May 18, 2025 • 17 mins
New Zealand’s Parliament is a ‘house of chaos’.
At least that’s how our own deputy Prime Minister has described the debating chamber.
The C-Bomb was dropped in Parliament last week by Brooke van Velden, quoting a Stuff column by Andrea Vance that was criticising the Government’s changes to pay equity.
It has muddied an already dirty debate over women’s pay that is set to overshadow the Budget this year.
And at the same time, Te Pati Maori’s co-leaders have been threatened with suspension from Parliament for three weeks, over last year’s headline-making haka.
Today on The Front Page, to help us make sense of the chaos, we’re joined by Newstalk ZB political editor Jason Walls.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. New Zealand's
Parliament is a house of chaos. At least that's how
our own Deputy Prime Minister described the debating chamber last week.
The sea bomb was dropped in Parliament last week by
(00:28):
Brook van Velden, quoting a stuff column by Andrea Vance
that was criticizing the government's changes to pay equity.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
It's muddied an already.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Dirty debate over women's pay that is set to overshadow
the budget this year, and at the same time Debati
Maldi's co leaders have been threatened with suspension from parliament
dropped three weeks over last year's headline, making Hucker today
on the front page to help us make sense of
all the chaos, We're joined by News Talk ZB political
(00:57):
editor Jason Wolves. Jason Winston Peters has called it a
house of chaos. Audrey Young wrote that it has been
an appalling fortnight.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
How would you describe it?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Unprecedented would be the word that I would describe it.
On many levels. I mean, obviously we haven't seen the
sea bomb used in the House like that. There was
one time where I think David Carter might have used
it accidentally, but using it in the way that Brook
van Velden did certainly unprecedented. She didn't call another member
of the Sea words. She was using it, or was
(01:37):
quoting from a newspaper opinion piece which used well in
seed dot dot dot. We can all figure out what
it was that the columnist actually meant there, but very unprecedented.
And Winston Peters, you know, a stickler for the rules,
doesn't like to be a sweary fairy, was obviously a
little bit aggrieved by this. But I think it is
a touch ironic because Winston Peters does fly very close
(01:59):
to the sun when it comes to Speaker's rulings. I mean,
at any given time on any given Thursday, when he's
answering for the Prime Minister, Kieran McNulty, who is the
Shadow Leader of the House for Labor, will stand up
and question elements of what it is that Winston Peters
is doing. For example, he quite often likes to use
government questions to attack the opposition, which is out of
(02:20):
order in the House. So it is a bit ironic
for Winston Peters to be kicking up such a stink
over this when he is one of the one of
the greatest offenders when it comes to the standards of
the house at the moment.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
I disagree with the comments made, and particularly the note
of the use of the term backhanded, which refers to
Andrea Advance's article which was quoted from this weekend. And
I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronizing
(02:56):
language that Andrea Advance used to reduce your cabinet ministers
to girl bosses, height squads, references to girl meth and.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, I didn't think the sea word being said in
the house was on my bingo card for this week,
but it wasn't in the newspaper either.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Oh well, I mean it was just c dot dot
dot in the newspaper. But Brooke van Velden afterwards we
questioned her about her use of the word and she
could have just said the sea word, but she argued
that media wouldn't have covered it if she had just
said the sea word, and I do disagree with her.
We would have covered it nevertheless, But I do agree
in the fact that it wouldn't have made such a
splash because it was such an unprecedented moment. And I'll
(03:40):
tell you what. I was sitting in the press gallery
when it happened, and as soon as she said the word,
the oxygen just evaporated out of the place and everybody
kind of took a backward step on that one. So
she does have a point. It did certainly did capture
people's attention, that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
So if we move on to the issues of the week,
can we start by cutting to the facts on these
pay equity changes. What has the government done here with
this change in legislation.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, they've essentially changed the law and they did it
under urgency in the House to kind of change the
scope of how pay equity is dealt with. Their argument
has always been throughout this whole the whole saga is
that the original pay equity legislation was was too broad
and it led to and you would have heard this
(04:26):
phrase being thrown around quite often, people like library workers
being compared to fisheries officers. And because of that, the
unions and labor have been using that to ratchet it
up people's pay where it wasn't based on sex based discrimination.
