Liam you note that "While protest is a legitimate part of democratic life, Parliament cannot function if its authority and procedures treated as optional."
Your piece was about whether a haka objection, and the subsequent reaction to the disciplinary process undermined the function of parliament. It certainly was performative, but did it seriously affect the subsequent parliamentary procedures? Taking a step back, its not apparent that it did. Compare that to the truncation of the select committee process on the very same piece of legislation, and the dismissal of possibly 100,000 (or 1/3) of the submissions - that were not formally received into the record, or read, or made a proper part of the process. Perhaps you would like to comment on the risks to Parliament of this vital procedural step being so contemptuously curtailed. The stated reason from the coalition was that to follow due process would take too long, and blow out their timetables. That seems to be a far more egregious disregard of due process than a haka.
Parliament was suspended for the rest of the day meaning no further Parliamentary business could be conducted that day. To you accept this established fact?
I do not accept that this is established fact. The Graeme reason is *Parliament* wasn't suspended at all, but rather a sitting of the House.
The other reason is that suspension lasted 26 minutes. The House resumed, and further business was transacted: (i) the naming and suspension of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clark; (ii) the declaring of the result of the vote on the bill; (iii) the referral of the Bill to the Justice Committee; (iv) the debate on a government notice of motion under the Defence Act, extending an authoisation for members of the armed forces to perform certain public services in response to a strike, along with the debate on an opposition amendment to that motion. 90 minutes after the House resuned, it rose at the normal time for Thursday sitting.
The speaker of the house. God help you if you can't understand that preventing a vote being taken on legislation is a serious disruption to the proceedings of parliament. That certainly would make you a lost cause.
Based on lies and BS, Neoliberalism has been implemented in Nz at major cost to our economy and society, but life goes on. Albeit on a downwards trajectory.
A senator just did a 20hr plus speech to prevent the proceedings in the senate. What’s your take on that? Again, your analysis seems like act; you know the price of everything, and the value of nothing
I accept that the Speaker suspended Parliamentary business for the rest of the day, thus affecting what could be achieved in that sitting day. I.e. part of a sitting day was lost due to the protest actions of those members and the Speaker's response to it.
However I was hoping to get your thoughts on the significance of a different but related action that appeared to also undermine the authority and procedures of our Parliamentary process.
My observation was that the effect of the haka did create a disruption to proceedings, the consequences of which were rapid and clear. Is it likely to encourage others to follow suit? I'd argue it was very context-specific, so probably not.
By contrast, the decision to not hear or record (a decision that has since been reversed) the inputs via submission to a select committee process appears to be the thin end of a wedge that weakens our parliamentary democratic process, and trust in it.
We've already seen unprecedented use of urgency to push bills through to "meet timetables". This thwarts democratic input, and often the rush leads to bad law.
We have few checks and balances in our unicameral system. The select committee process is one of them. Instead of the coalition being honest and saying that the response to the bill was overwhelming, and suggesting a way to honour all those who had put the time and effort in for their voices to be heard, what we saw was its proper process being summarily cut off through a process that relied on clever clogs legal manoeuvring.
I was interested in your thoughts on the implications of that approach.
Again; you are prioritising rules above justice and free speech. Remind me, what’s the purpose of the bill in question? Is it, as act says in another one, to serve the interests of all New Zealanders ?
Sometimes, you actually have to withdraw your consent
….im posting my answer to your (below) bloviating response here: as mine is short, and your response more kapo talk.
Ah, the ad hominum attack :) liam, you mistake obedience for virtue, and confuse moral clarity for narcissism. Rules serve justice, not the other way around.
When the rules protect power over people (as I do often observe you do) consent is not a procedural checkbox. It’s a birthright to withdraw.
You defend, again, a system that fails the many while flattering itself as fair. That’s not wisdom.
It’s service to the status quo, dressed up as civility.
Happy Friday.
You might find this interesting; or repugnant; let me know?
Tadhg, the root problem with your comment is moral narcissism. You seem to believe that your personal sense of justice overrides the responsibilities and norms that make collective governance possible. That is not courage or insight. It is self-indulgence and a lack of capacity to reason.
You claim others are prioritising rules over justice and free speech. But this reveals a failure to understand that the rules we are talking about are not arbitrary constraints. They are how we ensure justice is applied fairly and consistently. Without rules, justice becomes whatever the loudest or most self-righteous person decides it is. Which is fine if you think that you can be the loudest and most self-righteous but not so flash when you discover that other people are more determined than you are.
