Standing Orders — Sessional

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the following sessional order be adopted: A leader of Te Paati Māori is entitled to one 20-minute call in the Budget debate, one 20-minute call in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and a five-minute call on any ministerial statement, and Standing Order 365 and Appendix A are to be applied accordingly.

Standing Orders give parties of six or more members opportunities to speak in some of the set occasions that we have here in the House, including the Budget and so on [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Both sides, please.

There were reasons why that particular provision was introduced some time ago, particularly in the introduction of MMP, when a number of MPs were moving around parties and there was a need for some certainty. In this Parliament, it has created an anomaly, in that it’s excluded just one party from being able to contribute on those occasions. This motion evens out that anomaly by granting Te Paati Māori the right to have a call on ministerial statements and for one of its co-leaders to have a call of 20 minutes in the Budget debate and the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. That brings them into line with the other parties in Parliament in terms of that entitlement. This sessional order will apply for the rest of this Parliament, and, as part of its triannual review, the Standing Orders Committee can assess whether the current rules about speaking rights for parties of varying sizes are appropriate for the longer term.

I would note that we have done similar things in the past, where smaller parties have had only one or two members. Similar provisions were in place in the last Parliament to allow the ACT Party leader, who at that point was a sole MP, to be able to participate in debates, and, if I recall correctly, similar provisions existed prior to allow the ACT Party, United Future Party, and, in fact, the Māori Party, when it had fewer members, to also be able to participate in those debates.

I thought I should take a call on this motion as someone who has had a bit of experience of the issue and some time to reflect on it. I spent longer than most as the sole member of a political party in this House and felt the specified party provisions keenly, and what they meant was that I was sometimes excluded from debate, but often was very grateful to the generosity and public spiritedness, I guess, of fellow members of the House who did allow me to participate in debates, such as the current Leader of the House, who was also then the Leader of the House and allowed me, as ACT leader, to participate in ministerial statements. But there were two competing principles that had to be weighed and, I think, were well balanced in those circumstances—that are not being well balanced by this motion. Those principles were that, while the Standing Orders—I think it’s 107(a)—do say that each party should be represented in each debate where possible, it’s also critical to maintain the principle of proportionality in the way that New Zealanders who vote are spoken for or represented in this House.

Now, the provisions that are being made by this amendment, in terms of speaking on a ministerial statement, I think are very sensible. They mean that, with the minimal distortion of proportionality, the Māori Party will be able to speak on ministerial statements—not so the provisions that are being made for the Prime Minister’s and Budget statements. Those changes, under this motion—what they will mean—are that the Māori Party, which already gets to speak, will be given additional speaking time, and so it actually goes further than it needs to in distorting proportionality to give each member a say. For that reason, ACT can’t support the motion. It does not balance the twin objectives of giving each party that, through the Electoral Act, is elected to this House a say in a debate but also making sure that all the people that didn’t vote for that particular party get their proportional representation.

I have to say, given the lack of logic behind the motion, one has to wonder about some of the motivations and the politics. I wonder if the Green Party have considered what Labour’s motivations are in bringing a motion that really favours the Māori Party. I wonder if they are thinking about future coalition negotiations, and if the Green Party have thought about what that might mean for their prospects. I wonder if the winners of six of the seven Māori seats, who are members of the Labour Party, have thought about the fact that, to the extent they’re concerned about the materiality of this motion, they are actually giving up speaking time to people who have actually tried to take their seats off them and will be trying to do it again in 2½ years’ time. Those are the sorts of questions about the politics.

No doubt pretty soon, a representative of the Māori Party will get up and assert that, being mana whenua, it’s all the more important that they are able to speak. But I think it’s important also to recognise that 17 percent of New Zealand identify as Māori; 1.5 percent voted for Te Paati Māori. And so the question is not “Is this about more Māori representation?”; it’s about whether Māori representation comes from a particular party that is being advantaged by this motion more than is necessary to achieve the objective that I completely agree with and have benefited from: that everybody who, through the Electoral Act, gets to this House should be able to have their party’s view put across in the debate.

So ACT would like to tautoko the part of the motion that allows the Māori Party to speak on ministerial statements. That is the right thing to do and something that’s, effectively, been done in previous Parliaments. It’s a wonder that the Standing Orders Committee last term didn’t actually make that automatic, but the extension of speaking time on Prime Minister’s statements and Budget debates actually is against proportionality and therefore wrong. We should oppose it and maybe wonder why Labour is so eager to put it in place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak to this sessional order regarding calls for Te Paati Māori. First of all, we would like to give thanks to the Leader of the House for advancing this issue over the last few weeks, specifically in the Business Committee, and we appreciate the willingness of most members to ensure that we receive a good consideration to contribute to the proceedings of this Whare.