So the government have clawed it back somewhat and said
that we're going to refocus the law so it is
(04:46):
just specifically focused on this issue of sex based discriminations.
And the unions and the lab and the Labor Party
and the Greens have jumped on on top of this
and said that you're quote cutting women's pay, and there's
been quite a bit of back and forth over that.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
And is that because most of the claims that are
being thrown out by women, the thirty.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Three pay equity claims the moment in there, essentially, I
mean a lot of them are having to be reset.
And the argument from the opposition is, and this is
what Chris Hipkins said, is that because the future pay
packet of the women in question through some of these
settlements would be lower because of what the government is doing,
it does mean that insofar as the fact of their
(05:28):
pay in the future, that will be being cut. So
it means that it is a cut from women's pay.
Now the National Party have listened to his explanation on
this and say that it just doesn't make sense and
it doesn't actually pass the sniff test when it comes
to this blanket and quite definitive statement that the government
is cutting women's pay. So there has been quite a
(05:49):
back and forth over the semantics of this issue. I
say semantics. I think the people involved probably think that
it's a lot more than that.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
This debate.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
For a little while there felt like it was going
well for labor and the left. But then of course
the Andrea Vance column for stuff with the sea word
was written referring to those six female government ministers as
girl bosses as well. And we all know what the
sea word is, Like you said, we don't need to
say it. That's just hijacked this whole debate now to
(06:19):
make it one big debate about misogyny towards politicians kind
of hasn't it?
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Oh? Absolutely? I mean if we spent the last week
with the unions and labor basically at every opportunity they
could get talk about how the government was cutting women's pay,
and I think it Gimmy Anderson at one point was
asked about the government's policy to crush cars, and she
brought it back to women's pay by saying the government's
better than crushing women's dreams than they are crushing cars.
(06:44):
So they were really really on a one track sort
of mind over this issue, and they were developing quite
a lot of momentum and then the column hit and
then Nikola Willis wrote an article in response, essentially saying
this a sexist and then she was able to lay
out her argument against all the criticism, and then that's
where it kind of took off. Now where the Labor
(07:05):
Party went wrong is that the question in the House
that led to the now infamous sea bomb was quoting
directly from that piece in the Sunday Star Times. Labor
weren't shying away from it. It was the question on notice,
which means that we get a copy of all the
oral questions that are going to be asked during a
(07:25):
parliamentary sitting day. And if it's on notice, it means
that the government party can see it and they can
prepare for it. So it wasn't an accident. This was
a pre planned tactic by the Labor Party that backfired significantly.
I mean everyone everyone from the I mean Helen Clark
called out the comment, but yet the Labor Party still
(07:46):
decided that they would use it in a oral question,
which meant that the government had yet another opportunity to
not address the issue of pay equity, but to address
the issue of misogyny. And it turned the whole argument
around No one is talking about pay equity anymore. Everybody
is talking about misogyny. And as sad as it is
(08:09):
and as horribly callous as it sounds, that's good for
the government because it means that they're not focusing on
what was quite a damaging issue for them. They're now
talking about something that they actually looked like they're the
victims of.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
The Other big controversy at the moment is around the
Privileges Committee and Tibati Moldi. The Committee has ruled that
Titi and Debbie Nadewa Paka be suspended for three weeks
without payover last year's huka during the Treaty Principle's Bill debate.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Hannah Ralfit the Mighty Clark got one week.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So this is a harsh punah and it's the harshest
ever in Parliament's history.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Does it feel like an overreaction, Well.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Technically it's not the punishment yet. What Jerry Browne was
very careful to do when he made his ruling on
Thursday was to say that Parliament will have the opportunity
to debate this on Tuesday and it will be up
to parliamentarians whether they accept the recommendations of the Privileges Committee,
which you quite rightly point out it was seven days
for Hannah Arapti, Mighty Clark and twenty one days for
(09:27):
Debbie Natty Whapacker and at Our Hitt. And it's an
unprecedented debate because for a number of reasons, he's allowing
members to make various different changes to the recommendations of
the Privileges Committee. So members could get up and they
could ask Judith Collins, the chair of the committee. They
can say that this is far too excessive. We want
(09:50):
the punishment to actually be maybe four maybe five days.
