Urgent Debates — Hon Meka Whaitiri—Removal as a Minister

We are having this urgent debate precisely because the Prime Minister acted in a way which sent a very clear direction to one of her Ministers—one of the hardest things to do—that she will be removed and not hold her ministerial portfolios. But she didn’t do it on a whim. There are two parties to this issue, and rather than just removing a Minister, like John Key did in 2009 with Richard Worth—and I think, if people go further back to that time, they’ll be reminded that he said, “Because I’m over him.” “Because I’m over him.”—that’s why Richard Worth was removed. Well, certainly, that was the example that the Prime Minister at the time, John Key, gave to remove Richard Worth. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, when presented with an incident with two parties, one of which was her Minister, said, “We will undertake an investigation and we will get to the facts of the matter.”, at which time she would make a decision. After the report was handed to her, it was found that an incident had occurred—although facts were disputed, an incident had occurred—to the point where she made the decision to stand down a Minister. Meka Whaitiri has lost her ministerial warrant.

This is exactly the type of debate that no member on either side of the House would want to have, because it is very difficult to lose a Minister, under any circumstance, who is hard-working and has been elected to represent their electorate. The court of public opinion sets a high threshold, but none higher than a Minister sets on themselves or a Prime Minister sets on their Cabinet. We are in a situation where we are debating an issue, yes, where there are two parties, where natural justice did have to occur, through an internal investigation, where matters were disclosed in that investigation, and where, after the findings were out in the public domain and before the Prime Minister, consideration had to be taken and a decision made.

Now, members of the Opposition take some kind of bloodthirsty satisfaction out of having this type of debate, but we need to make sure that we don’t lose sight of what’s at issue here: firstly, an investigation has been undertaken and decisions have been made; and secondly, if we listen to the extent of the Opposition points, accused of assault. If there was that level of severity, then the matter would have been taken to the police. It was not. This has remained the subject of an internal investigation and, within that context, still very harsh decisions have been made, and we are concerned for the victim. We understand how important it is that natural justice applies so that people can have full disclosure of the events that happen and so that, on balance, a decision can be made, rather than having this blown to a level of proportion where I think many members feel very uncomfortable about that. Meka Whaitiri was elected into this House as a constituent MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. She will get on and do the work that she was put here to do. I would say that, on reflection, as a result of the decisions that have been made, she too will be reflecting on what she will definitely take forward from this experience. And it is not easy.

Members of the Opposition have already made a point about the Māori caucus, and our deputy leader, Kelvin Davis, has said, actually, people would expect—and it’s not a Māori-Pākehā thing, actually—that if someone’s going through tough times, you rally around and you make sure they don’t fall and you don’t kick them when they’re down. Well, if we have to stand up and say we’re that type of team, then we are. We don’t kick a mate when they’re down. But, you know, things need to be addressed, and through this process they have been. The Prime Minister made a decision to stand Meka Whaitiri down. She has lost her ministerial portfolios, and although she will continue to serve her electorate, everyone is reflecting on this matter in a way that we need to be able to move forward from.

Members of the Opposition would want the full disclosure of facts of all the information that has been raised within those investigations to be out in the public domain. Quite simply, it’s very difficult because, for the parties who have disclosed information, their privacy needs to be protected. It’s so important to ensure that we follow some principles that we would want to apply to ourselves as well. There is private information in that report. The Prime Minister did make the point that a public-facing report will be released once redactions have been made and once the protections of private disclosures have been redacted from the report. So I’m really concerned that the Opposition is trying to paint this as kind of trying to get away from the issues at hand. I don’t know, in the public mind, whether there’s anything worse than losing a ministerial portfolio. Everyone kind of understands that. I’m not sure entirely where the Opposition want to go with this: have a member who has lost their ministerial portfolio then walk out of this place altogether? Is that the pathway that the Opposition is saying should be applied to Meka Whaitiri? I’m really concerned about that. I don’t think, in the public mind, that they believe that in an investigation, where something has been found and action has been taken, any further action needs to be taken. That’s something that we are certainly happy to debate in this House.

More importantly, what I wanted to comment on is the threshold of expectations, notwithstanding the facts of the matters formed in the court of public opinion, which apply to a member of Parliament and a Minister alike. Sometimes, that court of public opinion has no real measure except perception. The investigation was trying to get to the facts of the matter, but there is a saying, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”, and the Opposition has certainly spun this in a way that the story is more important than the facts. But I really want to come back to the point that all members and all Cabinet Ministers on this side of the House have regarded as the process on which the Prime Minister took action. She wasn’t going to make a decision in lieu of the facts. The investigation tried to ensure that the parties involved in this particular case had the ability to disclose the information—private information was released. On receiving the report, the report said an incident had occurred—an incident had occurred—and, on balance, she stood Meka Whaitiri down. Now, that’s pretty clear for most people when they go through it. It’s hard to listen to and handle, but that is pretty clear.

