[ad_1]
House Speaker Trevor Mallard and the Maori party accuse each other of grandstanding after the two Maori party MPs withdrew from the first session of the new Parliament yesterday.
Co-leader Rawiri Waititi raised a point of order in te reo Māori when seeking to participate in a debate, but Mallard overcame it.
He was given a brief opportunity to convince the President to listen to him, telling the House “The Maori party is moving to win, 15 minutes for Maori party leaders in this response section” roughly translated as “pass a motion for Maori Party leaders to have 15 minutes to speak in response speech. “
But the Speaker cut him off, prompting Waititi and co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to leave the chamber, in a dramatic start to the return of the Maori Party to the corridors of power.
Under the rules, party leaders with more than six deputies have 30 minutes to speak and smaller parties would only have a chance if time permits before the House rises at 5 pm.
However, because Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer are new MPs, if they spoke at the speech debate in response, that would constitute their inaugural address and they were not scheduled until at least next week.
Waititi tried to secure a space to speak based on a standing order that such decisions not discriminate against a minority party.
Correspondence behind the exit
The correspondence began last week when the Office Secretary sent an email with details of the plan for yesterday’s speeches, explaining why they would not get a guaranteed place in yesterday’s debate.
Waititi replied: “The only Party that is excluded from the debate on the speech in response is Te Paati Māori … the other 4 parties are led and dominated by Pākeha. These parties have 30 minutes of time to speak, the Maori get nothing “.
He went on to say that the exclusion of his party was “disturbing and absolutely contradictory to our understanding of our participation in Parliament.”
“Our Maori people clearly expressed the view that their liberated and unapologetic voice should be heard and not suppressed. Then I would appreciate how these rulings are offensive to us because they pursue an agenda of tangata whenua oppression.”
He went further and said that the decisions were made before the election of the president and were “decisions based, not on the will of the voters, but on the prejudice and racism of a previous order.”
The email was signed with an instruction that the co-leaders of the Maori Party could not “participate in any parliamentary proceedings unless we are treated equally.”
That prompted Mallard to intervene, although at this point he has not yet been officially elected as president.
He warned the Maori Party that if it was successful and the co-leaders planned not to participate in any parliamentary proceedings, that would have consequences.
Specifically, Mallard noted: “If you choose not to participate and take the oath, then you will not be eligible to speak in Parliament or attend committees as a member.
“You will not be able to attend the Business Committee meeting that I propose to convene on Wednesday afternoon and which will deal with matters such as the assignments of questions and debates,” he wrote.
“You will know that at this time the Maori Party does not have a high enough proportion of the House to have the right to request laws. I hope that we can convince another party or parties to grant part of their rights.”
The business committee met on Wednesday this week, a few days after these email exchanges.
At that meeting, the Labor Party offered the Maori Party a permanent space to speak so that it can participate in the debates in Parliament.
Parliamentarians from across the House give 12 10-minute speeches when legislation is debated.
The calls are divided according to the size of each party: Labor receives the most, while Act and the Greens each receive one seat.
Due to its size, the Maori Party falls short of the threshold to be given a space to speak.
But Labor has offered the minority party half of one of its calls, allowing one of its MPs to speak for five minutes on any legislation at any time.
He made the same offer to the Law’s leader, David Seymour, at the beginning of the 2017 parliamentary term, and the Maori Party accepted the offer.
Following the departure of the Maori Party from the House yesterday, the House Secretary wrote to the co-leaders explaining why they were unsuccessful in their efforts to present a motion during the debate.
He offered to provide advice and the correct wording to help with any future motions.
But that prompted a response from Waititi that the Spokesman did not accept his wish to speak in the Maori language and should have requested a translation before making a decision.
Neither the Maori Party nor the President seem willing to make any more compromises and Ngarewa-Packer warned that the party simply started in the House yesterday as it means continuing, challenging the way Parliament operates.
‘There is a very clear set of rules’
Mallard told Morning Report that the Maori Party co-leaders were originally willing to speak next Thursday, but had rescheduled it to allow them to speak at 4.30pm yesterday.
“I made some special arrangements for them to speak yesterday and they said they would only accept those special arrangements if they got to speak twice and that doesn’t happen.
“There are many precedents for opening speeches at the beginning, as each person leading the Response Speech only has one speech, David Seymour when he was party leader and opening speaker got his 15 minutes after the other party leaders.
Mallard said that if Waititi had chosen to speak yesterday, it would have been considered a keynote address.
“They would have had it right out front, it would have been a privileged view for all the leaders.”
However, Ngarewa-Packer said that the Maori Party differs from other small parties because it has co-leaders and they hoped Waititi would be allowed to speak yesterday, while she planned to speak when most of the keynote speeches were held next. week. .
Mallard said he feels some level of frustration over the situation.
“Some of us spent hours answering emails explaining to people what the situation was, frankly I didn’t help my relationship with the House leader because I changed the schedule so the Maori Party could speak yesterday, and then we had that performance at the Camera “.
Mallard said he had called national leader Judith Collins when Waititi stood up to seek a point of order.
“You can’t bring a motion in Parliament on a point of order in the middle of someone else’s speech or while someone else is speaking – it’s against the rules,” Mallard said.
Mallard said he did not provide an opportunity for Waititi’s words to be translated from Maori tea into English because it was clear to him that Waititi was moving a motion.
Imagine the chaos if every time someone was giving a speech they were interrupted by issues of order out of order.
“From my point of view, there is a very clear set of rules that were very carefully explained to the Maori Party and they decided to ignore them.”
However, Ngarewa-Packer said he believes Mallard discriminated against Maori Party MPs by interrupting Waititi without giving a translation opportunity.
“If it was someone who was a deaf member and stood up to speak and sign, you know Mallard would have made sure he heard the point through an interpreter. He did not hear the point through an interpreter and the last Once I heard him speak I convict you – he does not speak fluently.
“Now Mallard is the only great one and he does it much more than he had to be.”
