Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he had no problem with Te Pati Māori's haka in the House last week, during the vote on ACT's Treaty Principle Bill.

David Seymour, the National Party, and Shane Jones have written to Speaker Gerry Brownlee.

They say the Speaker should oversee rule changes at Parliament in light of the disruption.  

Hipkins told John MacDonald it's worth instead looking at Winston Peters, who he describes as one of the worst-behaved MPs.  

He says it's wonderful Jones and Seymour have appointed themselves Parliament's hall monitors, but they could lead by example and speak to their own leaders. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he had no problem with Te Pati Māori's haka in the House last week, during the vote on ACT's Treaty Principle Bill.
David Seymour, the National Party, and Shane Jones have written to Speaker Gerry Brownlee.
They say the Speaker should oversee rule changes at Parliament in light of the disruption. &nbsp;
Hipkins told John MacDonald it's worth instead looking at Winston Peters, who he describes as one of the worst-behaved MPs. &nbsp;
He says it's wonderful Jones and Seymour have appointed themselves Parliament's hall monitors, but they could lead by example and speak to their own leaders.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader on Te Pati Māori's haka, the behaviour of MPs in Parliament

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fb2b8a77-5a36-4031-83f8-b22d01720d96/transcript

I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up.   

This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week.  

Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch.  

I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on.  

So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules.  

Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates.  

So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament.  

He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows".    

But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us.  

And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either.  

Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way.   

The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times.  

But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up.  

Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated.  

And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year.  

And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at.  

Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected. 

I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up. &nbsp;&nbsp;
This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week. &nbsp;
Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch. &nbsp;
I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on. &nbsp;
So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules. &nbsp;
Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates. &nbsp;
So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament. &nbsp;
He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows". &nbsp; &nbsp;
But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us. &nbsp;
And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either. &nbsp;
Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times. &nbsp;
But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up. &nbsp;
Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated. &nbsp;
And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year. &nbsp;
And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at. &nbsp;
Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected.&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Cowboy hats and feathers? Yes. Bad behaviour? No

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c13057a3-2182-45ab-8e3c-b22e0000b2fd/transcript

An absolute circus is one way to describe David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.  

Or you could say that the thousands at Parliament today to protest against it is what democracy is all about.  

Either way, if you want to point a finger at anyone for creating this shambles, don’t point it at David Seymour. Point it at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.  

Who kept telling us last year how much of an expert he was at negotiations. Mergers and acquisitions was what it was all about. And, as we know with negotiations, it often means all parties doing a bit of give and take to get something across the line.   

But for someone who likes to go-on about his real-world business experience, it amazes me that he’s created this shambles by acting in a way that no chief executive would. More on that shortly.  

But I reckon people are thinking less about Christopher Luxon’s negotiation skills and more about his leadership skills right now. And I bet he is ruing the day that he agreed to include this sham in his coalition agreement with David Seymour.  

I also bet he is losing a lot of people’s respect. He’ll know that. If he doesn’t, then someone needs to tell him. His MPs won’t say so, but I bet he’s losing a lot of their respect, as well.  

It’s obvious. You talk to pretty much any National MP about the Treaty Principles Bill and they’ll shuffle uncomfortably in their seat. They’ll look away. They’ll say “oh yes, but not past the first reading” blah blah blah.  

They’ll try not to let it show in their face. But look into their eyes, and you can see the dread.  

That’s because they are embarrassed to be associated with this thing. And they have every right to be embarrassed when you consider that it was only agreed to, to get a deal across the line. Agreed to in a way which means it’s not actually going to go anywhere.  

All it’s going to do is give David Seymour a platform for the next election.  

Now before you start saying “hold on a minute, hold on a minute - it was only the other week mate that you were saying that we —as a country— seem to be incapable of discussing this sort of thing without it turning into a bunfight."  

Yes I did say that. I wasn’t saying I supported the Bill, I was saying that, despite how advanced we think we might be as a society, when push comes to shove, we are incapable of having this “national discussion” that the pointy heads like to bang on about without it turning to custard.  

