Parliament faces its biggest test this week when on Tuesday it comes to debate the Privileges Committee recommendations for suspending the Maori Party MPs.
The Committee has recommended that two MPs, Debbie Ngarewa Packer and Rawiri Waititi, be suspended for 21 days.
Unless some compromise is reached to reduce the length of that suspension, it is unlikely the matter will be finished this week.
POLITIK has spoken to a number of senior MPs who are not willing to go on the record, but they made clear there is a concern across the House that this whole matter could get out of hand.
They believe a compromise is needed, but so far, there are few signs of one emerging.
One senior MP said he might have thought there would have been phone calls about it over the weekend, but there were not.
The alternative may well be a talkathon that lasts well beyond the Budget on Thursday.
The problem starts with the fact that the Privileges Committee is not, as some would like to portray it, a quasi-judicial body.
Instead, it is, as Sir Robert Muldoon once defined it, a Kangaroo Court on which the Government holds a majority, and it can more or less do as the Government wants.
Thus, the decision to suspend the MPs is essentially political.
The Committee chair, Judith Collins may be the Attorney General and may be a Kings Counsel, but she is also an admirer of Margaret Thatcher and one of National’s most tribal MPs.
She brings to mind what Muldoon once said of Anne Hercus; that the softest thing about her was her teeth.
Waititi told TV3’s “The Hui” that he believed that because he had attacked her over what he called her “racist rhetoric” when she was leader of the Opposition, the whole issue of the Maori Party had become personal for her.
Collins’s uncompromising nature may be the first problem that those who prefer this whole affair to be handled more subtly might face.
However, she will have considerable support from within the National Party.
Her colleagues see the situation as a political opportunity for National.
They would hope to be able to use the debate on the Privileges Committee recommendations to tie the Maori Party to Labour.
Therefore, any hopes that some more moderate National MPs might have of their party being willing to compromise on the length of the suspension of the Mari Party MPs look slim.
ACT, of course, won’t have a bar of any compromise.
New Zealand First’s position is less certain.
Its leader, Winston Peters, loathes the Maori Party.
Any concession to them would be anathema to him.
In a recent Facebook post, he called them “a danger to our democracy.”
“They are a bunch of radicals who can’t comprehend that they are undermining the very institution that gives them their voice,” he said.
“They have a responsibility as elected members of parliament to represent the entirety of New Zealand – not just their own radical egos and fellow cultural travellers.”
Peters also will have voted for the 21-day suspension at the Privileges Committee, where voting was clearly along party lines and the coalition votes as one.
Yet, for all that, Peters and New Zealand First can often surprise with their willingness to embrace a centrist position on some issues.
They voted against proceeding with the Treaty Principles Bill even though Peters has frequently criticised the direction the Waitangi Tribunal has moved.
Peters himself and Shane Jones both maintain regular contacts with many Maori leaders.
The ultimate problem for Parliament is perception.
Already, the Maori Party are portraying the Privileges Committee decision as colonialism in action.
Their “X” feed says: “When tangata whenua resist, colonial powers reach for the maximum penalty. This is a warning shot for all of us to fall in line. E kore rawa matau e tuohu! (We will never bow down).”
The Maori Party believes the haka and its aftermath reflected a fundamental cultural clash.
In an emotional interview with Julian Wilcox on The Hui, both MPs repeatedly referred to the impact they believed the Committee’s report would have on their mokopuna.
“I think the whole wording and the attitude, how personally offended they are by us just acting from our gut, to the cruellest piece of legislation that’s been in here (Parliament), I think it just shows us exactly what they think about us,” said Maori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa Packer.
“They still see us as a bunch of unruly people who need to be put back into order.”
Labour is caught in the middle of all this.
Labour MP Peeni Henare breached Standing Orders when he left his seat to join the haka, though he did not stand in front of ACT’s front bench as the Maori Party MPs did.
The Committee earlier found his actions did not constitute contempt, and he apologised to Parliament.
He was not suspended but has expressed his concerns about the length of the suspensions for the Maori Party MPs.
Labour’s minority report, included with the Privileges Committee’s main report, emphasises concern about the length of the suspensions.
They (Duncan Webb and Glen Bennett) agree that the conduct of the Maori Party MPs constituted a contempt of the House.
“However, we are concerned that the penalties proposed are unduly severe,” the report says.
“We see the right of a member to attend Parliament and represent their constituency as going to the very heart of our democracy, and that it should be curtailed with the utmost caution.”
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 the severity of sanctions imposed is unprecedented in the New Zealand House of Representatives.
“We consider that one, or at most two days’ suspension, would be appropriate.”
The Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, has already indicated that any member can amend the motion to confirm the recommendation from the Privileges Committee.
He also said that any MP can speak on any amendment.
They will be able to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and given that he has also said he will be reluctant to accept any closure motions, the potential for this debate to drag on for days is high.
If it isn’t adjourned earlier, it will have to adjourn for the Budget on Thursday, and that may provide a way out, as it could lead to a cooling-off period during which some sort of compromise is worked out.
Otherwise, an already bitterly divided Parliament is likely to become more so.
i
.
