web analytics

Te Pati Maori and the Privileges Committee

Written By: - Date published: 9:58 am, May 16th, 2025 - 40 comments
Categories: Gerry Brownlee, Maori Issues, maori party, Parliament, Rawiri Waititi, treaty settlements - Tags:

Judith Collins was at her insufferable worst yesterday when she announced the Privileges Committee recommendation that Te Pati Maori MPs Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi be suspended from Parliament for their behaviour that happened at the conclusion of the first reading debate on Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.

Here is the video if you need a reminder of what happened.

The recommendation is that Ms Maipi-Clarke is suspended from Parliament for seven days and Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi are suspended for 21 days.

The difference is apparently because Ms Maipi-Clarke apologised to speaker Gerry Brownlee for putting him in a predicament by disrupting the processes he had to conduct that day and she is less experienced.

Each MP provided a written response to the complaint.

Their collective response was as follows:

Our actions in the House were an expression of tikanga, upholding the values and obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our tino rangatiratanga.

Waititi pointed out that he had conducted haka in Parliament before. His decision was because the Government was interfering with te Tiriti o Waitangi. He was expressing anger and opposition to a subject that is abusive and denigrating

Ngarewa-Packer described how the debate made her feel “under siege” politically, spiritually, culturally, and generationally. The haka was her response to injustice, and a declaration of her identity.

Labour members of the committee considered that the behaviour did constitute a contempt of Parliament but that the penalties were unduly severe. They considered that no further suspension of Maipi-Clarke was appropriate given that she had already been suspended and had apologised.

About Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer they said “the length of the proposed suspension is disproportionate and does not place sufficient weight on the fundamental nature of the right (and duty) of a member to attend the House. We also observe that sanctions of the severity imposed are unprecedented in the New Zealand House of Representatives. We consider that one, or at most two days suspension would be appropriate.”

The Green Party representatives described the punishment of 21 days for the co leaders as being “severe and unprecedented”.

The Te Pati Maori member’s response concluded as follows:

We reject the mischaracterisation of our actions as contempt and intimidation. Our MPs acted with integrity, on behalf of our people and in defence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We assert our right as Maori, as Maori electorate MPs, to challenge legislation that undermines our people. Tikanga has a rightful place in Parliament.

Our enduring message to this committee, to the world, and most importantly our mokopuna is:
“Ka mate, ka mate, ka ora, ka ora!”

Speaker Brownlee was obviously concerned about the recommendation. In Parliament he said:

These punishments recommended by the committee are very severe and are unprecedented in this Parliament. As far as I’m aware, since the House first met in 1854, no member who has been found guilty of contempt has been suspended for more than three days. I’m also conscious that unlike in previous such cases, suspension from the service of the House now carries a substantial financial penalty. The committee’s recommendation therefore represents a significant development in the practice of the House. A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision.

I also note that the committee’s recommendation was adopted by a narrow majority. That is an important point when the effect of the recommendation would be to deprive members of a minority party of their ability to sit and vote in this House for several days.

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. 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.

As pointed out by Idiot Savant this could have a major effect on budget week. From No Right Turn:

Just to spell that out: privileges committee reports trump all other business, and if everyone gets a 10-minute speaking slot, that’s up to 1240 minutes – 20.6 hours – if everyone speaks once for their full time (550 minutes / 9 hours if only the opposition speaks, and 210 minutes / 3.5 hours if just the Greens and Te Pāti Māori do). And if an amendment is moved, everyone gets to speak again. There are 6.5 hours in a normal sitting day (less an hour for question time), and there are only two of them before the government wants to present its budget (and it wants to do some legislating before then, and hold a member’s day). So if the government doesn’t agree to vote for a more appropriate penalty (say, one day), this debate will drag on, eat their carefully-planned legislative calendar, eat Member’s Day, and ultimately prevent their budget from being presented on schedule, disrupting their big PR setpiece.

So, I guess National gets to choose: do they want vicious racist vengeance and to undermine the legitimacy of their parliament? Or do they want to have the budget as normal?