Your invocation of free speech is unbelievably shallow. The MPs you defend have more freedom of speech than almost anyone in the country. What they did was not speak. They shut down the ability of others to speak by bringing the sitting of Parliament to a halt. That is not the exercise of liberty. It is the denial of it to others.
You then pivot to the content of the bill, asking what its purpose is, as though the legitimacy of parliamentary procedure depends on whether you personally approve of the legislation. This is precisely the thinking of someone who cannot separate their moral emotions from the obligations of living in a pluralistic society. I worry about you if you simply lack the mental understanding to click to the fact that society can't run based on the idea that what you think is self-evidently correct always is.
And finally, your line about withdrawing consent says it all. Consent in a democratic system is expressed through participation in its processes. The MPs in question chose to participate by running for office and taking their seats. If they believe the system is no longer legitimate, the principled thing would be to resign and advocate from outside. What is not principled is using the system’s resources and platform while refusing to accept its rules.
You mistake self-expression for principle. You treat disruption as bravery. You ignore the fact that others have equal moral standing, and that democracy only works when no one places themselves above the framework that binds us all.
This is why your arguments fail and repel more people than they could every persuade. Not because you are passionate or wrong in your views, but because you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between personal conviction and civic obligation. That's is the mark of moral narcissism. And it renders you a poor judge of the very institutions you presume to criticise.
Ah, the ad hominum attack :) liam, you mistake obedience for virtue, and confuse moral clarity for narcissism. Rules serve justice, not the other way around.
When the rules protect power over people (as I do often observe you do) consent is not a procedural checkbox. It’s a birthright to withdraw.
You defend, again, a system that fails the many while flattering itself as fair. That’s not wisdom.
It’s service to the status quo, dressed up as civility.
Happy Friday.
You might find this interesting; or repugnant; let me know?
Interesting piece Liam, but I find it hard to understand what serious harm the very brief haka incident did to parliamentary procedure, and I am not sure why proceedings were suspended for the rest of the day.
You quote examples of settings that have their own protocols - a church, a courtroom, school assemblies and/or prizegivings, none of which, I suspect have a haka protocol.
I have witnessed spontaneous haka taking place in each of those settings, usually taking longer than the parliamentary haka in question. In almost all cases, no one was particularly upset and proceedings continued.
There have been other much more lengthy disruptions to parliamentary proceedings, often punctuated with rounds of points of order and cross words, sometimes leading to a member being ordered to leave the chamber, but not resulting in a referral to the privileges committee, and certainly not leading to a $1,000 fine or 10 days suspension, or anything close.
Furthermore official government groups regularly take kapa haka with them to official occasions and visits, often to places totally unfamiliar with haka. And we have often seen haka in the house and its precincts. All quite acceptable.
They should be fined and censuredfor the grandstanding haka alone. This overdone & generally inappropriate war dance is a crime against modern society. Since when is it appropriate, or functionally useful, to start screaming, poke out your tongue & beat your chest? Do it on the Marae, sure. It’s established as an All Black thing, ok (even if accorded too much glory), but we are talking Parliament here. THAT’s a Westminster tradition, ie western culture. Show some respect for the system that gives you the freedoms you enjoy. And that system is NOT tikanga. Just in case you were confused.
Benjamin Doyle also joined in the haka, you can see him briefly at 28 secs in the below link. Why is he not subject to being summoned by the Privileges Committee, too? Is it because he didn't leave his seat? He was still involved in disrupting proceedings, though.
If the rules need to be changed then there needs to be a proposed new rule rather than chaos. Are TPM doing the work to actually draft and negotiate new rules?
Lawyers are supposed to be the bulwark against tyranny liam. Yet, as the Winebox showed (thank you Tony Molloy KC for “thirty pieces of silver”) nzs lawyers and politics seem dominated by money hungry scum who operate collegially.
Your piece avoids - as they do often do - the elephant in the room. Justice.
The divine right of kings to rule was based on their commitment to justice. Our parliament’s have become ever more obviously dishonest and corrupt. Increasingly Populated by lawyers and lobbyists, and increasingly insulated from criticism by numerous enablers.
Do you have any interest in justice liam? It seems rather a blind spot in you, from afar
I thought it is a well written article by Liam, that explained everything clearly. As you point out, if TPMaori can opt out, whos next ?
Anyone. If principle demands it.
Liam you note that "While protest is a legitimate part of democratic life, Parliament cannot function if its authority and procedures treated as optional."
