web analytics

The Government blinks

Written By: - Date published: 9:35 am, May 21st, 2025 - 15 comments
Categories: act, chris bishop, chris hipkins, maori party, national, Parliament, same old national - Tags:

Well that was dramatic.

Yesterday I am sure that every political activist in the country set themselves up to watch Parliament and see the debate concerning the Privileges Committee proposal and the suggestion that three Maori Party MPs be suspended from Parliament for performing a haka in opposition to Act’s odious Treaty Principles Bill.

As I said earlier my view was that the proposed punishment was partisan, indefensible and racist. Others who are more independent than me thought similar.

And Labour had tried to sort the issue out but were met with a stonewall by National who clearly wanted to play politics with the issue.

From Jo Moir at Radio New Zealand:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has contacted both the Prime Minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop about the amendments, committing to keep the debate short and restrict the number of MPs who speak in the debate if they’re accepted by the government.

Earlier on Tuesday Hipkins told Morning Report Labour was unlikely to engage in filibustering to slow the progress of the debate, and he doubted all his MPs would take a call in the debate.

But just a few hours later at Parliament Hipkins said his party was leaving “all options on the table at this point”.

He told reporters on his way into caucus that he’d got in touch with the government side this morning to “reiterate to them that we’re open to a shorter debate if the penalty being proposed is brought back in line with past precedent”.

National did not respond to Labour’s overtures.

But part way through the debate on the report Chris Bishop stood and effectively accepted Labour’s offer at least in part by moving to delay the suspension until after the budget debate. It is not clear if this will allow the MPs in question to vote on the budget but at least they will be able to speak to the debate.

Clearly this was a late decision. Speaker Gerry Brownlee only had a couple of minutes notice via a written note from Bishop.

Hipkins had previously eviscerated the Government in his speech especially this part:

It is never OK to intimidate another member of the House. But the sanction being proposed by the Privileges Committee is totally out of line with existing parliamentary practice and is disproportionate to the allegations that have been posed.

Let’s be clear about what the Māori Party are not being sanctioned for. They are not being sanctioned for doing a haka, because haka have been performed in this House and that is acceptable. They are also not being sanctioned for refusing to appear before the Privileges Committee, because that is completely legitimate, as well. No one is obliged to appear before the Privileges Committee and the Māori Party chose not to, and that is their right and they should not be sanctioned for that.

They are being sanctioned because they broke the rules of the House, they behaved in a disorderly manner, and they interrupted a vote of the Parliament, and there should be a sanction for that. But we have never seen a sanction of this nature in New Zealand’s history before.

We’ve had members undertaking fist fights in the lobbies, and they were not suspended at all; we’ve had members driving tractors and Land Rovers up the front steps of Parliament, and they were not sanctioned; we have had a recent case where a member left their chair, walked to the other side of the House, and stood over a member and thumped the table, and they were not sanctioned by the House; we’ve had a recent instance in this term of Parliament where a member was prevented from leaving a select committee because another member was standing over him, and they were not sanctioned by this House, and yet we seem to have gone from a situation where members were not sanctioned to one where a 21-day sanction—the harshest by a factor of seven—is being applied to these members. It is disproportionate. A sanction is appropriate; this level of sanction simply is not.

Bishop was on Radio New Zealand this morning and claimed that the punishment was appropriate because the MPs had not formally apologised. They really want to rub Te Pati Maori’s collective nose in it and make them apologise for something they clearly and passionately thought was the right thing to do.

If the apology was so important you have to wonder why National MP Tim Van Der Molen was not treated in a more serious manour. He is the MP who was described as behaving aggressive, hostile and unprofessional to a Labour MP. He had told Labour’s Shanan Halbert to “stand up” and had stood over him for about 30 seconds and blocked Halbert from leaving the meeting room causing Halbert to consider this a threat to his safety. This had been raised privately with National but they refused to do anything and Van Der Molen did not for a long time accept that he had done anything wrong.

And it appears that cracks are appearing in the Government’s ranks.

Richard Harman has reported that some MPs are unhappy with the length of the suspension. At the other end of the spectrum Paramjeet Parmar has been named as the MP who sought advice if the Maori MPs could be imprisoned. Good luck to any one making sense of that mess of conflicting positions.

I guess this will clear the air so that National can try and get some good headlines out of the budget. But there will be a constant response to any tax cut or new spending initiative. These are possible because National has trampled on existing and future pay equity claims.

