Te Pāti Māori MPs will be temporarily suspended from Parliament for “acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House” after performing a haka during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke will be suspended for seven days, while co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be “severely censured” and suspended for 21 days.
The three MPs - along with Labour’s Peeni Henare - were referred to the Privileges Committee for their involvement in a haka and protests in the House in November, at the first reading of the contentious Treaty Principles Bill.
The suspension means the three Te Pāti Māori MPs will not be present at next week’s Budget debate.
Suspension from the service of the House also means those members will not receive a salary for the relevant period.
In a statement, Te Pāti Māori noted these were “the three longest suspensions in the history of Parliament in Aotearoa”.
Te Pāti Māori MP and member of the Privileges Committee Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said the process was “grossly unjust, unfair, and unwarranted, resulting in an extreme sanction”.
“This was not about process, this became personal.
“They can suspend our MPs, but they can’t suspend our movement.”
The ruling comes after multiple meetings by the committee to consider the issue, after Maipi-Clarke, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi did not appear at the first hearing, and declined again to appear at a second. Instead they lodged a written submission in their absence.
In a document provided to RNZ, the three MPs said in their written submission that they declined to appear due to a “lack of procedural fairness,” after several requests - including to hold a joint hearing, submission of evidence from tikanga expert Sir Pou Temara, and the ability for their counsel to make legal arguments on tikanga - were denied “without providing any reasons.”
The final ruling found that each member had committed a “contempt of the House”.
The committee stated the consideration of the question of privilege was not on the performance of the haka itself, but the “time and manner in which it was performed.”
“It is highly disorderly for members to interrupt a vote while it is being conducted.
“The right to cast one’s vote without impediment goes to the heart of being a member of Parliament.
“The threshold at which an interjection during a vote may be considered a contempt is where the interruption could be considered intimidatory.”
The committee concluded the MPs knew permission was needed and did not have it.
It also found the members’ decision not to appear did not influence the findings.
There was specific mention of Ngarewa-Packer appearing to simulate firing a gun at another member of Parliament, but it noted “if there was another view of what that was, we were not afforded the opportunity to hear it”.
The ruling acknowledged Maipi-Clarke had shown “some level of contrition” toward the Speaker for the effect her actions had on the House.
In regard to Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi, the committee noted they were “experienced members of Parliament.”
“Their actions demonstrate a significant lack of respect for the rules of the House and the responsibilities bestowed on them as members of Parliament.”
It noted the severity of the penalties proposed for the co-leaders, and that suspension “deprives the members’ constituencies of a voice in Parliament.”
“However, we intend to leave members in no doubt that the behaviour discussed is not acceptable, and that the intimidation of other members of the House is treated with utmost seriousness.”
The Labour and Green parties and Te Pāti Māori all provided a “differing view” in the report.
The Labour Party said while it agreed the actions met the criteria of contempt, it was concerned that the penalties were “unduly severe”.
“We see the right of a member to attend Parliament and represent their constituency as going to the very heart of our democracy,members’ and that it should be curtailed with the utmost caution.”
The Green Party said the level of punishment being imposed was “unprecedented and completely out of proportion to the breach of Standing Orders”.,