The other thing is that it is going to be
essentially a limitless debate. Jerry Browne ruled this. Members can
speak a number of times and there's not a time
limit on, however how much they want to speak, which
is the debate could go on for as long, I mean,
how long is a piece of strength te Party Marty members.
(10:12):
If Degree members want to keep getting up and making
various different points, they're absolutely free to do that. And
that comes on a budget week that's happening on Thursday.
So the government ministers are quite worried that the House's
time is going to be used debating this when the
budget is just on our doorstep. And I can understand
why the likes of Judith Collins and Shane Jones, who
(10:35):
made the point in the House on Thursday that Tea
Party Marty have already had the opportunity to front up
to the Privileges Committee. They've had multiple opportunities to front
up to the Privileges Committee to to lend their side
of the story to what the deliberations might be. At
every opportunity they've chosen not to do that. Not only this,
(10:56):
they've also decided and they've also chosen to do things
like some of the confidential recommendations of the committee on
Facebook in the form of a joke poll to say
how long do you think we're going to be banned for?
And how would be White Titty went as far as
calling it a silly little committee and showing absolute contempt
for the Privilege's Committee. So you can understand why there
(11:17):
would be some members that are feeling quite upset at
the fact that the Privileges Committee has been meeting for
some time to make this determination, and Jerry Brownlee is
giving members another opportunity to say, well, hang on a second,
is this too harsh of a punishment.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, it puts the government between a rock and a
hard place, right because, on one hand, particularly from a
global level, given how viral that Harker video went last year,
if you dish out a harsh punishment, you could get
global you know, discontent right. On another hand, it could
create a precedent. I mean something like doing that in
(11:54):
Parliament is unprecedented, like you said, and what's to stop
someone else from doing it again?
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Well, the problem that Jerry Browne has and government has
is that the nuances of the punishment and the reason
behind it have been completely lost. They're not being punished
because they did a harker in the house. You're allowed
to do hawkers in the house. They're being punished because
they did a harker during the voting session, which you're
not allowed to do it. It's completely off the table.
And also they approached David Seymour, the leader of the
(12:23):
act Party while they were doing it, in a way
that the Privileges Committee has ruled was an intimidating way.
So those are the reasons why they may be suspended.
But that nuance is going to be lost when you
read the BBC and CNN and all these other outlets
that carried the initial video of the Harker, they're just
going to say they got banned from Parliament because they
(12:44):
did the Harker, which is not strictly speaking true. So
there is a problem there, But that ship has already
essentially sailed. That is how this is going to look
to an international audience. Closer to home, I think the
nuances have been well demonstrated and well communicated to us
on on a more domestic level, But there is a
(13:05):
problem with the president. I mean, if this goes through
and there is a lesser punishment, what's stopping the likes
of Julia and Jena the next time when she's before
the Privileges Committee saying, hang on a second. I know
the Privileges Committee has ruled, but why don't we have
another debate, for a limitless debate to say, well, shouldn't
my punishment be lesser? In saying that though twenty one
(13:27):
days is unprecedented, Jerry Browne said, the last longest time
somebody has been suspended from the House was three days,
so twenty one days is enormous. So he feels like
it might be a little bit too strict. But Judith
Collins says, well, maybe this will teach them not to
act like this again.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
I think the whole wooding and the attitude how personally
offended they are by us just actually from our gut
to the call piece of legislation that's been in here.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Long story, Shoore.
