The three parliamentarians whose rules break haka caught the attention of the world did not attend the scheduled audience yesterday. Constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis has the summary of what happened, why and what will probably come next.
I see Are you maori and the privilege committee are in some kind of impasse-to what is the flesh?
To really understand the issue, we would need to start with the first contact between the Maori and the explorers/agents of European colonization … And I don’t have the words or experience to peel the subsequent 383 years. So let’s move on to November 2024 and The Haka led by Te Pāti Maori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maip-Clarke in the House of Representatives. After this action, three deputies (NZ FIRST’S Shane Jones, Suzer Redmayne from National and Todd Stephenson) Complaints with the speaker that this Haka was a violation of parliamentary rules. The speaker agreed that the behavior of four parliamentarians who participated leaving their seats and entering the floor of the house – Peeni Henare, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke – It should be considered even more by the privilege committee.
The “privilege committee” seems terribly anachronistic. What exactly is it?
I’ve had reason to write about it before, when I considered Rawiri Waititi’s vata of a court order In making David Seymour a parliamentary question about Tim Jago, the convicted sex criminal who had been his party president. So I will recycle my committee description since then.
If the president agrees a complaint about a violation of the parliamentary rule is severe enough, This subject goes to the House’s privilege committee, which by journalistic convention should always be called “powerful”. Basically, it is composed of senior parliamentarians from all parties. They then maintain a kind of internal judgment, decide if what happened is a violation of the rules and then decide which penalty to apply.
So four The parliamentarians were sent there by the speaker for performing Haka. What has happened since then?
One of these parliamentarians, Labour Peeni Henare, had his time before the committee in mid -March. He accepted that he violated the parliamentary rules entering the floor of the house to perform Haka, and The Committee decided That, although their actions were “disordered,” in fact they did not represent a “contempt” of the house. Peeni Henare then apologized to the house for his actions.
Wait – What is this “contempt” business?
Basically, a “contempt” of the house It involves the discovery that someone acted in a way that prevents the home or any of its members capable of performing their duties. It increases the seriousness of the issue and, therefore, the possible consequences – as we will continue in a second.
Fair. However, if one of the four parliamentarians was treated in this way, why are Te Pāti Maori parliamentarians still in question?
I think it is safe to say that they do not share Peeni Henare’s acceptance that their particular actions by driving Haka were “wrong.” So they want to defend themselves, bringing evidence before the Tikanga expert committee and having their cases to defend them by a lawyer.
That seems fair – why can’t they do that?
As the committee does not leave them do so, pointing to the House’s own rules that establish the very limited way in which witnesses (as the deputies in question) can use legal consultants. Although the committee may function a little as a court in terms of deciding if you have done it wrong and should be punished, your procedures are not the same as those that occur in a criminal trial.
Oh dear. How is all this coming up now?
Yesterday The committee had scheduled an hour and a half to The three parliamentarians of Te Pāti Maori will appear before (separately, despite the desire to be treated collectively). However, the deputies basically said “no – not coming” and instead announced that they would create their “Independent hearing“Next month to” approach the real kaupapa, which is Tikanga Maori. “
It’s a committee! How did the privilege committee answer?
Following Yesterday No show, the committee issued a statement that would extend the parliamentarians a last chance to come before April 23rd. This statement was concluded with the words: “We hope that the members involved will be involved with the consideration of the privilege question committee, like all the others that were referred to this committee.”
In some subsequent comments to the media, committee chairman Judith Collins, arrived very close to threatening that a failure of parliamentarians to get involved as “expected” would be considered a contempt that the committee could decide to punish.
This is starting to get a little threatening. Where can all this end?
I think there is always room for some kind of commitment agreement to be prepared – the committee can massage its procedures in a way that satisfies parliamentarians’ concerns. But if there is no approximation, then we can again see another refusal to participate on April 23.
At this point, the committee would have to decide what to do about the original subject – such as categorizing Haka, as performed by the deputies in question – and also what to do with the refusal of parliamentarians to participate in the committee processes. Here, Collins’ statement to the media pointing to the prospect of fines, or even the suspension of a home deputy, really increases the usual bets on these subjects. The previous conclusions of the committee that a deputy committed a contempt attracted at most a censorship (saying) and demand that “sorry” in public.
So, again, it is difficult to know how seriously to bring these implicit threats of heavier sanctions. But the privilege committee is called “powerful” for a reason!
Much of this seems to play and posture the procedural game. What is really happening here?
The true question arising from the use of parliamentarians Haka, it seems, relates to the depth of parliamentary rules that must accommodate the forms of debate and contestation of Tikanga and Maori. However, the privilege committee is not really created to address this kind of question. It is there to judge the behavior against the rules of the council’s assurance and determine what consequence it should follow if they are violated.
Consequently, you Pāti Maori is right to complain that the status quo, but ensures a realization that the actions of their parliamentarians violate the parliamentary rules. And with little or no space to discuss before the privilege committee that these rules are wrong or unfair, their participation simply lends credibility to a process prepared to condemn them. Contrary to the privilege committee cannot unilaterally change the rules that Parliament operates, just judge if they have been broken and what to do about it. And while the parliamentarians of Te Pāti Maori are part of the house, the argument says, they need to be kept in the rules of that place.
As such, we find ourselves in such a common situation in Aotearoa New Zealand. Maori pointing out how existing rules do not accommodate them properly, while those whose job is to apply these rules say “sorry, but that’s how things are and if you want to participate, you should conform.” Meanwhile, the big question – which rules would allow an adequate incorporation of Tikanga into our collective way to behave? “It’s set aside as a little difficult to think.”