And we’re seeing that play out today. Which Christopher Luxon knew would happen. He would have known full well that there’d be people who would go nuts over it.   

But he went with it and, as a result, his leadership is looking weaker by the day.  

Because if he had approached his negotiations with David Seymour in a way you would expect a seasoned chief executive to, then he would have done what any chief executive worth their salt does and determine whether a deal is going to do good things or bad things for the interests of the company.  

The best chief executives —and I’m talking the absolute best of the best— what they do, is they base all of their decisions on what’s best for the business or organisation that they lead. And, if they're really good, that can sometimes mean making decisions that might even see them lose their job.  

I’ll let you decide whether the company, in this case, is the National Party or the country. But this deal with Seymour isn’t good for his party and it isn’t good for the country.   

And, if Christopher Luxon is the leader he claims to be, then he needs to show some genuine leadership —some genuine backbone— and use his business skills to get us out of this mess.  

If he doesn’t, he will be toast. He will be toast as far as his MPs are concerned and he’ll be toast as far as the majority of voters are concerned.   

Because, if he did do what I’m saying he needs to do, then I would respect him infinitely more than I will if he does nothing. If he keeps on with this charade, if he keeps on banging on about how unhelpful the Bill is, how divisive it is.  

Keeps on trotting out that nonsense, and then sticks with the plan.  

I don’t care about his leadership experience until I see some genuine leadership in the here-and-now. To get us out of this treaty principles mess.  

An absolute circus is one way to describe David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. &nbsp;
Or you could say that the thousands at Parliament today to protest against it is what democracy is all about. &nbsp;
Either way, if you want to point a finger at anyone for creating this shambles, don’t point it at David Seymour. Point it at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. &nbsp;
Who kept telling us last year how much of an expert he was at negotiations. Mergers and acquisitions was what it was all about. And, as we know with negotiations, it often means all parties doing a bit of give and take to get something across the line. &nbsp;&nbsp;
But for someone who likes to go-on about his real-world business experience, it amazes me that he’s created this shambles by acting in a way that no chief executive would. More on that shortly. &nbsp;
But I reckon people are thinking less about Christopher Luxon’s negotiation skills and more about his leadership skills right now. And I bet he is ruing the day that he agreed to include this sham in his coalition agreement with David Seymour. &nbsp;
I also bet he is losing a lot of people’s respect. He’ll know that. If he doesn’t, then someone needs to tell him. His MPs won’t say so, but I bet he’s losing a lot of their respect, as well. &nbsp;
It’s obvious. You talk to pretty much any National MP about the Treaty Principles Bill and they’ll shuffle uncomfortably in their seat. They’ll look away. They’ll say “oh yes, but not past the first reading” blah blah blah. &nbsp;
They’ll try not to let it show in their face. But look into their eyes, and you can see the dread. &nbsp;
That’s because they are embarrassed to be associated with this thing. And they have every right to be embarrassed when you consider that it was only agreed to, to get a deal across the line. Agreed to in a way which means it’s not actually going to go anywhere. &nbsp;
All it’s going to do is give David Seymour a platform for the next election. &nbsp;
Now before you start saying “hold on a minute, hold on a minute - it was only the other week mate that you were saying that we —as a country— seem to be incapable of discussing this sort of thing without it turning into a bunfight." &nbsp;
Yes I did say that. I wasn’t saying I supported the Bill, I was saying that, despite how advanced we think we might be as a society, when push comes to shove, we are incapable of having this “national discussion” that the pointy heads like to bang on about without it turning to custard. &nbsp;
And we’re seeing that play out today. Which Christopher Luxon knew would happen. He would have known full well that there’d be people who would go nuts over it. &nbsp;&nbsp;
But he went with it and, as a result, his leadership is looking weaker by the day. &nbsp;
Because if he had approached his negotiations with David Seymour in a way you would expect a seasoned chief executive to, then he would have done what any chief executive worth their salt does and determine whether a deal is going to do good things or bad things for the interests of the company. &nbsp;
The best chief executives —and I’m talking the absolute best of the best— what they do, is they base all of their decisions on what’s best for the business or organisation that they lead. And, if they're really good, that can sometimes mean making decisions that might even see them lose their job. &nbsp;
I’ll let you decide whether the company, in this case, is the National Party or the country. But this deal with Seymour isn’t good for his party and it isn’t good for the country. &nbsp;&nbsp;
And, if Christopher Luxon is the leader he claims to be, then he needs to show some genuine leadership —some genuine backbone— and use his business skills to get us out of this mess. &nbsp;
If he doesn’t, he will be toast. He will be toast as far as his MPs are concerned and he’ll be toast as far as the majority of voters are concerned. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Because, if he did do what I’m saying he needs to do, then I would respect him infinitely more than I will if he does nothing. If he keeps on with this charade, if he keeps on banging on about how unhelpful the Bill is, how divisive it is. &nbsp;
Keeps on trotting out that nonsense, and then sticks with the plan. &nbsp;
I don’t care about his leadership experience until I see some genuine leadership in the here-and-now. To get us out of this treaty principles mess. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Don't point the finger at David Seymour for Treaty Principles mess