The Prime Minister has acted with a level of compassion and understanding based on the parties involved; a level of thoroughness, to ensure that the investigation happened in a timely manner; and with an understanding of the expectations on her role as Prime Minister to make a decision that removed no shadow of doubt. The level of decisiveness required here was to send a signal to her whole Cabinet that her expectations are high, but I suspect she recognises that the expectations that Ministers put on themselves, when given the honour to serve, is even higher.

I am very clear in my mind that Meka Whaitiri will have the ability to continue to make a contribution and reflect on all of this, but this isn’t about Meka. You know, in her time as a Minister, she made a very strong contribution in her customs portfolio and in her primary industries portfolio. In fact, one of the things that she was most passionate about, which actually serves the people of her electorate to get people employed, was helping Minister Jones get those one billion trees planted; to ensure that the Provincial Growth Fund would get regions like hers, in Te Tai Rāwhiti, up and running; and, importantly, to ensure that opportunities for young people would not be lost as a result of us being in Government. She contributed to the long-term plan that was outlined just last week—our 12 priorities—and, as the Associate Minister for Crown-Māori Relations, helped to frame up what the potential of a portfolio aimed at building the relationships between the Crown and Māori could achieve in the long term.

So I know that she’ll get on with it. I know that she’ll reflect on the situation. I know that she wouldn’t want us debating her but, actually, why we’re in Government and why we will continue to stand up for people on all fronts. And, importantly, she understands that there are parties involved in this particular incident who have disclosed information and that a decision was made, and she accepts it. So, without too much more, I’m hoping that by the time we get to the Māori Women’s Welfare League, she’ll be able to continue to contribute to a forum where there have been many ups and downs in the life challenges of women who pick up the cudgels and lean into a leadership role. This will be a learning experience for her. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We’ve heard a few speeches today that have talked about leadership. One of the messages that I wanted to speak to today is around leading by example, and I’m going to get to a few things further down in my speech where I am going to refer to some things that I see that have happened in this situation that don’t happen in the real world—OK? So I think leadership by example means that we have to set the scene, and we have to act responsibly and in a way that we would expect anyone else doing an investigation outside of this place to behave.

So it is up to us to set the standard, and that is not a standard that’s below the standard that we expect of other people. That is a standard that should be at least equal and, preferably, higher, because when we talk about governance and management, there is no bigger business in this country than this Government. So when we talk about the workplace, this is a workplace that’s actually much harder on the people who work here than any other workplace, because of the events-based contracts and things that operate in this place. After an election, there’s no other place where you see people walking around in situations—particularly, when there’s a change of Government—not knowing what their future’s going to be. Now you don’t get away with many of those things in what I would call the real world outside of this place, so it is really up to us to set the standard.

We talk in this House—and it was very clear, right from the start of this Government, that it was going to be open and transparent. I don’t think openness and transparency and standing up for what is right is delivering news on a Friday afternoon, in the situation of the Clare Curran dismissal, or on a Thursday afternoon before the Prime Minister heads off to the UN. If you’re going to front up, you actually need to stand up and front up and front the process right from the beginning. So I think that in this place, in terms of governance and management standards and what our expectations are, there has been some mission creep. They call it the most open and transparent Government ever, on the other side of the House. We dispute that on this side of the House.

We also hear that we’re going to have a kinder and more caring Government, and in the situation around Meka Whatiri, yes, some allegations are disputed. But we’ve also heard today that some allegations are not disputed, and we hear that the report will come out. Will we get a sanitised version? We all respect the privacy of the staff member that is involved, and we would expect that that privacy would be respected in any report that is delivered to us, but in terms of the actual events and the happenings, will we ever know? Will the report be released in its full version? We won’t necessarily get the facts. So if this is an open and transparent Government, apart from protecting privacy, I would expect that we would get a very open and transparent report.

In unemployment law, the Government of the day is always advocating for the workers and they’re always advocating against bullying in the workplace. Regardless of whether there was or there wasn’t bruising—and that is at the allegation stage at the moment—it appears that some aspect of bullying in the workplace has taken place, and that’s simply not good enough.