Your piece was about whether a haka objection, and the subsequent reaction to the disciplinary process undermined the function of parliament. It certainly was performative, but did it seriously affect the subsequent parliamentary procedures? Taking a step back, its not apparent that it did. Compare that to the truncation of the select committee process on the very same piece of legislation, and the dismissal of possibly 100,000 (or 1/3) of the submissions - that were not formally received into the record, or read, or made a proper part of the process. Perhaps you would like to comment on the risks to Parliament of this vital procedural step being so contemptuously curtailed. The stated reason from the coalition was that to follow due process would take too long, and blow out their timetables. That seems to be a far more egregious disregard of due process than a haka.
Parliament was suspended for the rest of the day meaning no further Parliamentary business could be conducted that day. To you accept this established fact?
I do not accept that this is established fact. The Graeme reason is *Parliament* wasn't suspended at all, but rather a sitting of the House.
The other reason is that suspension lasted 26 minutes. The House resumed, and further business was transacted: (i) the naming and suspension of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clark; (ii) the declaring of the result of the vote on the bill; (iii) the referral of the Bill to the Justice Committee; (iv) the debate on a government notice of motion under the Defence Act, extending an authoisation for members of the armed forces to perform certain public services in response to a strike, along with the debate on an opposition amendment to that motion. 90 minutes after the House resuned, it rose at the normal time for Thursday sitting.
Who was the bed wetter who suspended parliament?
The speaker of the house. God help you if you can't understand that preventing a vote being taken on legislation is a serious disruption to the proceedings of parliament. That certainly would make you a lost cause.
Hi Liam, what’s your take on corrupt laws to privilege banks above citizens? https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/the-collapse-of-new-zealand-as-a?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
It was a rhetorical question liam.
Based on lies and BS, Neoliberalism has been implemented in Nz at major cost to our economy and society, but life goes on. Albeit on a downwards trajectory.
A senator just did a 20hr plus speech to prevent the proceedings in the senate. What’s your take on that? Again, your analysis seems like act; you know the price of everything, and the value of nothing
Filibusters are allowed under the rules of the US senate. Seems like quite an important difference.
I accept that the Speaker suspended Parliamentary business for the rest of the day, thus affecting what could be achieved in that sitting day. I.e. part of a sitting day was lost due to the protest actions of those members and the Speaker's response to it.
However I was hoping to get your thoughts on the significance of a different but related action that appeared to also undermine the authority and procedures of our Parliamentary process.
My observation was that the effect of the haka did create a disruption to proceedings, the consequences of which were rapid and clear. Is it likely to encourage others to follow suit? I'd argue it was very context-specific, so probably not.
By contrast, the decision to not hear or record (a decision that has since been reversed) the inputs via submission to a select committee process appears to be the thin end of a wedge that weakens our parliamentary democratic process, and trust in it.
We've already seen unprecedented use of urgency to push bills through to "meet timetables". This thwarts democratic input, and often the rush leads to bad law.
We have few checks and balances in our unicameral system. The select committee process is one of them. Instead of the coalition being honest and saying that the response to the bill was overwhelming, and suggesting a way to honour all those who had put the time and effort in for their voices to be heard, what we saw was its proper process being summarily cut off through a process that relied on clever clogs legal manoeuvring.
I was interested in your thoughts on the implications of that approach.
Again; you are prioritising rules above justice and free speech. Remind me, what’s the purpose of the bill in question? Is it, as act says in another one, to serve the interests of all New Zealanders ?
Sometimes, you actually have to withdraw your consent
….im posting my answer to your (below) bloviating response here: as mine is short, and your response more kapo talk.
Ah, the ad hominum attack :) liam, you mistake obedience for virtue, and confuse moral clarity for narcissism. Rules serve justice, not the other way around.
When the rules protect power over people (as I do often observe you do) consent is not a procedural checkbox. It’s a birthright to withdraw.
You defend, again, a system that fails the many while flattering itself as fair. That’s not wisdom.
It’s service to the status quo, dressed up as civility.
Happy Friday.
You might find this interesting; or repugnant; let me know?
https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/dammit?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Tadhg, the root problem with your comment is moral narcissism. You seem to believe that your personal sense of justice overrides the responsibilities and norms that make collective governance possible. That is not courage or insight. It is self-indulgence and a lack of capacity to reason.
You claim others are prioritising rules over justice and free speech. But this reveals a failure to understand that the rules we are talking about are not arbitrary constraints. They are how we ensure justice is applied fairly and consistently. Without rules, justice becomes whatever the loudest or most self-righteous person decides it is. Which is fine if you think that you can be the loudest and most self-righteous but not so flash when you discover that other people are more determined than you are.