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/71cc37fe-a87c-48c5-8998-b22d0007ba16/transcript

When it comes to apologies there are generally two types: a sincere apology and a hollow apology.

And survivors of abuse in state or religious care are saying that the Prime Minister’s apology today for that abuse is hollow, because the Government isn’t saying anything today about redress or compensation.

The Government’s position is that it needs to take the time to make sure it gets the compensation scheme right and won’t be making any announcement until early next year.

Abuse survivors, though, say it should have been working on this long before now and today’s apology is undermined by what they think is a lack of timely action and work on compensation. Or, in other words, they’re saying that the apology is hollow.

Which I don’t agree with – I think the Government is right to take its time on this one. Which is probably easy for me to say because, thankfully, I haven’t been caught up in this nightmare.

Which is exactly what it has been and still is for these victims, or survivors as they prefer to be known, and they are the people criticising the Government today.

You’ll remember it was back in July when the final report on the massive inquiry into abuse of kids in care came out. 200,000 people were abused while they were, supposedly, being looked after by state and religious organisations.

And at the time the report came out, the Government said it would be delivering a national apology - which is what today is all about. And that it would be working on determining how the state will deliver what’s called redress. But, essentially, we’re talking about compensation for the victims who are still living.

Also included in that work is what changes can be made to try and ensure this kind of mass abuse can’t happen again, which is another priority for the abuse survivors.

I think it’s impossible to come up with changes that will stop it happening outright for the simple reason that there are evil people out there who can be very good at getting around structures and rules to do what they want to do.

But already the Government has this week announced steps to try and prevent abuse of kids in care. It's introducing a bill prompted by the Abuse in Care inquiry, which will ban strip-searching children.

So that’s all part of the redress work being led by Erica Stanford, who is the minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to the abuse in care inquiry.

The other big part of that response is the compensation side of things. Which survivors would have liked to have seen details from the Government today in parallel with the national apology.

But I think the Government’s right – this is something that can’t be rushed. I don’t think it’s something that should be neatly fitted-in with the timeline of the Prime Minister standing up today and delivering this apology that the country has to make, and which these poor buggers, whose lives were ripped apart, have been waiting years for.

In fact I’ve been very critical of the Government’s pace on some things. It’s been all quarterly action plans and runs on the board and, thank goodness, it isn’t taking the same approach trying to work out how it’s going to do to compensate these people.

Remember that it was less than two weeks ago when it announced that it was going to sort out things for people who were abused at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, who reached a $6.5 million compensation settlement with the Crown in 2001 but then lost $2.6 million of that in legal fees.

So last week, after 20 years, the Government said it would fix them up for the $2.6 million they didn’t get.

That’s just one example of why taking a slow, measured approach is the best thing to do. It’s probably a basic example, but there are other reasons why I think the Government is taking the right approach.

Another reason why I think the Government shouldn’t be criticised today is that whatever it decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.

There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse by people working for the state, ongoing.

Another reason too not to rush it is that it wasn’t just government agencies involved in this hideous abuse – religious organisations were involved too.

And the Government will need to negotiate carefully with these organisations - like the St John of God order which ran the boys home in Christchurch where terrible, terrible things happened.