Next week was going to be difficult enough for the Government. It looks like it may get a whole lot more difficult.

40 comments on “Te Pati Maori and the Privileges Committee ”

  1. Chris 1
    16 May 2025 at 10:12 am

    A response like that, coming from someone like Gerry Brownlee, says a lot about Judith Collins.

    Reply
    • Gareth 1.1
      18 May 2025 at 8:37 pm

      A little bird told me that Gerry was ropeable and is taking revenge by allowing the debate to push next weeks government business into June. Some Labour members have multiple amendments per member queued up.

      Reply
    • newsense 1.2
      19 May 2025 at 4:47 am

      What strange days we live in when Gerry Brownlee is the figleaf that protects our democracy and by extension our country.

      Reply
  2. Tiger Mountain 2
    16 May 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Haka is fine it seems when players perform like trained seals at “the Rugby”, or people welcome foreign dignitaries or entertain tourists. The Speaker at least does seem to have caught onto some of the issues involved. There is a whole cultural context here that should be rather obvious given the Act and Hobsons Choice white supremacists move on all things Māori.

    Reply
  3. SPC 3
    16 May 2025 at 3:25 pm

    Into the maelstrom emerges, from the ether, one man's call for Te Pati Maori to leave parliament and not return until they recognise Crown sovereignty.

    He Vance's (couches) it as a moral order, if they are to stand by their convictions.

    A country girl would call his argument, all that hooting and a hollering, attention seeking.

    His reference to Sinn Fein warrants a reply from the (hopefully) more informed Trevor Mallard. It would suffice to say Sinn Fein never sought to participate in the rule over Wales and Scotland (or Northern Ireland) from London. They sought the end of UK rule from all of Ireland. But they did contest elections in Ireland, their land, while it was under the UK Crown rule.

    So strike one for lack of reasoned argument.

    The supremacy of the Crown is well known, governments in its name betrayed the Treaty as if they were not bound by it – because they did not want to be. Some of those people are around today and they want to take us back to the pre 1975 era, a time of unprincipled assimilation.

    Those that oppose that Crown order belong in parliament to defend the Treaty, especially when a coalition government includes 2 and half parties inclined to undermine it.

    Saying otherwise at this time, is being a d… .

    https://archive.li/1tbAK#selection-3923.0-4040.1

    Reply
  4. Binders full of women 4
    16 May 2025 at 3:35 pm

    I stand with Steve Maharey

    Reply
  5. ianmac 5
    16 May 2025 at 4:27 pm

    21 days from 21 may equals 10 June

    21 Sitting days takes it to 31 July. or 12 August for next sitting day!!!!

    Which is it?

    Pretty devastating isn't it and anti democratic surely!

    Reply
  6. Ad 6
    17 May 2025 at 9:52 am

    Delberately prevent other parties from voting when you've voted yourself,

    refuse to engage with the Parliamentary Privileges Committee for 6 months,

    don't ever apologize,

    and continue to shield yourself in all media in sheer sanctimonious righteousness.

    They clearly don't want to be in Parliament at all.

    21 sitting days is easily fair.

    Reply
    • SPC 6.1
      17 May 2025 at 11:37 am

      Don't repeat the lie.

      All they did (and could do) was delay the vote.

      Reply
      • Ad 6.1.1
        17 May 2025 at 4:15 pm

        Preventing any vote in our Parliament is a fundamental attack on democratic representation.

        Off they go and good job.

        Reply
    • Patricia Bremner 6.2
      17 May 2025 at 4:03 pm

      If you look at it as a Colonialist who thinks might is right Ad.

      When all you have left to express disgust at right wing ideas is protest.

      When the rules are weighted against justice.

      When your choice of Lawyer is denied, and a refusal to hear cultural explanations.

      To remove representation of Opposition, a Government that has blithely circumvented the rules and norms of protocols themselves, is sailing ever closer to authoritarian rule. imo.