Your invocation of free speech is unbelievably shallow. The MPs you defend have more freedom of speech than almost anyone in the country. What they did was not speak. They shut down the ability of others to speak by bringing the sitting of Parliament to a halt. That is not the exercise of liberty. It is the denial of it to others.
You then pivot to the content of the bill, asking what its purpose is, as though the legitimacy of parliamentary procedure depends on whether you personally approve of the legislation. This is precisely the thinking of someone who cannot separate their moral emotions from the obligations of living in a pluralistic society. I worry about you if you simply lack the mental understanding to click to the fact that society can't run based on the idea that what you think is self-evidently correct always is.
And finally, your line about withdrawing consent says it all. Consent in a democratic system is expressed through participation in its processes. The MPs in question chose to participate by running for office and taking their seats. If they believe the system is no longer legitimate, the principled thing would be to resign and advocate from outside. What is not principled is using the system’s resources and platform while refusing to accept its rules.
You mistake self-expression for principle. You treat disruption as bravery. You ignore the fact that others have equal moral standing, and that democracy only works when no one places themselves above the framework that binds us all.
This is why your arguments fail and repel more people than they could every persuade. Not because you are passionate or wrong in your views, but because you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between personal conviction and civic obligation. That's is the mark of moral narcissism. And it renders you a poor judge of the very institutions you presume to criticise.
It’s ad hominem, not ad hominum , Tadhg. ‘Nuf said.
That’s the most valuable comment I’ve seen you make bud. Thank you for your contribution. May you continue to make gradual progress towards relevance
Ah, the ad hominum attack :) liam, you mistake obedience for virtue, and confuse moral clarity for narcissism. Rules serve justice, not the other way around.
When the rules protect power over people (as I do often observe you do) consent is not a procedural checkbox. It’s a birthright to withdraw.
You defend, again, a system that fails the many while flattering itself as fair. That’s not wisdom.
It’s service to the status quo, dressed up as civility.
Happy Friday.
You might find this interesting; or repugnant; let me know?
https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/dammit?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Interesting piece Liam, but I find it hard to understand what serious harm the very brief haka incident did to parliamentary procedure, and I am not sure why proceedings were suspended for the rest of the day.
You quote examples of settings that have their own protocols - a church, a courtroom, school assemblies and/or prizegivings, none of which, I suspect have a haka protocol.
I have witnessed spontaneous haka taking place in each of those settings, usually taking longer than the parliamentary haka in question. In almost all cases, no one was particularly upset and proceedings continued.
There have been other much more lengthy disruptions to parliamentary proceedings, often punctuated with rounds of points of order and cross words, sometimes leading to a member being ordered to leave the chamber, but not resulting in a referral to the privileges committee, and certainly not leading to a $1,000 fine or 10 days suspension, or anything close.
Furthermore official government groups regularly take kapa haka with them to official occasions and visits, often to places totally unfamiliar with haka. And we have often seen haka in the house and its precincts. All quite acceptable.
They should be fined and censuredfor the grandstanding haka alone. This overdone & generally inappropriate war dance is a crime against modern society. Since when is it appropriate, or functionally useful, to start screaming, poke out your tongue & beat your chest? Do it on the Marae, sure. It’s established as an All Black thing, ok (even if accorded too much glory), but we are talking Parliament here. THAT’s a Westminster tradition, ie western culture. Show some respect for the system that gives you the freedoms you enjoy. And that system is NOT tikanga. Just in case you were confused.
Liam, it was a very good article thank you.
Why are you hiding your posts these days liam? Are you afraid of criticism?
Benjamin Doyle also joined in the haka, you can see him briefly at 28 secs in the below link. Why is he not subject to being summoned by the Privileges Committee, too? Is it because he didn't leave his seat? He was still involved in disrupting proceedings, though.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360638698/were-not-sorry-te-pati-maori-refuse-apologise-parliament-haka?
If the rules need to be changed then there needs to be a proposed new rule rather than chaos. Are TPM doing the work to actually draft and negotiate new rules?
Lawyers are supposed to be the bulwark against tyranny liam. Yet, as the Winebox showed (thank you Tony Molloy KC for “thirty pieces of silver”) nzs lawyers and politics seem dominated by money hungry scum who operate collegially.
Your piece avoids - as they do often do - the elephant in the room. Justice.
The divine right of kings to rule was based on their commitment to justice. Our parliament’s have become ever more obviously dishonest and corrupt. Increasingly Populated by lawyers and lobbyists, and increasingly insulated from criticism by numerous enablers.
Do you have any interest in justice liam? It seems rather a blind spot in you, from afar
Unpleasant language doth not a useful argument make.
Pogue mahone