I will finish this post with what Hipkins said at the end of his speech:

[Aotearoa] is not a tinpot dictatorship or a banana republic. We should stand up for the values of democracy, even when they are inconvenient and even when people are saying things that we disagree with. That is not what the Government are doing today.

15 comments on “The Government blinks ”

  1. Patricia Bremner 1
    21 May 2025 at 10:35 am

    Well done Chippy. This Government is into "over reach" Now we have a no chat rule in Health, a heckler threatened with losing his job, and a PM talking about Maorification.

    That committee did not agree the disproportionate sentence of 21 days.

    This Government has circumvented practice in the application of checks and balances for the decisions on Bills as well as behaving in an authoritarian manner.

    They have undermined the Public Service to the point where their only recourse is to Strike. Doctors now Ministry of Education Staff.

    They paused the debate as their position was being attacked, even by their own.

    Winston was put out of the House by Brownlee, for poking the Prime Minister about his "Maorification remark". Another tear in the CoC fabric?

    This next 18 months is fraught with dangerous mistakes and loss of public and private confidence.

    191 a day leaving the country, and our Government having to offer sweetners to overseas Investors plus money being found for all sorts of things not presented in their manifesto?

    Protest is a right, and being threatened with loss of franchise as Representatives is wrong. Gerry Brownlee had that correct in protecting minority voices against loss of speaking rights by providing space for speakers.

    As to an employer threatening a worker for protest. Wow!! If he was on his own time they have no right and a Minister saying he would be happy for him to be sacked Again Wow!!

    When requested submissions are not read, and the percentages ignored it tells us what things have come to.

    This has been an egregious Government intent on their own agenda with little care or concern for the Public or their opinions. imo.

    Reply
  2. Rodel 2
    21 May 2025 at 10:35 am

    Blink? Actually it chickened out completely. Let's kick the Hana Haka can down the road a bit. John key always disallowed any negative stuff interrupting his moments of glory. How could the luxon-willis budget shit show be contaminated by haka protest speeches?

    Reply
  3. Muttonbird 3
    21 May 2025 at 11:00 am

    It has distilled down to this: an apology.

    The government, beginning to lose this battle in their doomed culture war, demands an performative and symbolic apology as a means by which to save face.

    Bishop now apparently claims this is the core reason for the severity if the sanctions, not the breach of parliamentary rules itself:

    Bishop was on Radio New Zealand this morning and claimed that the punishment was appropriate because the MPs had not formally apologised.

    That this is Bishops' strategy is confirmed by National Party client journalist, Thomas Coughlan, who also now references an apology as the means by which this "pedestrian issue" can be moved past:

    Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi could make things easier for themselves by simply apologising. That would clearly open the door to a compromise by allowing the Government to discount the punishment to a level the opposition might agree to.

    As client journalist Coughlan notes, an apology would allow a desperate coalition to minimise damage to the authority and careers of Judith Collins and Winston Peters:

    If the Government agreed to discount the penalty down to three days, it would look like a pretty serious vote of no confidence in its MPs on the Privileges Committee, which includes not just senior National MP Collins, but Peters as well.

    https://archive.is/ZaiiU

    The severity of the sanction barfed up by Collins and Peters reeks of Trumpism: go ballistic as a starting point of strong armed negotiation.

    The wording of this fated apology will be fascinating.

    Reply
    • mickysavage 3.1
      21 May 2025 at 11:13 am

      Agreed Muttonbird.

      My many, many years appearing in criminal courts has taught me that an apology and an acceptance of fault can go a long way. But what it does is allows the punishment to be significantly lessened from what it otherwise would have been.

      These particular breaches are normally punished by one day's suspension. As noted by Hipkins a second offence would increase the punishment to seven days suspension and it would take a third offence to get up to 28 days. And these are clearly maximum punishments.

      And in criminal law defending a charge is not, repeat not an aggravating matter. If you plead guilty then certainly the punishment can be significantly reduced but not admitting it is your right.

      The closest example to my mind is that posed by Van der Molen. And his case had the aggravating feature of involving pretty sustained physical intimidation of a Labour MP. And it was for the petty reason that he did not think he had been given enough space to ask questions.

      I can't say that I am a huge Hipkins fan but his speech was tremendous and he has got this completely right.

      Reply
  4. Ad 4
    21 May 2025 at 11:44 am

    Minister Bishop and the PM's Chief of Staff would have had quite a day keeping the ropable Willis from the self-righteous Collins.

    National have allowed their annual set-piece day to be tainted into the very worst Budget Day I have ever seen.