The next point I want to move on to—and we’ve had some discussion about the Māori caucus this afternoon. I commend the Māori caucus for standing beside their colleague. What I would like to know from that Māori caucus or from the Prime Minister, or whoever, is: what part did the Māori caucus play in the decision that was made? That is the question. It is not a question of supporting your colleague; it is a question of whether or not the Māori caucus played a part in the decision.

We’ve heard a bit today about the way we work, and “There’s nothing to see here. We’re simply here to support our colleague.” Well, I would like to ask the Māori caucus today to see what sort of influence the Māori caucus is able to have on the rest of this Government, because outside, in what I like to term the real world, I think it’s really quite concerning. At the moment, I’m looking into a situation where an investigation has been taking place by a Government department where the family of the person being investigated were asked to leave the house so that that person could be interviewed in private. That, I don’t believe, is acceptable. I am following that up at the moment, and it is not the first situation I have come across where people have been told that they are not allowed to have a support person when they were interviewed.

So I think it’s pretty good that Meka Whaitiri has had so much support from her Māori caucus, and they were all allowed to go along and support her during part of her process with the Prime Minister. I think that we could actually extend that outside of this Parliament and have a look at some of our legislation—or perhaps, I don’t think it’s legislation; it’s probably more regulation—where we can support other people. Why are we above everybody else?

I am also aware of the situation where a dad in a neonatal unit was hounded during an investigation—full well knowing that that person had been involved as a parent of a baby in a neonatal unit. So I think it’s really important, as I said in the beginning, that we get the standards in this House high, but we shouldn’t have standards and see ourselves as being above the general population.

I also think it’s rather interesting that at a time where we need to have so many people going into an office to support a Minister, at a time when a Minister is down and a Minister needs support, this is a Government that has just put legislation into effect which allows warrantless searches on farmers. Do those people not have a right to have a full and fair interview and investigation into the process? What’s even worse about that situation is that those warrantless officers will most likely do those investigations in people’s homes and in people’s farmhouses, and yet this Government could not see fit to do the same thing in warrantless searches when it came to gang members.

So we’re looking at double standards here. We’re looking at double standards. So I would—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Why don’t you sit down.

—request today—and I’m sorry to tell the Hon Willie Jackson that I won’t be sitting down because I’ve got two minutes left. It’s all very well to stand up—and you probably will be having your turn shortly—and talk about the support for your Minister, and that’s important—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now you can say a lot of things in this House, but what you can’t possibly do—and that member’s been around for a little time now—is bring the Speaker into the debate. So words like “you can have your turn”, and what have you, just are so de rigueur, they should be stopped when they first come up.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes—

My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. I did use that terminology, and I wasn’t bringing you into—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Now, I’m standing on my feet, so you sit down. Thank you. Yes, it is a common misdemeanour in this House. I try not to be the referee with the whistle, constantly blowing it. If I did, that ruling would be made quite often, so I do want to remind members, particularly the ones that have been here long enough to know better. So the use of the personal pronoun “you” should be limited.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and given that a large part of my speech has been around setting standards, thank you for upholding the standards within the House.

I’m going back to my leadership setting the standard process. It is very important in this House that the process is kept, but I would also ask that we have a look at our processes right through this House. We always need to be cognisant of the processes in our Government departments, and we should not attempt to put ourselves, as members of Parliament, above the laws that apply to other people in this country.

So there is some opportunity here, I think, for the Māori caucus to advance some of the causes that they have been talking about today in terms of supporting colleagues in need, because lots of people have colleagues that are in need, and I don’t think it’s appropriate that some people can be interviewed without a support person, while Ministers can be interviewed and have the support of the Māori caucus. So we have to think about that. It’s leading by example. It’s setting the standard.

If this Government is going to be true to the word and true to the Speech from the Throne and be a kinder and more caring Government, then it should apply to the general population and not just to Ministers of the Crown. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Jeez, I’ve got to thank that member, Barbara Kuriger, for that advice to the Māori caucus! I’ll pass that on at the next meeting.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Sleep inducing. Moemoe.

Ha, ha! My goodness! I just have to be very clear—and we’ve had some great kōrero from this side today, and also from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—that we stand by our Prime Minister’s decision with regard to Meka Whaitiri. We stand by what she’s gone through and the process that she has used. I’m getting sick of the nonsense that is being perpetrated from the other side in terms of the Māori caucus lobbying the Prime Minister—what a load of nonsense. They need to get that out of their heads, because we trusted our Prime Minister. We trusted the process. Meka Whaitiri bought into the process. She accepts the process, and the Māori caucus accepts the process. So we stand by that decision.