Speaker 6 (14:05):
I think it just shows us exactly what they think
about us set They still see us as a bunch
of unruling people that they need to put back into order.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
It does feel like multi issues are remaining a point
of contention in the House. A review into the Way
Tonguey Tribunal has begun as part of the National Ends
at First Coalition deal. The tribunal is urgently reviewing Acts,
Regulatory Standards Bill, and last week Labor MP Willie Jackson
was booted from the debating chamber while discussing multi issues.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Now, I'm not sitting down. I'm not sitting down.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
I'm not sitting down.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
You don't you don't walk over our copupperas it suits you,
mister speaker.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Leave the house. Retrojection down, Leave the house, mister Jackson.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Leave the house.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
Mister Jackson, leave the house, mister Jackson.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I think some people thought the treaty Principle's Bill being
voted down would be the end of it to some degree.
But it feels like it's just getting started, though, isn't it.
And that's exactly what some commentators said. Acting David Seymour wanted.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Well, I mean exactly, and I think that we saw
with the Treaty Principal's Bill, the every time it's in
the news, Tea Party Marty's vote goes really high, and
when it's not and they're a little bit more quieter,
their vote tends to go down. So of course they'll
be looking to bring these sorts of issues back to
the fore. I mean, other issues in terms of the
(15:46):
Regulatory Standard Bill nowhere near as big as the Treaty
Principle's Bill, but you can be sure as heck to
count on TI Party, Marty and other political parties really
really making these issues a thorn in the government's side
because politically it plays well for them.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
And finally, Jason, do you think the chaos will come
down at any point or is it just about to
ramp up, particularly considering the Seymour Peters deputy switchover is
happening very very soon, It's going to ramp up.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
It'll be ramping up until election day. I mean, this
issue isn't going to go away quietly. The big question
mark that is hanging over Parliament right now is what
happens next. I mean, do you think that Debbie Nardi,
Wapaka and Atrawiti Waititi are going to accept this and
just say okay and just go away. I don't think that.
I think that they're going to be making a fuss
and you know, all power to them to be able
(16:38):
to do that. That is their prerogative. But it's going
to be an uncomfortable time for parliamentarians and especially for
Speaker Jerry Brownly as he looks into what is essentially
uncharted territory here.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Where's Luxon in this debate?
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Luxon has been very absent from this, and I think
it's by design. The National Party don't want him caught
up in any of this this situation because you know,
it reflects negatively on his brand and the National Party's brand,
So I wouldn't expect to see him being very front
foot over this issue between now and the election at all.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Thanks for joining us, Jason, No problem at all. That's
it for this episode of the Front Page. You can
read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced
by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our
(17:31):
sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. New Zealand's
Parliament is a house of chaos. At least that's how
our own Deputy Prime Minister described the debating chamber last week.
The sea bomb was dropped in Parliament last week by
(00:28):
Brook van Velden, quoting a stuff column by Andrea Vance
that was criticizing the government's changes to pay equity.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
It's muddied an already.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Dirty debate over women's pay that is set to overshadow
the budget this year, and at the same time Debati
Maldi's co leaders have been threatened with suspension from parliament
dropped three weeks over last year's headline, making Hucker today
on the front page to help us make sense of
all the chaos, We're joined by News Talk ZB political
(00:57):
editor Jason Wolves. Jason Winston Peters has called it a
house of chaos. Audrey Young wrote that it has been
an appalling fortnight.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
How would you describe it?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Unprecedented would be the word that I would describe it.
On many levels. I mean, obviously we haven't seen the
sea bomb used in the House like that. There was
one time where I think David Carter might have used
it accidentally, but using it in the way that Brook
van Velden did certainly unprecedented. She didn't call another member
of the Sea words. She was using it, or was
(01:37):
quoting from a newspaper opinion piece which used well in
seed dot dot dot. We can all figure out what
it was that the columnist actually meant there, but very unprecedented.
And Winston Peters, you know, a stickler for the rules,
doesn't like to be a sweary fairy, was obviously a
little bit aggrieved by this. But I think it is
a touch ironic because Winston Peters does fly very close
(01:59):
to the sun when it comes to Speaker's rulings. I mean,
at any given time on any given Thursday, when he's
answering for the Prime Minister, Kieran McNulty, who is the
Shadow Leader of the House for Labor, will stand up
and question elements of what it is that Winston Peters
is doing. For example, he quite often likes to use
government questions to attack the opposition, which is out of
(02:20):
order in the House. So it is a bit ironic
for Winston Peters to be kicking up such a stink
over this when he is one of the one of
the greatest offenders when it comes to the standards of
the house at the moment.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
I disagree with the comments made, and particularly the note
of the use of the term backhanded, which refers to
Andrea Advance's article which was quoted from this weekend. And
I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronizing
(02:56):
language that Andrea Advance used to reduce your cabinet ministers
to girl bosses, height squads, references to girl meth and.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, I didn't think the sea word being said in
the house was on my bingo card for this week,
but it wasn't in the newspaper either.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Oh well, I mean it was just c dot dot
dot in the newspaper. But Brooke van Velden afterwards we
questioned her about her use of the word and she
could have just said the sea word, but she argued
that media wouldn't have covered it if she had just
said the sea word, and I do disagree with her.
We would have covered it nevertheless, But I do agree
in the fact that it wouldn't have made such a
splash because it was such an unprecedented moment. And I'll
(03:40):
tell you what. I was sitting in the press gallery
when it happened, and as soon as she said the word,
the oxygen just evaporated out of the place and everybody
kind of took a backward step on that one. So
she does have a point. It did certainly did capture
people's attention, that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
So if we move on to the issues of the week,
can we start by cutting to the facts on these
pay equity changes. What has the government done here with
this change in legislation.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, they've essentially changed the law and they did it
under urgency in the House to kind of change the
scope of how pay equity is dealt with. Their argument
has always been throughout this whole the whole saga is
that the original pay equity legislation was was too broad
and it led to and you would have heard this
(04:26):
phrase being thrown around quite often, people like library workers
being compared to fisheries officers. And because of that, the
unions and labor have been using that to ratchet it
up people's pay where it wasn't based on sex based discrimination.
So the government have clawed it back somewhat and said
that we're going to refocus the law so it is
(04:46):
just specifically focused on this issue of sex based discriminations.
And the unions and the lab and the Labor Party
and the Greens have jumped on on top of this
and said that you're quote cutting women's pay, and there's
been quite a bit of back and forth over that.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
And is that because most of the claims that are
being thrown out by women, the thirty.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Three pay equity claims the moment in there, essentially, I
mean a lot of them are having to be reset.
And the argument from the opposition is, and this is
what Chris Hipkins said, is that because the future pay
packet of the women in question through some of these
settlements would be lower because of what the government is doing,
it does mean that insofar as the fact of their
(05:28):
pay in the future, that will be being cut. So
it means that it is a cut from women's pay.
Now the National Party have listened to his explanation on
this and say that it just doesn't make sense and
it doesn't actually pass the sniff test when it comes
to this blanket and quite definitive statement that the government
is cutting women's pay. So there has been quite a
(05:49):
back and forth over the semantics of this issue. I
say semantics. I think the people involved probably think that
it's a lot more than that.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
This debate.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
For a little while there felt like it was going
well for labor and the left. But then of course
the Andrea Vance column for stuff with the sea word
was written referring to those six female government ministers as
girl bosses as well. And we all know what the
sea word is, Like you said, we don't need to
say it. That's just hijacked this whole debate now to
(06:19):
make it one big debate about misogyny towards politicians kind
of hasn't it?
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Oh? Absolutely? I mean if we spent the last week
with the unions and labor basically at every opportunity they
could get talk about how the government was cutting women's pay,
and I think it Gimmy Anderson at one point was
asked about the government's policy to crush cars, and she
brought it back to women's pay by saying the government's
better than crushing women's dreams than they are crushing cars.
(06:44):
So they were really really on a one track sort
of mind over this issue, and they were developing quite
a lot of momentum and then the column hit and
then Nikola Willis wrote an article in response, essentially saying
this a sexist and then she was able to lay
out her argument against all the criticism, and then that's
where it kind of took off. Now where the Labor
(07:05):
Party went wrong is that the question in the House
that led to the now infamous sea bomb was quoting
directly from that piece in the Sunday Star Times. Labor
weren't shying away from it. It was the question on notice,
which means that we get a copy of all the
oral questions that are going to be asked during a
(07:25):
parliamentary sitting day. And if it's on notice, it means
that the government party can see it and they can
prepare for it. So it wasn't an accident. This was
a pre planned tactic by the Labor Party that backfired significantly.
I mean everyone everyone from the I mean Helen Clark
called out the comment, but yet the Labor Party still
(07:46):
decided that they would use it in a oral question,
which meant that the government had yet another opportunity to
not address the issue of pay equity, but to address
the issue of misogyny. And it turned the whole argument
around No one is talking about pay equity anymore. Everybody
is talking about misogyny. And as sad as it is
(08:09):
and as horribly callous as it sounds, that's good for
the government because it means that they're not focusing on
what was quite a damaging issue for them. They're now
talking about something that they actually looked like they're the
victims of.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
The Other big controversy at the moment is around the
Privileges Committee and Tibati Moldi. The Committee has ruled that
Titi and Debbie Nadewa Paka be suspended for three weeks
without payover last year's huka during the Treaty Principle's Bill debate.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Hannah Ralfit the Mighty Clark got one week.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So this is a harsh punah and it's the harshest
ever in Parliament's history.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Does it feel like an overreaction, Well.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Technically it's not the punishment yet. What Jerry Browne was
very careful to do when he made his ruling on
Thursday was to say that Parliament will have the opportunity
to debate this on Tuesday and it will be up
to parliamentarians whether they accept the recommendations of the Privileges Committee,
which you quite rightly point out it was seven days
for Hannah Arapti, Mighty Clark and twenty one days for
(09:27):
Debbie Natty Whapacker and at Our Hitt. And it's an
unprecedented debate because for a number of reasons, he's allowing
members to make various different changes to the recommendations of
the Privileges Committee. So members could get up and they
could ask Judith Collins, the chair of the committee. They
can say that this is far too excessive. We want
(09:50):
the punishment to actually be maybe four maybe five days.
The other thing is that it is going to be
essentially a limitless debate. Jerry Browne ruled this. Members can
speak a number of times and there's not a time
limit on, however how much they want to speak, which
is the debate could go on for as long, I mean,
how long is a piece of strength te Party Marty members.
(10:12):
If Degree members want to keep getting up and making
various different points, they're absolutely free to do that. And
that comes on a budget week that's happening on Thursday.
So the government ministers are quite worried that the House's
time is going to be used debating this when the
budget is just on our doorstep. And I can understand
why the likes of Judith Collins and Shane Jones, who
(10:35):
made the point in the House on Thursday that Tea
Party Marty have already had the opportunity to front up
to the Privileges Committee. They've had multiple opportunities to front
up to the Privileges Committee to to lend their side
of the story to what the deliberations might be. At
every opportunity they've chosen not to do that. Not only this,
(10:56):
they've also decided and they've also chosen to do things
like some of the confidential recommendations of the committee on
Facebook in the form of a joke poll to say
how long do you think we're going to be banned for?
And how would be White Titty went as far as
calling it a silly little committee and showing absolute contempt
for the Privilege's Committee. So you can understand why there
(11:17):
would be some members that are feeling quite upset at
the fact that the Privileges Committee has been meeting for
some time to make this determination, and Jerry Brownlee is
giving members another opportunity to say, well, hang on a second,
is this too harsh of a punishment.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, it puts the government between a rock and a
hard place, right because, on one hand, particularly from a
global level, given how viral that Harker video went last year,
if you dish out a harsh punishment, you could get
global you know, discontent right. On another hand, it could
create a precedent. I mean something like doing that in
(11:54):
Parliament is unprecedented, like you said, and what's to stop
someone else from doing it again?
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Well, the problem that Jerry Browne has and government has
is that the nuances of the punishment and the reason
behind it have been completely lost. They're not being punished
because they did a harker in the house. You're allowed
to do hawkers in the house. They're being punished because
they did a harker during the voting session, which you're
not allowed to do it. It's completely off the table.
