Parliament – ‘anti-Māori’ and racism implications

The referencing of referencing family of MPs, plus hints of and MP being ‘anti-Māori,r arose in an exchange in Parliament today, in relation to the appointment of Wally Haumaha as Deputy Police Commissioner. There’s co clear conclusion (to me) but some interesting discussion.

It came out of this primary question:

8. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does her Government expect high standards from all Government departments and Ministers?

It starts at 2:36…

Chris Bishop: Does she have confidence in her Government’s professional independence from Mr Haumaha when her police Minister gives him a shout-out in his workout videos, her Deputy Prime Minister attended a celebration on a marae for his appointment as assistant commissioner, her foreign affairs under-secretary has whānau links to him, and he was previously announced as a candidate for New Zealand First?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I am going to go back to that question and not require but ask the member to think very carefully about rewording it. We have had a tradition in this House, wherever possible, of not including the actions of family members—certainly within question time. I’d ask the member to reflect on his question and, if he agrees with me that that is unhealthy, to rephrase it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely we have to have some accuracy in the questioning in this House. Mr Bishop began by talking about what, in effect, is an allegation of witness tampering. So the real issue, sir, for you to judge is: who is this witness who is being tampered that he talked about? The fact is the person is not a witness. The person may be a complainant, and there’s a huge difference. He’s putting the two together quite naively and mistakenly and getting away with it in the House when he should be stopped.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think if we had the degree of exactitude that the Deputy Prime Minister is advocating, we’d have quite a few members on both sides of the House who wouldn’t be able to answer or ask a single question. Mr Bishop—going back to where we were at.

Chris Bishop: Did the panel convened by the State Services Commission to interview the short-listed candidates for the job of the Deputy Commissioner of Police recommend that Mr Haumaha be the preferred candidate for the job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to get into elements of an issue that is now being independently assessed by an independent inquirer.

Hon Paula Bennett: When the Prime Minister just previously said, as she did yesterday, that, actually, he cannot be either stood down or on garden leave because it would be the decision of the commissioner and that she can’t do it, is she aware that under section 13 of the Policing Act, the deputy commissioner’s role is a statutory appointment that holds office at the pleasure of the Governor-General on the advice of her, the Prime Minister, and that she has the power to act?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That includes them acting in that role of employment. What the member was asking about was whether I had the ability to stand someone down when there had been no formal process, and we’re undertaking an inquiry to ensure natural justice provisions apply, because the threshold test here is incredibly high. If the member is asking about gardening leave or temporary stand downs, that threshold, of course, is very different, and that is employment matter for the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise an issue that is troubling a number of us on this side of the House: the regularity with which those of us who enjoy Māori ancestry—and I direct your attention to Speakers’ rulings 39/4-5. I accept in the roundhouse of politics it is tough, but I am particularly irked by the allegation that Mr Bishop made, enjoying private briefings from dissolute elements in the police force, that he has labelled those of us, essentially, by talking about Fletcher Tabuteau and Winston Peters, as somehow not passing the test of parliamentary probity. And I’d invite you to reflect on it, because it will lead to a substantial bout of disorder from the House. Now, I’m not suggesting that Mr Bishop is anti-Māori, and, quite frankly, I don’t care if he is, but it is an important principle, with the number of Māori in the House—whether they’re urban Māori or broader traditional Māori—that you contemplate that situation, because we’re not going to put up with it for one more day.

Hon Paula Bennett: As one of those Māori, there is actually also a convention that we express our conflicts of interest for our whānau and particularly when we are looking at making statutory appointments, and this side of the House has a right to question that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, yes, I would have made the same point that the Hon Paula Bennett has made, because what Mr Jones is effectively doing is saying that if there is a statutory appointment that involves someone who identifies as being a Māori New Zealander, then that process can’t be questioned and nor can anything that would make the suitability of that person appropriate for that. But further than that, sir, you sat there while Mr Jones referred to another member of this House, effectively, as having some racial bias, and that’s a completely unacceptable thing for him to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The allegation that someone is a cousin and therefore is biased in the choice of someone in a governmental job is so demonstrably false when the person doesn’t go to the lengths to describe how far removed that relationship might be. If he were Scottish or Māori, he might understand that this would include 7,500 people. But no such attempt is made. It’s the insinuation that because that relationship, distant though it might be, nevertheless corrupts the member’s mind in being impartial, and that’s unfair.

Mr SPEAKER: I am in a position to rule. Members may have forgotten that I intervened on Mr Bishop’s question and asked him to reword it, because I thought the tone of it was not consistent with the way that we have gone as a country over the last number of decades. He reflected on that and, despite the opportunity, decided not to repeat the question in that form and I want to thank him for that.