    The Privileges debate will occur, which compresses any good media news today into something very brief and forgettable.

    National have damaged their best remaining chance at a good news platform.

    I'm sure Luxon won't forget that the source of this protest in the House was ACT's legislation. That is one exceptionally damaging piece of failed legislation.

    Reply
    • mickysavage 4.1
      21 May 2025 at 11:48 am

      Yep I don't understand why they scheduled the report back in budget week.

      Amateur hour.

      Between this and the fair pay attack attrocity this is shaping up to be by far the worst budget week I have ever seen.

      Reply
  5. Muttonbird 5
    21 May 2025 at 11:54 am

    Yeah, the framing from the government and all its allies is the whole thing is the fault of the Maori Party, but really the fault lies with Seymour and his wealthy RW donors for the most divisive legislation in history.

    Reply
  6. Sanctuary 6
    21 May 2025 at 12:24 pm

    Very interesting that it was ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar who was the member of the privileges committee who sought advice from the Clerk of the house on whether the Māori party MPs could be jailed. As Richard Harman tartly notes, she knows ACT's constituency. I'd say she is fully onboard with ACTs increasing authoritarianism. They are the party behind the Treaty Principles Bill after all. As an immigrant you'd think Parmar might recognise she may be skating on thin ice with such inflammatory enquiries, but she does have a history of Hindutva immigrant entitlement that is quite aggressive and completely blind to the obnoxiousness of the optics.

    Reply
    • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1
      21 May 2025 at 2:34 pm


      All this fuss over Māori MPs representing their constituents by performing a haka in parliament. I'm surprised Attorney-General and Privileges Committee chairperson Collins, who is, by her own admission, not just "non-racist" but "a very non-racist person", couldn't see her way clear to supporting a less draconian/disgraceful penalty.

      I guess we should be grateful ACT wasn't calling the shots – or were they?

      At least the fuss has taken the focus off the disgraceful Pay Equity Amendment ACT.

      Reply
      • thinker 6.1.1
        21 May 2025 at 3:52 pm

        "I guess we should be grateful ACT wasn't calling the shots – or were they?"

        For the benefit of those like myself, who are starting to believe this coalition is capable of anything (except Chief Negotiator Luxon turning up to any confrontation), ACT wasn't asking about the potential for TPM to be shot, just thrown into jail

        Reply
  7. Vivie 7
    21 May 2025 at 2:00 pm

    Chris Hipkins' speech in the debate yesterday was very powerful. No-one in the Government could match it, nor display the sincerity, nor justify the sanctions recommended against the three Maori Party MPs.

    Chris Bishop and his colleagues know this so have pushed the debate back, presumably to mitigate the fall-out and plan their next move.

    Reply
    • ianmac 7.1
      21 May 2025 at 8:05 pm

      I believe the reason that Govt MPs looked so smug as they came into the House was because they knew before the start of QT that would be scuttling the Debate. Protocol demands that the Opposition must start the Debate and then they can scuttle it. Smart arses.

      Reply
    • newsense 7.2
      22 May 2025 at 12:57 am

      Good. I want there to be a bloody clear choice at the next election, so that if this, in essence, civil war against our most prominent minority and native people continues, as part of a larger attack on our constitutional arrangements, if this corruption as development plan continues, if this corruption as a plan for education and health continues, if this ‘culture war’ continues to see decisions taken to harm New Zealanders and officials advice hidden or obstructed, if the political culture of the US matters more to particular MPs and communities than New Zealand’s, if we completely give over our newer media to the tech giants and legacy to the oligarchs, if we see women and their families punished to ensure tax cuts for landlords and other less worthy causes are available, if we see a pushmepullyou approach to developing our cities where infrastructure is decided on needs of businesses prior to the arrival of regular, reliable rail, if we see housing people and lighting and heating their homes as a non-essential….

      and so on so help me god I do not want to see any Verity Johnson or whoever it was with their bullshit about how Labour and this bunch of hoodlums, racists and fuckwits, for whom Gerry Brownlee is too much of a statesman, are essentially the same. I want to know what Labour would do differently and make the choice clear. If New Zealand chose this wrecking crew again, let them be in no doubt about what that choice means.

      Reply
  8. SPC 8
    21 May 2025 at 2:31 pm

    I find the concept of the haka being seen as threatening (because of proximity) risible, the only male involved was behind the two females well away from Seymour for that reason.

    And most Kiwis know what it represents, a challenge, not a prelude to violence.

    Reply

Leave a Comment