      Reply
      • Ad 6.2.1
        17 May 2025 at 4:18 pm

        Arse to all that PC bullshit.

        They get $180,000 to turn up to work according to specific rules.

        Turn up, obey the rules, get paid $9,900 a month after tax.

        Don't obey the rules, prepare for what you deserve.

        That simple.

        Reply
        • Patricia Bremner 6.2.1.1
          17 May 2025 at 8:46 pm

          Why didn't you get stirred up over the use of urgency?

          Why didn't you question the calling out of racist comments?

          Why are you wanting to cause even more division?

          Or do you think I should not question your assertions?

          Being sanctioned by Judith Collins…? A perfect example of following the rules…not!!

          Reply
        • weka 6.2.1.2
          17 May 2025 at 11:06 pm

          civil disobedience is a fundamental of democracy.

          Reply
      • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.2
        18 May 2025 at 1:40 am

        https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/09-04-2018/irrefutable-proof-taika-waititi-is-wrong-and-nz-is-not-racist-as-fuck

        NAct pollies aren't necessarily "racist as fuck", but they will "defend division by wealth" – with every fibre of their being.

        The House: Parliamentary privileges – Race as an aggravating factor?
        [17 May 2025]
        There was surprise and shock over the recommended punishments for Te Pāti Māori MPs, which seemed both unprecedented and extreme.

        In retrospect, considering this week's response from Parliament's Speaker, the advice now available from Parliament's Clerk, and Committee Chair Judith Collins' public defence of her own report, that initial reaction was overly calm. The committee report now appears partisan, indefensible and open to attacks of racism.

        You Don’t Look Like A Māori
        I believe New Zealand is generally a tolerant country. I also believe that the rights and recognition that Māori receive now directly reflect the tenacity and fighting spirit of our people, not this mistaken idea that here in New Zealand we’ve treated our natives well, compared to other countries. When people in the dominant culture who don’t know what it’s like to be colonized, and don’t understand the transgenerational trauma and systemic racism that naturally follows such oppression would say things like ‘Get over it. It’s in the past,’ our people didn’t give up. They endured lengthy legal battles and made sustained efforts to get some form of redress for what was violently ripped away and stolen. Māori people have fought for each and every gain that has been made, and will continue to fight, and will continue to flourish.

        According to the Human Rights Commission, reported instances of racism are on the rise in New Zealand, with a third of all complaints to the commission regarding racist discrimination. It is thought the vast majority of racial abuse still goes unreported.
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-racism-debate-taika-waititi

        Surely it won't be long before Mr Relatable wades in and out.

        Reply
      • gsays 6.2.3
        18 May 2025 at 11:44 am

        "To remove representation of Opposition, a Government that has blithely circumvented the rules and norms of protocols themselves, is sailing ever closer to authoritarian rule. imo."

        Well said Patricia.

        When this lot make legislation: no consultation, no impact regulatory statements, urgency, retrospective and in the case of scrapping contracts, no notion of how much harm will this cause.

        Very real harm to our most vulnerable youth.

        Real harm in real time vs the outrage of some performance theatre in the House.

        TBF that is in Collins DNA. Defending the indefensible.

        Reply
    • Grey Area 6.3
      17 May 2025 at 7:35 pm

      "21 sitting days is easily fair".

      Fuck off. I agree with some of what you post but always hold back as I try to assess where you're coming from.

      In this case if white colonial oppression wanted a smackdown for disobeying the white colonial settler “rules”, one day might have been fair.

      So long as that c… Seymour was also banned for a day for his Land Rover stunt.

      Reply
    • Andrew R 6.4
      19 May 2025 at 5:42 pm

      All the other parties had already voted. So no other party was prevented from voting as you wrongly claim.

      Reply
  7. Thebiggestfish7 7
    17 May 2025 at 11:02 am

    I fully support them being found in contempt. I do t agree with the punishment though. I think a week would be more reasonable followed by heftier penalties should they break the rules again. The greens position on the whole matter is why I could never vote for them again under Chloe’s leadership.