There are a lot of elements of judgment in this. I, of course, don’t want to indicate that people cannot be questioned where there are seen to be untoward influences and of course that is the case, but what I did indicate was that I thought it was particularly important where family matters are being brought into account that people are either very specific or very careful and not general in allegations.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Precedent in rulings in this House are very important, because they do guide the House. I’d ask that you have a look back through, I think, the mid-part of 2015 when a then prominent member of the Opposition, now a very, very prominent member of this House, was asking questions of a Minister of the then Government that related directly to a family member. Those questions were allowed, they stood, and they went on for quite some days. When you’ve gone back over those transcripts and perhaps reflected on the wisdom of the course of action taken by the prominent Opposition member, now a very prominent member of Parliament, could you perhaps bring down a ruling that brings all of these things together. I think the general allegation made against the Parliament by Mr Jones today that it is somehow racially selective to bring up an issue that relates to the appointment of a person who is of New Zealand Māori descent is a very, very backward step for this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: I don’t feel any need to bring back a considered ruling on it. I think the matter is pretty clear. Speaker’s ruling 41/1 makes it clear that people should avoid referring to MPs families in their private capacities. It is all right to refer to family members who have official roles, and that is a ruling of long standing. It is also all right where there is a clear intersection of the public business of an MP and a Minister and the actions of a family member, and that is an area of longstanding ruling where there is a suggestion of inappropriate behaviour on the part of a Minister in favour of a family member—that is the subject of questioning in the House and will always continue to be.

 

11 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  August 15, 2018

    I just replied to Lurchy on Open Forum on something related to this. Copied to here:
    ….
    Lurcher1948 / August 15, 2018
    The Haumaha, witch hunt run by the right for scalps,i stole this from a nearby, Alright National party attack blog called Kiwiblog which is full of conspiracy stories run by a paid national party member called David Farrar its a good read

    It sounds like either a witch hunt, Maori bashing or there are there forces inside the Police Force who are manipulating this, just as they did when it was rumoured that Rickard would be the next Commisioner. Didn’t it strike anyone as odd that Louise Nicholas didn’t to reopen historical rape allegations herself (which are alleged to have happened 20 yrs or so earlier) which were not prosecuted because there was no corroborating evidence.

    Apparently The Dominion had a ‘tip off’and their man arrived at Nicolas’ door to question her on the historical allegations. What followed was 3 years of attacks and trial by media.. Someone else came out of the woodwork and in the climate of the Nicolas media circus Shipton and Shollum a were charged and convicted of a rape which i don’t believe would have happened without the 3 yrs of police bashing that had occurred in the media. Rickard wasn’t involved.

    They were found not guilty of Nicolas rape. She emerged as a ‘ ‘survivor’ and celebrity even though no one has ever been convicted of her numerous( I think 7 rape claims including one she later said she made up) and Rickards career was over. Sadly the only cop who was never charged with any sexual impropriety ,was jailed in the wake of mob feminist fury that Rickard and co had been found not guiltly!. I still believer that there are those in the police who acted maliciously and are still beavering away to get rid of Haumaha. I smell a bloody big rat!

    1 0 Rate This

    Gezza / August 15, 2018
    Whatever the background is, one thing that is abundantly clear, from every time I see Stuart Nash, the police Minister, on tv, is that with what has come out about him he is now NOT happy with Haumaha’s appointment & doesn’t like the man.

    This will make any working relationship between them very difficult when Haumaha is confirmed in his job.

    That, & Haumaha’s strong connections to NZF & presumably NZF Ministers, meaning there will be tension between the two parties, make this situation far too good not to be mercilessly exploited at every opportunity – & if the same situation arose for a senior appointee with strong ties to one of their coalition parties when National was in government, the Opposition under Little & his predecessors would have gone after them & him too – but probably not as effectively or in as well-coordinated a manner as the Nats.

    0 0 Rate This

    Gezza / August 15, 2018
    The other thing that will be making this delicious for the Nats is that the Government even announcing an enquiry into the appointment is almost certainly offensive to Maori who will no doubt see Pakeha racism present in all this.

  2. Corky

     /  August 15, 2018

    Nice and steady. The more the govmint whine, the more voters turn off. The more people look at Don Brash. The more reactive the Left become.

  3. Trevors_elbow

     /  August 15, 2018

    Heat building nicely in the kitchen… Winston is the real target here is my guess…it will be interesting to see what else the NZ Herald uncovers re personal connections with Haumaha with NZF and what other work place misdemeanours are lurking in his past…

    I wonder about fishing trips and days at the races….

    The Paths of Power are Paths of Daggers…

  4. Winston Peters and Shane Jones said it was offensive that National MP Chris Bishop continually alleges dodgy behaviour based on “whānau links” between Mr Haumaha and the party’s deputy leader Fletcher Tabuteau.

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/364177/national-questions-offensive-says-shane-jones

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  August 15, 2018

      Funny how important Maori culture, whakapapa and hapu are until they aren’t?

    • PartisanZ

       /  August 15, 2018

      So very easy when the links are whanau or hapu or iwi ….

      No similarity whatsoever to when the links are political party, ideology or ‘Think Tank’ allegiance, church, ‘service club’, association, sport or any number of other Pakeha ‘tribal’ affiliations …

      If Maori do it we can call it ‘pure corruption’ and paint it dark and dirty, while Pakeha get away with copious amounts of ‘legitimized corruption’ painted White, or pale muted tones, and clean …

      Why? Why so very easy …?

      The answer is: Institutional or ‘normative’ racism

      • PartisanZ

         /  August 15, 2018

        Oops … I forgot to mention “cronyism” … rather a big one with Blueys … although its partially covered by the word “association” I guess?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 15, 2018

        Oh no, Pakeha would also be called out if they had a social, family or business connection to an appointee they were responsible for selecting.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 16, 2018

        This one’s for you, PZ. I thought it was satire at first but no, it’s just sad Lefty whimpering:

        • Corky

           /  August 16, 2018

          It’s alright to be white, Parti ( no pun intended). However, it’s as profitable as being ethnic. Trust me; I know.