web analytics

Privileges Committee recommendations are partisan, indefensible and racist

Written By: - Date published: 3:39 pm, May 19th, 2025 - 21 comments
Categories: Judith Collins, maori party, Maori seats, Parliament, uncategorized - Tags:

Tomorrow is D Day in Parliament.

What will happen to the Privileges Committee recommendation in Parliament will be fascinating.

I do not expect Te Pati Maori to take this lying down. And I am sure that the Green Party and at least to an extent Labour will be backing them up.

And my respect for Speaker Brownlee has increased recently. He really does appear to be committed to giving MPs a fair go. His definition of “fair” may be tempered by his decades in the National Party but he was clearly uncomfortable at the Privileges Committee recommendations.

The cause of his discomfort is clear from this analysis by Phil Smith at Radio New Zealand.

It is well worth a read.

Smith’s conclusion is that the Privileges Committee report “appears partisan, indefensible and open to attacks of racism”.

He noted that one MP asked about the power to imprison. That an MP should even think this was an option in response to a symbolic protest against an existential threat to the Treaty of Waitangi speaks volumes about the level of partisanship being applied.

The advice to the Committee from the Clerk of the House includes this passage:

We have not found a case of the Privileges Committee recommending anything other than an apology or censure in respect of disruption or intimidation in the Chamber. There have been a few occasions where suspension has been recommended, where the committee has noted aggravating factors. Those recommended suspensions were for short periods.”

The advice also noted:

In New Zealand, the suspension of members is a rare occurrence, especially in terms of a suspension on the recommendation of the Privileges Committee. A previous committee has recommended a suspension for three sitting days.

Potentially, a suspension of up to seven days could align with the penalty set out in the Standing Orders for a member who is named and suspended for a second time in the same term of Parliament.”

The unfairness in the proposed penalties is because the suggested punishment is greater than that for a member who is named for a second breach during the same Parliamentary term.

As noted by Duncan Webb the committee had previously attempted to reach a consensus. There is no sign of a consensus being sought on this occasion.

The Clerk warned the Committee that “[a]dopting a substantial change to the House’s practice, if done in the context of a particular case, could appear arbitrary”.

It was also advised to set out clearly its rationale for its decision. It has not done so. Smith concluded that the Committee gave a “meagre rationale for the contempt being serious, and no attempt to justify the specific penalty by giving context, comparison or rationale”.

To really muddy things Judith Collins subsequently claimed that Te Pati Maori had prevented Act MPs from voting, even though their vote had already been recorded.

So expect fireworks tomorrow.

It is a shame it has come to this. But it is clear the Privileges Committee is now operating with overtly political considerations.

The Americanisation of our politics, where every issue is addressed exclusively on partisan terms, is clearly now affecting us. Tomorrow will show to which degree and if no prior agreement is reached the level will be high.

21 comments on “Privileges Committee recommendations are partisan, indefensible and racist ”

  1. Mac1 1
    19 May 2025 at 4:20 pm

    "And my respect for Speaker Brownlee has increased recently. He really does appear to be committed to giving MPs a fair go. " Yes, mickysavage, he impressed me when I saw his reading of the process he saw happening with that recommendation. I hope he can see fit to allow all members wanting to voice their opinions of the Privileges Committee to do so, and not curtail the debate. He indicated his role as protector of the minority clearly and his indication that each member could speak to both substantive and amended motions was foreshadowing his take on procedure.

    I hope that someone from the CoC side will not move a slight amendment right at the beginning to shorten this debate, or will each and every amendment allow speeches from every MP who so desires? Also, what effect does relevance and failure to introduce new debating material have upon closures here?

    Reply
  2. ianmac 2
    19 May 2025 at 5:04 pm

    or will each and every amendment allow speeches from every MP who so desires?

    The experts say that an amendment allows the debate to start over again, so if only a few spoke, it would still allow the debate to be extended.

    Reply
  3. bwaghorn 3
    19 May 2025 at 5:19 pm

    I seem to recall slippery key doing a throat slit to someone was he suspended?

    Reply
  4. Muttonbird 4
    19 May 2025 at 6:13 pm

    Farrar watch:

    The wee gnome has blinked, betrayed the desperation of racist right, and posted a very long attack on Philip Smith @ RNZ and even Richard Harman who have questioned the actions of the 5 RWNJs on the privileges committee.

    He even claims the government members of the privileges committee votes on conscience, not by block. This is either extremely naive or disingenuous, probably both.

    He quotes RW pinup boys, bucolic lawyer Liam Hehir, and National Party client journalist Thomas Coughlan, and the anonymous Charted Daily*. He also uses interviews by the completely balanced Heather duplicity-Allen of National Party speakers recently disinterred from the crypt, David Carter and Lockwood Smith.

    *These influencers are fascinating because they are quotable by the likes of Farrar and the government itself. Big in their sights is the idea that public journalism must be neutral and adhere to strict apolitical standards set by conservatives, while private journalism can do whatever the hell it likes. This campaign is waged simply in order to advance wealth's privilege and the privilege of wealth.

    Reply
    • Muttonbird 4.1
      19 May 2025 at 8:30 pm

      Luxon himself destroys Farrar's claim of individual conscience within government:

      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."

      and

      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."

      National's position is a party and government specific position whipped by the Prime Minister.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/561496/pm-on-haka-punishment-if-they-want-to-muck-around-so-be-it

      Reply
  5. Ad 5
    19 May 2025 at 6:39 pm

    I hadn't seen that the Act Party vote had been recorded and therefore weren't prevented by the Maori Party action.

    That makes a material change to my view.