Mr Assistant Speaker, we have heard, and you may have heard, that Meka Whaitiri, through the media, has made a commitment that she wants to make a change. She wants to be an effective member of Parliament, which she most certainly is in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. She’s been an effective Minister with the Hon Shane Jones and has worked tirelessly in the forestry area with the Minister of Forestry over there. It’s been tremendous. Can I say today, she is a tremendous Māori caucus co-chair. We keep hearing, “Oh, you Māoris support each other.” Everyone supports each other. All colleagues support each other. We all get this from both sides of the House when people get into trouble. It’s only natural. What’s happened with the Hon Meka Whaitiri is tragic and sad. We are all deeply disappointed with what’s happened, but that’s the nature of politics.

I know, from her, that she’s absolutely gutted. She’s made that very clear and she said she wants to work in terms of self-improvement. I say to the Opposition today, I come from a community where forgiveness is part and parcel of what we are part of.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: That’s right. Redemption.

I come from that community. The Hon Andrew Little talks about it all the time. I come from a community where when people make mistakes we pick them up and give them another shot. That’s what we do. Clearly, our member knows she’s made a few mistakes. She’s admitted that. She wants to get on with the work. When does it all stop here? When does it stop? When does the Opposition stop going for the jugular? We’re talking about women who have children. So we don’t care—we don’t care. That’s the problem in this House. It goes on and on and on. We’re talking about women. I’m talking about Meka Whaitiri and Clare Curran, who are mothers, who are part of the whānau, but no one on the other side cares. They just want to rip their hearts out. It’s all part of the game—yeah, keep laughing about it. Keep laughing about it. The communities notice what’s happening. It’s a strategy that the Opposition should be embarrassed about. Our communities are disgusted with this type of strategy constantly happening, and you see the effects on our members of Parliament. But a constant humiliation is all we get from the Opposition, and laughter, laughter, laughter.

We all play politics hard, but I ask the question in the House today: when does it stop? When does it stop, and how far do we go? That’s what we’re staying today. As a Māori caucus, we stand behind the Prime Minister, we stand behind Meka Whaitiri, and we stand behind the victim. If the victim has been hurt—we’ve only got assertions at this stage. But we want to get into a position where we support everyone. People make mistakes, they pay the price, and I ask today, as our Prime Minister keeps asking, when does compassion kick in in terms of this Government? Quite obviously, it never does.

I’m proud to be part of a Māori caucus who stands by our tuahine, who has gone through hell over the last few weeks and wants to get on with the job. She wants to get on with the job. We bought into a process with the Prime Minister. It was a process that was rolled out. There was no lobbying from the Māori caucus, just consultation and respect given from a Prime Minister who is leading the way not just in Aotearoa but on the world stage at the moment. We are proud of her; we tautoko her. We support our Prime Minister, and we support Meka Whaitiri. Kia ora anō tātou.

I call Simon O’Connor—five minutes.

The last speaker, Willie Jackson, asked a question of the House: when does it all stop? I’m happy to be able to stand and say to that member and to those opposite that it all stops when Ministers stop attacking their staff. It all stops when Ministers stop working inappropriately with their emails. It all stops when Prime Ministers take responsibility and show leadership. It all stops when the Labour Party does not hide from what happens in its camps. It all stops when the oral questions get properly answered—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like the leak.

—in this House, Rt Hon Winston Peters. It all stops when written questions are answered. It all stops when a Government takes responsibility.

The bullying and the abuse in this society, which we’ve now seen in the Beehive, in this Parliament, and, sadly, in our community, will stop when we take responsibility. All we have heard today from that side is a denial of responsibility. In fact, it’s been about wrapping all of the support and excuses around the people who have initiated the problems—in this case, Meka Whaitiri and, wider than that, of course, around Clare Curran in the indecisive actions of the Prime Minister; excuses after excuses. In fact, we had the arrogance of one Government Minister talking about tikanga, and the arrogance within that. Not that it is tikanga; but that it’s not to be questioned. That is why we continue to have the problems in our society, and the problem, even around this debate, is because people make excuses. They make excuses for those who abuse and those who bully.

So to the previous speaker, it will stop when we as Kiwis stop making excuses. It will stop when we stand behind the one person in this particular debate who has barely been mentioned: the victim. When will there be an apology to that person? Silence. I don’t expect much to come forward. I can’t speak for colleagues in this House who have made mistakes in the past—maybe they should have stood up and said sorry. But we are here today talking about very particular circumstances and not one “sorry” has been mentioned. Instead, it’s been accusations of high horse behaviour by a number of people on this side. It’s been somehow about mothering issues, about gender issues, about Māori issues—it’s got nothing to do with that. It’s got to do with the claim that someone was assaulted in their workplace.