Since day one, I think Rawiri and I have made our presence known as Te Paati Māori, and I’m sure that the Speaker of this House enjoys us being back here.

💬 SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi.

Thank you—Rawiri Waititi. And what we do want to do is continue to be, as we were elected, the unapologetic, liberated voice for Māori. There is a change in Aotearoa, and we have been extremely fortunate and connected to the Aotearoa hou, the way that tangata Tiriti, tangata moana, tangata whenua want to unite and progress together.

Actually, I’m really surprised at how much my member beside me, the member David Seymour, is more aware of Māori Party politics and strategies than what, actually, as a co-leader I am, but what we do want to do is make sure that our contribution is valued and that we’re able to, yes, as he said, be part of a mana whenua unique voice in this House as the only tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua party that we have.

One of the other things that we do want to do also is that we’ve demonstrated that we take seriously our role, and we’re also prepared to unsettle and disrupt some of the discussions that need to happen in this House, including some of the colonised practices and views. So in that spirit, I would like to say that we are obviously supportive and would like this opportunity to contribute. We know we’re a small party, and we know that there are rules and tikanga that we have to follow as well.

So to be able to have this opportunity to contribute to the vision today, by passing this sessional order and ensuring that the only tangata whenua party in Parliament receives equity in the procedures and tikanga that govern this place—our rangatahi need to see a relevant party. They need to know that their voices are seen, as to our whānau, our culture, and our dreams. So I would like to thank you again for the consideration. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Kia ora. I’m happy to stand on behalf of the Green Party, who, when we do work and speak in this House, we do it based on our policies and what we want to create in this world, not on the motivations of any other party in this House. I also stand as chair of Te Mātāwaka, our Māori and Pasifika caucus in the Greens, to say how much we support this, because we believe it is essential that there is a party such as the Māori Party in our Parliament and the voice of the people who put them there.

I want to point out that during the campaign, Māori Television did research over all of the different electorates of the Māori seats, and that found that half of the Māori who voted for Labour predominantly wanted Labour to work with the Māori Party. So I think that when people made those votes, they did that on the basis that having the Māori Party here would add to the mix. So I’m pleased that this has been raised.

I think it’s demeaning and inappropriate that leaders of their own parties who have been elected and are sitting in this House have to ask permission to speak in key things, because it’s not all the time; it’s only sometimes. I want to point to the whakapapa of Tariana Turia crossing the floor on the foreshore and seabed legislation and then ending up creating the Māori Party, and the mana of the new party and to have brought the party back into the House. There are some things that we can say as the Green Party that probably other parties cannot say, but there are things only the Māori Party can say because of that specific mandate that they have. So whether it’s the Budget, the Prime Minister’s statement, or any ministerial statement, we totally support this.

We also would like to suggest it go further and that this happens automatically. The House has been sitting for many, many months, and I wasn’t aware that this was a provision that we could do. So perhaps it’s just been created, but if it has always been here, I’d like to suggest that next term, it is put in automatically so that parties don’t have to go through it. I note—and I support—that the rest of the House has on most of those occasions when the permission has been asked, we have unanimously granted it. So this seems to me, in some ways, an administrative thing.

I’m pleased that we can clean this up. I mean, I was elected as a list person. I’m not a leader of my party, so I bow to all the leaders in this House, and I expect that their people expect them to be able to speak for them. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a short call to indicate that the National Party will be supporting this motion, but in respect of the point that Ms Kerekere just made, I think it is important that we continue this conversation in the Standing Orders Committee. Firstly, I was one of the members that declined leave of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to have this adopted by leave of the House, because I thought it was a better place in the Business Committee to have that initial discussion.

The motion, I think, is quite generous. I think one of the things I think I will be raising in the Standing Orders is the question of proportionality and duration. I think 20 minutes in the Budget debate and in the Prime Minister’s statement is quite generous for a party of that size. Bear in mind that when we come to the Standing Orders Committee considering this being made a permanent order, it won’t be about Te Paati Māori; it will about any small party, and we have had parties established after members have, perhaps, left other parties. I can think of Brendan Horan, who established a political party, and, respectfully, I’m not sure that the spirit of this would, sort of, survive the black-letter changes in the Standing Orders if it were extended, perhaps, that far.

So I think, while we do support this on balance, there is a continued conversation to be had so that we do balance the rights of leaders to be heard in important debates—I think that’s very important—but Mr Seymour does make a very good point about proportionality and the will of the people who have brought us here to this House. So I think, in supporting this motion, I look forward to a continued conversation about it.