    Reply
  6. Corey 6
    19 May 2025 at 6:50 pm

    It's a harsh punishment and that comment about imprisonment, if true is chilling and that mp whoever they are not fit for parliament.

    However, Labour and the Greens should not spend too much time on this (while they should spend sometime) its never a good look did politicians to look more concerned with internal parliamentary business.

    Kiwis are shockingly and overwhelmingly ignorant on matters of parliament and constitutional matters, to a greater extent than Aussies, Canadians and even Yanks who all seem to know the basics of their system.

    So their eyes glaze over when they hear parliament arguing about parliament for two long.

    I do think they deserved to be punished, not to this extreme but punished none the less, sorry not sorry, they did cross the floor to the treasury benches and packed the gallery full of their supporters, that's unacceptable.

    Had NZF packed the public gallery full of rowdy, heckling anti vaxers and approached the treasury benches aggressively in Jacindas era we would want punishment so this behavior wasn't replicated.

    Parliament, just like a marae has rules and processes and traditions, MP's must respect them if they wish to serve.

    I do not want NZs parliament to devolve into what we see so often in foreign legislative chambers where politicians get violent and hit each other, or where people who didn't like an election result march into the house and wreck havoc..

    The beauty of NZ politics is how local it all is, in no other similar nation can you go up and chat with your local mp on the street or in line in a grocery store.

    I don't want to see that end, ever, we've seen people threaten MPs, camp outside parliament, separatism on the left and right, a continuously erroding decorum in the house, divisive hate and misinformation campaigns funded seemingly by foreign entities that threatens our way of politics.

    The punishment they received however is way too extreme and completely partisan.

    Reply
    • Muttonbird 6.1
      19 May 2025 at 7:19 pm

      By paragraph:

      1. True.
      2. No conviction. You're asking the opposition to fight a bit but not too much and haven't said how much. Basically parrots Luxon's line that we should ignore all this and get on with badness.
      3. Lashing out at your peers. Classy.
      4. Again re-enforcing the point from Luxon who want to see the back of this very quickly.
      5. Again no conviction. What is the correct punishment according to you? The gallery was packed because it was the reading of the most controversial joke bill in recent times.
      6. Equating traditional Tikanga Maori with conspiratorial anti-vaxers. A David Farrar move and racist.
      7. I feel marae would not respond to a supposed breach by banning speakers for 7 times as long as any speaker had been banned in the history of the establishment.
      8. Is that what you think a haka is? You need to read a bit more, perhaps take a few classes.
      9. The only people threatening this are the unhinged conspiracy theorists and their backers and fellow travellers; ACT, NZF, rump Nats and other far right voters.
      10. As above
      11. Punishment is too extreme. Only thing in your comment which is definitive.
      Reply
    • Res Publica 6.2
      20 May 2025 at 8:08 am

      I think you’re missing the political opportunity here. To most people, this isn’t some technical squabble over standing orders. It’s a story about racism, fairness, and who gets to be heard in our democracy.

      Most voters don’t follow parliamentary procedure, but they know what unfairness looks like. And when they see the rules being weaponised to silence dissent, especially Māori dissent, they don’t need a crash course in standing orders to feel that something is deeply wrong.

      This isn’t just a matter of principle: it’s a narrative with serious political heft – if Labour and the Greens can tap into it.

      In a time when people are disillusioned with politics, this is a rare chance to show that someone is still standing up for fairness, transparency, and the right to be heard. It's a moment to draw a clear contrast between a government willing to shut down opposition and a progressive movement defending democracy itself.

      And let’s be honest. In an age where we can watch hyperpartisanship poisoning political systems across the world in real time, that’s a line in the sand worth drawing.

      It’s also one the public is ready to rally behind — if someone’s willing to lead the charge.

      Reply
      • TTT 6.2.1
        20 May 2025 at 9:09 am

        Kia ora, please see Toitū Te Tiriti website and social media for the actual rallying call to assemble at Parliament this afternoon, haka ready and willing to make visible that “We the people” want Te Tiriti, Tikanga and kotahitanga to be upheld, in the House and in our daily lives.

        Reply
  7. SPC 7
    19 May 2025 at 9:44 pm

    Once upon a time a well armed group entered the Urewera's looking for the descendants of a German baker who had formed an alliance with a local sovereignty movement a generation or two earlier.

    Now it is hard to get access to a conservation hut.

    Do not be a collection of dicks (rich and sorted) and duckettes (who quack clap alike for their landlord funded supper) for a future generation of Maori to remember (not when intending to train them to use drones).

    Reply
  8. Ad 8
    20 May 2025 at 9:06 am

    It's going to delay Budget.

    Luxon and Willis will be very dark that Collins and her majority on the Privileges Committee have stuffed up their key annual showpiece. The floor should have been for Willis. I haven't seen this before.

    Reply
    • Ad 8.1
      20 May 2025 at 3:47 pm

      Smart move by Bishop to just defer the debate, protecting Willis' Budget from Collins Privileges mess.

      But this is a House management wreckage toned down to a mess.

      Reply
  9. Dave Kennedy 9
    20 May 2025 at 12:26 pm

    I wrote this more historical perspective that I think provides even greater support for the view that intrenched, systemic racism informed the decision.
    https://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2025/05/privileges-committee-delivers-racist.html

    Reply
  10. Barbara Macdonald 10
    9 June 2025 at 11:11 am

    If the haka in response to the Principles Treaty Bill is regarded as unconstitutional, surely the Privilege Committee's decision, the "harshest" in New Zealand history", is both unconstitutional and entirely inappropriate.

    Reply

Leave a Comment