And also they approached David Seymour, the leader of the
(12:23):
act Party while they were doing it, in a way
that the Privileges Committee has ruled was an intimidating way.
So those are the reasons why they may be suspended.
But that nuance is going to be lost when you
read the BBC and CNN and all these other outlets
that carried the initial video of the Harker, they're just
going to say they got banned from Parliament because they
(12:44):
did the Harker, which is not strictly speaking true. So
there is a problem there, But that ship has already
essentially sailed. That is how this is going to look
to an international audience. Closer to home, I think the
nuances have been well demonstrated and well communicated to us
on on a more domestic level, But there is a
(13:05):
problem with the president. I mean, if this goes through
and there is a lesser punishment, what's stopping the likes
of Julia and Jena the next time when she's before
the Privileges Committee saying, hang on a second. I know
the Privileges Committee has ruled, but why don't we have
another debate, for a limitless debate to say, well, shouldn't
my punishment be lesser? In saying that though twenty one
(13:27):
days is unprecedented, Jerry Browne said, the last longest time
somebody has been suspended from the House was three days,
so twenty one days is enormous. So he feels like
it might be a little bit too strict. But Judith
Collins says, well, maybe this will teach them not to
act like this again.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
I think the whole wooding and the attitude how personally
offended they are by us just actually from our gut
to the call piece of legislation that's been in here.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Long story, Shoore.
Speaker 6 (14:05):
I think it just shows us exactly what they think
about us set They still see us as a bunch
of unruling people that they need to put back into order.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
It does feel like multi issues are remaining a point
of contention in the House. A review into the Way
Tonguey Tribunal has begun as part of the National Ends
at First Coalition deal. The tribunal is urgently reviewing Acts,
Regulatory Standards Bill, and last week Labor MP Willie Jackson
was booted from the debating chamber while discussing multi issues.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Now, I'm not sitting down. I'm not sitting down.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
I'm not sitting down.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
You don't you don't walk over our copupperas it suits you,
mister speaker.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Leave the house. Retrojection down, Leave the house, mister Jackson.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Leave the house.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
Mister Jackson, leave the house, mister Jackson.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I think some people thought the treaty Principle's Bill being
voted down would be the end of it to some degree.
But it feels like it's just getting started, though, isn't it.
And that's exactly what some commentators said. Acting David Seymour wanted.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Well, I mean exactly, and I think that we saw
with the Treaty Principal's Bill, the every time it's in
the news, Tea Party Marty's vote goes really high, and
when it's not and they're a little bit more quieter,
their vote tends to go down. So of course they'll
be looking to bring these sorts of issues back to
the fore. I mean, other issues in terms of the
(15:46):
Regulatory Standard Bill nowhere near as big as the Treaty
Principle's Bill, but you can be sure as heck to
count on TI Party, Marty and other political parties really
really making these issues a thorn in the government's side
because politically it plays well for them.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
And finally, Jason, do you think the chaos will come
down at any point or is it just about to
ramp up, particularly considering the Seymour Peters deputy switchover is
happening very very soon, It's going to ramp up.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
It'll be ramping up until election day. I mean, this
issue isn't going to go away quietly. The big question
mark that is hanging over Parliament right now is what
happens next. I mean, do you think that Debbie Nardi,
Wapaka and Atrawiti Waititi are going to accept this and
just say okay and just go away. I don't think that.
I think that they're going to be making a fuss
and you know, all power to them to be able
(16:38):
to do that. That is their prerogative. But it's going
to be an uncomfortable time for parliamentarians and especially for
Speaker Jerry Brownly as he looks into what is essentially
uncharted territory here.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Where's Luxon in this debate?
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Luxon has been very absent from this, and I think
it's by design. The National Party don't want him caught
up in any of this this situation because you know,
it reflects negatively on his brand and the National Party's brand,
So I wouldn't expect to see him being very front
foot over this issue between now and the election at all.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Thanks for joining us, Jason, No problem at all. That's
it for this episode of the Front Page. You can
read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced
by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our
(17:31):
sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com