable. "I hope the debate will be over very quickly ... this is Budget week and New Zealanders deserve to see how the government will manage the economy over the coming year, not hijinks in response to very wrong hijinks of Te Pāti Māori," he said. "These are unprecedented offences and they deserve unprecedented penalties." He said the previous record of three days suspension handed to former Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon for publicly criticising the Speaker was "very different from breaking ancient laws of our Parliment - tikanga if you like - that you should not leave your seat". "If they believe that is a legitimate way to do business, the punishment should be strong enough to persuade them of that belief, and I'd give them three months. "If it was up to me, a 90-day sentence of suspension but then subtract all the days they haven't shown up anyway. Like time served." New Zealand First's Winston Peters, who was also on the Privileges Committee that proposed the punishments, has long decried what he sees as falling standards at Parliament, putting the first-reading haka into that category. It will therefore be up to the Speaker and the opposition parties how long the debate lasts, and Brownlee has stated his willingness to support the minority in this case. Whether the disruption to the government's agenda is worth potential backlash for time wasting will be the political calculation being made. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
PM on haka punishment: 'If they want to muck around, so be it'
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon speaks at today's media conference. Photo: Screenshot Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has flatly rejected the possibility of watering down the proposed punishment for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. He says his party accepts the unprecedented recommendations by the Privilege Committee, which Speaker Gerry Brownlee has called "very severe". MPs are preparing for what could be a long debate tomorrow night, when Parliament's Privileges Committee report comes up in the House for discussion. The committee last week proposed suspending Te Pāti Māori's co-leaders for 21 days for their haka during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who instigated the haka but subsequently expressed some contrition, faces a seven day suspension. The Speaker last week stressed the need for MPs to give the matter "due consideration" before confirming the punishment : "A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision." Brownlee also pointed out that the recommendation could yet be amended. But addressing media on Monday, Luxon told RNZ he was not open to any concessions, and he supported the determination of the Privileges Committee. "We have a Privileges Committee that's empowered to make those decisions and determine what's the appropriate punishment." Asked whether all National MPs were comfortable with the length of the recommended suspension, Luxon said: "Yes, our caucus position is really clear." He said he had not discussed the matter with his MPs as that was not necessary. "We know our position." Luxon said it was ultimately up to the opposition whether to drag out the debate, but he suggested "reasonable minded New Zealanders" would disapprove. "Frankly, if they want to muck around, so be it." Watch the full post-Cabinet press conference here: Also speaking on Monday afternoon, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his MPs would discuss their strategy as a caucus tomorrow morning. "Unlike the prime minister, I'm not going to unilaterally cut my caucus out of any conversations on this, I do want to hear from them first." Hipkins expressed some discomfort with the prospect of filibustering - intentionally prolonging a debate - saying he thought there were "far more important" matters to debate. But he also said the proposed sanction was a "massive escalation" on the previous harshest punishment - just a three day suspension. "No government has ever used its majority to suspend its opponents for 21 days in New Zealand's history," Hipkins said. "It is the sort of action you'd see from a tin-pot dictatorship, not a thriving democracy." He said Labour had contacted National to offer a conversation about reaching a more "appropriate and proportionate sanction". "I'm taking it from the prime minister's comments at his press conference just now that they're not interested in that conversation." A spokesperson for the Green Party told RNZ: "We are going to be scrutinising this decision to the highest degree." If the debate is still continuing when the House rises at 10pm on Tuesday, the Speaker will decide whether it takes precedence over members' day on Wednesday, or is adjourned until the next sitting day after the Budget, in early June. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
How the Opposition could derail Budget week and save Te Pāti Māori
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.