This is coming from a Labour Government—I’d better say, sorry, correctly, a Labour-led Government—that talks very tough about employment rights. It talks very strongly about the rights of victims and bullying. We’ve had discussions in this House around domestic violence, and I note the Greens haven’t taken a call in this debate. They talk strongly there, but it does not reflect in the actions that we see. So we are in this House today calling that to account, fully aware that one of our colleagues, a Minister—in fact, several colleagues who are Ministers are taking this harshly and heavily. We acknowledge that. But, of course, we are all responsible for our actions and we are responsible to those who are hurt. So when will this end? It will end when we actually take account for our actions.

One of the questions, too, was “We’ve got to show compassion and forgiveness.” Absolutely. I’d be one of the first to say that, but you know what comes before forgiveness and what comes before compassion? It’s called contrition. It’s called admitting you made a mistake. And when it comes to being representatives of the public, it’s when we stand up in public and we admit our fault and we say we were wrong and we say to the public, in this the highest of public services, “This is what I did. I seek your forgiveness. I seek that compassion.” I’ve said it multiple times that when it comes to the word “compassion”, it means to suffer with. You cannot suffer alongside someone—the perpetrator or the victim—if you’re not prepared to understand. So we have a real problem here, too, in that we’re being told throughout this debate that the Prime Minister does know what went on, and then on the other hand, being told that we don’t know. Well, we’ve ended up with the Minister being removed from her post, for reasons which remain unclear but I predict will become clear, but they won’t become clear from this Labour-led Government, this supposedly open and transparent Government; it will become clear, just as the public will eventually find out, but this will not stop until people take responsibility for their actions.

The previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, made much noise about seeking some kind of apology from this side. The only person that needs to apologise after that tripe, I would say, is the Leader of the Opposition for enabling that member the platform to say some horrible things about some of our colleagues.

But, just to take a brief call on this, this debate is essentially about three things: one, there was an allegation made; two, the Prime Minister instigated an investigation; and three, on conclusion of that investigation, our Prime Minister made a swift determination. There’s not much more of any substance in the issue that we’re debating this afternoon. We’ve heard a whole range of allegations from across the other side of the House about “Who’d done this” and X, Y, and Z, and so on and so forth.

It’s absolutely right, as the Prime Minister said, that the public have a right to understand the full nature of those allegations. I know that the Prime Minister, alongside the people engaged in these allegations, will also want nothing more than for a full report to come out, and, in order to protect the identity of the person that’s made the allegation, that report will go through a process of redaction, but that report will be made. Now, in contrast, there is another report that’s sitting before us all and we are all wondering what the outcomes will be. It is about who leaked the expenses, but that’s a matter for another day.

I’ve had the privilege of knowing the member both personally and professionally for many, many years, and I can only imagine the weight and the pressure that the public eye has had on both the member and her family. I also happen to share half of an electorate with the member, up in the Gisborne area. I know, from the constituents that come into our office, expressing their concern over the things that have happened, so I can just say, from a local perspective, that the member will be staying on as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. The people have placed their trust in her, and we have full confidence that the member will conduct her duties, as she has been over the past month or so, acting as a competent member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

It’s like this in any Government, and the Opposition—whilst it might feel like many moons ago—knows that it wasn’t that long ago when their own Prime Minister had to make several hard determinations to cull many of their Ministers. If we start with Richard Worth, then there was Phil Heatley, there was Pansy Wong, Nick Smith—the Hon Nick Smith, who sits in this House today—Kate Wilkinson, Peter Dunne, John Banks, Maurice Williamson, and Judith Collins, and that’s all to do with the running of any single Government. This is a Government. It goes on. It’s everyday Government business—resign, you know, and be ordered to stand trial for electoral fraud. I mean, these things happen.

The Opposition will know that these things happen when you run a Government, but what the people of New Zealand really care about is that we as a Government are getting on and doing the things that we said that we would do. So after one year of being in Government, this Government is doing exactly the things that we said that we’d do: we’re building houses, creating jobs, and focusing on the regions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

So it’s incumbent for this debate to go on and on, but to acknowledge there was a disputed incident. A review was then undertaken, and the Prime Minister, on receiving the findings of that review, made her determination. Our colleagues on this side absolutely support the Prime Minister, and we support our colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri as she works hard for the constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to regain the trust of the Prime Minister in her future endeavours.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.