    Reply
    • Grey Area 7.1
      17 May 2025 at 7:43 pm

      "21 sitting days is easily fair".

      Fuck off. I agree with some of what you post but always hold back as I try to assess where you're coming from.

      In this case if white colonial oppression wanted a smackdown, one day might have been fair.

      So long as that c… Seymour was also banned for a day for his Land Rover stunt.

      Reply
    • Ed1 7.2
      17 May 2025 at 9:02 pm

      I believe that contempt is in this case a technicality – as a multicultural nation, and importantly having the nation we do in large part due to the Treaty of Watangi, it should be reasonable for both our British and Maori heritage to be recognised in the forms of parliament. That this has not previously been considered is an indictment on successive governments. We do accept Maori celebrations of some items, being Treaty Settlements and recognition of important contributions by some retiring Maori MPs, regardless of the party to which they belong. The reason for the haka on this occasion was the threat of an effective rejection of both the Treaty of Waitangi and our Maori heritage – as a national we should be prepared to accept the implications of such a threat, which demeans all the current parties in government. to now see this being regarded as deserving of such a punishment that it is an attack on democracy is very disappointing, So yes technically there is a minor "contempt" – it hardly affected the progress of business of the house, and the punishment should be something like not being allowed to speak in say the first hour of debate on any bill for one day, but they should definitely not lose their ability to vote on all matters before the house for any period at all – that would be a grievous attack on democracy

      Reply
  8. weka 8
    17 May 2025 at 2:00 pm

    presumably Brownlee understood the full implications of his ruling, so can we take that as intentional and a distancing from this National government's position of breaking parliamentary norms?

    Reply
  9. Grey Area 9
    17 May 2025 at 7:49 pm

    "The ball is mostly in Labour's court".

    But only if Hipkins remembers he has a pair.

    Reply
    • Incognito 9.1
      17 May 2025 at 8:15 pm

      I think it’s up to Labour caucus. They might put up (a token) resistance but I doubt they will go full-out and all the way on this. I think political pragmatism will win over solidarity politics (or ‘virtue signalling’ as some cynics might call it).

      Reply
      • Ed1 9.1.1
        17 May 2025 at 9:32 pm

        The insulting actions of ACT1stNat need to be met with the combined weight of all Opposition parties – if they can filibuster for say one full day it would send a message to Act1stNat that affirming support for our historic cultures should not be difficult; it speaks to fundamental issues such as the Treaty of Waitangi and common human decency that does not necessarily indicate support for any other particular policies of other parties.

        Reply
        • Incognito 9.1.1.1
          17 May 2025 at 9:46 pm

          They might use time wisely and say what needs to be said (and without scoring own goals). Beyond that it’s just wasting everybody’s precious time, which is just annoying and becomes frustrating & irritating quickly, IMO.

          Reply
          • gsays 9.1.1.1.1
            18 May 2025 at 2:22 pm

            By everybody, do you mean parliamentarians, their staff and parliament support staff?

            This looks like a prime opportunity to push back against a government that has been riding roughshod over too many of us.

            Possibly get comrades punishments reduced.

            What are examples of the own goals you mention?

            Reply
            • Incognito 9.1.1.1.1.1
              18 May 2025 at 6:10 pm

              By everybody I meant everybody who follows, engages with, participates in, and reports on politics in its broadest sense.

              An example is giving van Velden an opportunity to play the victim; personal attacks of any kind are the weakest of tactics in robust debate, IMHO.

              Reply
              • newsense …
                19 May 2025 at 4:58 am

                There was hardly a strong simple message on pay equity in the media. That seemed a good chance to seize the momentum.

                Equally accepting the budget framework undercuts plenty of avenues of attack.

                Reply
    • newsense 9.2
      19 May 2025 at 4:54 am

      Judging from Ad’s position above there’s a bunch of Labour terrified of getting wedged and Steven Joyced on this issue, and wanting to win back some of the racist vote from NZ First.

      Reply

Leave a Comment