Pretty much every time there’s a story on TV about abuse in care you see that stock footage of the van going through the gate and the pathetic-looking water sprinkler.

So this complex. The Government has to get it right. And while, yes, maybe it would have been good if it was in a position to announce compensation details today as well as the apology, I think it is much better to do a thorough job and do exactly what it said it would and do the right thing for the people it is apologising to today.

When it comes to apologies there are generally two types: a sincere apology and a hollow apology.
And survivors of abuse in state or religious care are saying that the Prime Minister’s apology today for that abuse is hollow, because the Government isn’t saying anything today about redress or compensation.
The Government’s position is that it needs to take the time to make sure it gets the compensation scheme right and won’t be making any announcement until early next year.
Abuse survivors, though, say it should have been working on this long before now and today’s apology is undermined by what they think is a lack of timely action and work on compensation. Or, in other words, they’re saying that the apology is hollow.
Which I don’t agree with – I think the Government is right to take its time on this one. Which is probably easy for me to say because, thankfully, I haven’t been caught up in this nightmare.
Which is exactly what it has been and still is for these victims, or survivors as they prefer to be known, and they are the people criticising the Government today.
You’ll remember it was back in July when the final report on the massive inquiry into abuse of kids in care came out. 200,000 people were abused while they were, supposedly, being looked after by state and religious organisations.
And at the time the report came out, the Government said it would be delivering a national apology - which is what today is all about. And that it would be working on determining how the state will deliver what’s called redress. But, essentially, we’re talking about compensation for the victims who are still living.
Also included in that work is what changes can be made to try and ensure this kind of mass abuse can’t happen again, which is another priority for the abuse survivors.
I think it’s impossible to come up with changes that will stop it happening outright for the simple reason that there are evil people out there who can be very good at getting around structures and rules to do what they want to do.
But already the Government has this week announced steps to try and prevent abuse of kids in care. It's introducing a bill prompted by the Abuse in Care inquiry, which will ban strip-searching children.
So that’s all part of the redress work being led by Erica Stanford, who is the minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to the abuse in care inquiry.
The other big part of that response is the compensation side of things. Which survivors would have liked to have seen details from the Government today in parallel with the national apology.
But I think the Government’s right – this is something that can’t be rushed. I don’t think it’s something that should be neatly fitted-in with the timeline of the Prime Minister standing up today and delivering this apology that the country has to make, and which these poor buggers, whose lives were ripped apart, have been waiting years for.
In fact I’ve been very critical of the Government’s pace on some things. It’s been all quarterly action plans and runs on the board and, thank goodness, it isn’t taking the same approach trying to work out how it’s going to do to compensate these people.
Remember that it was less than two weeks ago when it announced that it was going to sort out things for people who were abused at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, who reached a $6.5 million compensation settlement with the Crown in 2001 but then lost $2.6 million of that in legal fees.
So last week, after 20 years, the Government said it would fix them up for the $2.6 million they didn’t get.
That’s just one example of why taking a slow, measured approach is the best thing to do. It’s probably a basic example, but there are other reasons why I think the Government is taking the right approach.
Another reason why I think the Government shouldn’t be criticised today is that whatever it decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.
There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse by people working for the state, ongoing.
Another reason too not to rush it is that it wasn’t just government agencies involved in this hideous abuse – religious organisations were involved too.
And the Government will need to negotiate carefully with these organisations - like the St John of God order which ran the boys home in Christchurch where terrible, terrible things happened.
Pretty much every time there’s a story on TV about abuse in care you see that stock footage of the van going through the gate and the pathetic-looking water sprinkler.
So this complex. The Government has to get it right. And while, yes, maybe it would have been good if it was in a position to announce compensation details today as well as the apology, I think it is much better to do a thorough job and do exactly what it said it would and do the right thing for the people it is apologising to today.

John MacDonald: No mention of money doesn't make today's apology hollow

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/3d53edd1-7cfa-4252-8416-b22501741ce1/transcript

Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader on Te Pati Māori's haka, the behaviour of MPs in Parliament

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips