WEBVTT - C-bombs, consequences and ‘chaos’: Unpacking an ‘unprecedented’ week of politics

0:00:05.280 --> 0:00:05.680
<v Speaker 1>Kiota.

0:00:05.720 --> 0:00:08.799
<v Speaker 2>I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a

0:00:08.920 --> 0:00:16.440
<v Speaker 2>daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. New Zealand's

0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:20.600
<v Speaker 2>Parliament is a house of chaos. At least that's how

0:00:20.680 --> 0:00:24.760
<v Speaker 2>our own Deputy Prime Minister described the debating chamber last week.

0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:27.920
<v Speaker 2>The sea bomb was dropped in Parliament last week by

0:00:28.000 --> 0:00:31.960
<v Speaker 2>Brook van Velden, quoting a stuff column by Andrea Vance

0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:35.000
<v Speaker 2>that was criticizing the government's changes to pay equity.

0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:37.120
<v Speaker 1>It's muddied an already.

0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:40.360
<v Speaker 2>Dirty debate over women's pay that is set to overshadow

0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:43.680
<v Speaker 2>the budget this year, and at the same time Debati

0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:47.839
<v Speaker 2>Maldi's co leaders have been threatened with suspension from parliament

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:52.040
<v Speaker 2>dropped three weeks over last year's headline, making Hucker today

0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:54.440
<v Speaker 2>on the front page to help us make sense of

0:00:54.480 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 2>all the chaos, We're joined by News Talk ZB political

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:06.200
<v Speaker 2>editor Jason Wolves. Jason Winston Peters has called it a

0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:10.760
<v Speaker 2>house of chaos. Audrey Young wrote that it has been

0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:12.560
<v Speaker 2>an appalling fortnight.

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:13.880
<v Speaker 1>How would you describe it?

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:17.240
<v Speaker 3>Unprecedented would be the word that I would describe it.

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 3>On many levels. I mean, obviously we haven't seen the

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:24.160
<v Speaker 3>sea bomb used in the House like that. There was

0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:26.200
<v Speaker 3>one time where I think David Carter might have used

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:29.120
<v Speaker 3>it accidentally, but using it in the way that Brook

0:01:29.200 --> 0:01:34.200
<v Speaker 3>van Velden did certainly unprecedented. She didn't call another member

0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:36.960
<v Speaker 3>of the Sea words. She was using it, or was

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:41.320
<v Speaker 3>quoting from a newspaper opinion piece which used well in

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:43.880
<v Speaker 3>seed dot dot dot. We can all figure out what

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:47.360
<v Speaker 3>it was that the columnist actually meant there, but very unprecedented.

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:49.680
<v Speaker 3>And Winston Peters, you know, a stickler for the rules,

0:01:49.960 --> 0:01:52.800
<v Speaker 3>doesn't like to be a sweary fairy, was obviously a

0:01:52.800 --> 0:01:54.920
<v Speaker 3>little bit aggrieved by this. But I think it is

0:01:54.920 --> 0:01:59.240
<v Speaker 3>a touch ironic because Winston Peters does fly very close

0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:02.360
<v Speaker 3>to the sun when it comes to Speaker's rulings. I mean,

0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:05.520
<v Speaker 3>at any given time on any given Thursday, when he's

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:08.640
<v Speaker 3>answering for the Prime Minister, Kieran McNulty, who is the

0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:11.000
<v Speaker 3>Shadow Leader of the House for Labor, will stand up

0:02:11.240 --> 0:02:14.520
<v Speaker 3>and question elements of what it is that Winston Peters

0:02:14.600 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 3>is doing. For example, he quite often likes to use

0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:20.440
<v Speaker 3>government questions to attack the opposition, which is out of

0:02:20.520 --> 0:02:22.919
<v Speaker 3>order in the House. So it is a bit ironic

0:02:23.560 --> 0:02:26.720
<v Speaker 3>for Winston Peters to be kicking up such a stink

0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:29.640
<v Speaker 3>over this when he is one of the one of

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:32.920
<v Speaker 3>the greatest offenders when it comes to the standards of

0:02:32.919 --> 0:02:33.760
<v Speaker 3>the house at the moment.

0:02:36.400 --> 0:02:42.120
<v Speaker 4>I disagree with the comments made, and particularly the note

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:45.640
<v Speaker 4>of the use of the term backhanded, which refers to

0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 4>Andrea Advance's article which was quoted from this weekend. And

0:02:51.800 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 4>I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronizing

0:02:56.720 --> 0:03:01.360
<v Speaker 4>language that Andrea Advance used to reduce your cabinet ministers

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:06.480
<v Speaker 4>to girl bosses, height squads, references to girl meth and.

0:03:09.840 --> 0:03:12.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I didn't think the sea word being said in

0:03:12.120 --> 0:03:14.360
<v Speaker 2>the house was on my bingo card for this week,

0:03:14.400 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 2>but it wasn't in the newspaper either.

0:03:16.880 --> 0:03:18.919
<v Speaker 3>Oh well, I mean it was just c dot dot

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:21.799
<v Speaker 3>dot in the newspaper. But Brooke van Velden afterwards we

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:24.800
<v Speaker 3>questioned her about her use of the word and she

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:27.280
<v Speaker 3>could have just said the sea word, but she argued

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:29.600
<v Speaker 3>that media wouldn't have covered it if she had just

0:03:29.720 --> 0:03:31.920
<v Speaker 3>said the sea word, and I do disagree with her.

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:34.640
<v Speaker 3>We would have covered it nevertheless, But I do agree

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:36.440
<v Speaker 3>in the fact that it wouldn't have made such a

0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:40.280
<v Speaker 3>splash because it was such an unprecedented moment. And I'll

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:42.880
<v Speaker 3>tell you what. I was sitting in the press gallery

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:45.040
<v Speaker 3>when it happened, and as soon as she said the word,

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:48.560
<v Speaker 3>the oxygen just evaporated out of the place and everybody

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:51.200
<v Speaker 3>kind of took a backward step on that one. So

0:03:51.760 --> 0:03:54.560
<v Speaker 3>she does have a point. It did certainly did capture

0:03:54.560 --> 0:03:55.920
<v Speaker 3>people's attention, that's for sure.

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:57.760
<v Speaker 2>So if we move on to the issues of the week,

0:03:57.800 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 2>can we start by cutting to the facts on these

0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:03.440
<v Speaker 2>pay equity changes. What has the government done here with

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:05.160
<v Speaker 2>this change in legislation.

0:04:05.480 --> 0:04:08.200
<v Speaker 3>Well, they've essentially changed the law and they did it

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:11.840
<v Speaker 3>under urgency in the House to kind of change the

0:04:11.920 --> 0:04:15.960
<v Speaker 3>scope of how pay equity is dealt with. Their argument

0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:19.720
<v Speaker 3>has always been throughout this whole the whole saga is

0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 3>that the original pay equity legislation was was too broad

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:26.279
<v Speaker 3>and it led to and you would have heard this

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:29.279
<v Speaker 3>phrase being thrown around quite often, people like library workers

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:32.880
<v Speaker 3>being compared to fisheries officers. And because of that, the

0:04:33.120 --> 0:04:35.880
<v Speaker 3>unions and labor have been using that to ratchet it

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:40.120
<v Speaker 3>up people's pay where it wasn't based on sex based discrimination.

0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:43.400
<v Speaker 3>So the government have clawed it back somewhat and said

0:04:43.440 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 3>that we're going to refocus the law so it is

0:04:46.440 --> 0:04:50.760
<v Speaker 3>just specifically focused on this issue of sex based discriminations.

0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 3>And the unions and the lab and the Labor Party

0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 3>and the Greens have jumped on on top of this

0:04:56.600 --> 0:04:59.680
<v Speaker 3>and said that you're quote cutting women's pay, and there's

0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:01.400
<v Speaker 3>been quite a bit of back and forth over that.

0:05:01.600 --> 0:05:05.040
<v Speaker 2>And is that because most of the claims that are

0:05:05.040 --> 0:05:08.680
<v Speaker 2>being thrown out by women, the thirty.

0:05:08.320 --> 0:05:11.640
<v Speaker 3>Three pay equity claims the moment in there, essentially, I

0:05:11.680 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 3>mean a lot of them are having to be reset.

0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:16.440
<v Speaker 3>And the argument from the opposition is, and this is

0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:20.120
<v Speaker 3>what Chris Hipkins said, is that because the future pay

0:05:20.200 --> 0:05:22.680
<v Speaker 3>packet of the women in question through some of these

0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:26.120
<v Speaker 3>settlements would be lower because of what the government is doing,

0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:28.880
<v Speaker 3>it does mean that insofar as the fact of their

0:05:28.920 --> 0:05:31.479
<v Speaker 3>pay in the future, that will be being cut. So

0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:34.000
<v Speaker 3>it means that it is a cut from women's pay.

0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:37.000
<v Speaker 3>Now the National Party have listened to his explanation on

0:05:37.040 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 3>this and say that it just doesn't make sense and

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:42.760
<v Speaker 3>it doesn't actually pass the sniff test when it comes

0:05:42.800 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 3>to this blanket and quite definitive statement that the government

0:05:46.880 --> 0:05:49.359
<v Speaker 3>is cutting women's pay. So there has been quite a

0:05:49.400 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 3>back and forth over the semantics of this issue. I

0:05:52.560 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 3>say semantics. I think the people involved probably think that

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:56.360
<v Speaker 3>it's a lot more than that.

0:05:56.920 --> 0:05:57.599
<v Speaker 1>This debate.

0:05:57.839 --> 0:06:00.599
<v Speaker 2>For a little while there felt like it was going

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:03.560
<v Speaker 2>well for labor and the left. But then of course

0:06:03.600 --> 0:06:07.200
<v Speaker 2>the Andrea Vance column for stuff with the sea word

0:06:07.760 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 2>was written referring to those six female government ministers as

0:06:11.640 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 2>girl bosses as well. And we all know what the

0:06:14.120 --> 0:06:15.680
<v Speaker 2>sea word is, Like you said, we don't need to

0:06:15.720 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 2>say it. That's just hijacked this whole debate now to

0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:23.520
<v Speaker 2>make it one big debate about misogyny towards politicians kind

0:06:23.560 --> 0:06:24.080
<v Speaker 2>of hasn't it?

0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.240
<v Speaker 3>Oh? Absolutely? I mean if we spent the last week

0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:30.440
<v Speaker 3>with the unions and labor basically at every opportunity they

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:32.960
<v Speaker 3>could get talk about how the government was cutting women's pay,

0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:35.400
<v Speaker 3>and I think it Gimmy Anderson at one point was

0:06:35.400 --> 0:06:38.880
<v Speaker 3>asked about the government's policy to crush cars, and she

0:06:38.960 --> 0:06:41.000
<v Speaker 3>brought it back to women's pay by saying the government's

0:06:41.000 --> 0:06:44.680
<v Speaker 3>better than crushing women's dreams than they are crushing cars.

0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:47.480
<v Speaker 3>So they were really really on a one track sort

0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:50.160
<v Speaker 3>of mind over this issue, and they were developing quite

0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:52.840
<v Speaker 3>a lot of momentum and then the column hit and

0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:57.440
<v Speaker 3>then Nikola Willis wrote an article in response, essentially saying

0:06:57.440 --> 0:06:59.400
<v Speaker 3>this a sexist and then she was able to lay

0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:02.880
<v Speaker 3>out her argument against all the criticism, and then that's

0:07:02.880 --> 0:07:05.279
<v Speaker 3>where it kind of took off. Now where the Labor

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:09.559
<v Speaker 3>Party went wrong is that the question in the House

0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 3>that led to the now infamous sea bomb was quoting

0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 3>directly from that piece in the Sunday Star Times. Labor

0:07:17.960 --> 0:07:20.480
<v Speaker 3>weren't shying away from it. It was the question on notice,

0:07:20.480 --> 0:07:22.480
<v Speaker 3>which means that we get a copy of all the

0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:25.240
<v Speaker 3>oral questions that are going to be asked during a

0:07:25.360 --> 0:07:29.120
<v Speaker 3>parliamentary sitting day. And if it's on notice, it means

0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:31.480
<v Speaker 3>that the government party can see it and they can

0:07:31.560 --> 0:07:34.240
<v Speaker 3>prepare for it. So it wasn't an accident. This was

0:07:34.280 --> 0:07:40.000
<v Speaker 3>a pre planned tactic by the Labor Party that backfired significantly.

0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:43.600
<v Speaker 3>I mean everyone everyone from the I mean Helen Clark

0:07:43.960 --> 0:07:46.600
<v Speaker 3>called out the comment, but yet the Labor Party still

0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 3>decided that they would use it in a oral question,

0:07:50.280 --> 0:07:54.080
<v Speaker 3>which meant that the government had yet another opportunity to

0:07:54.880 --> 0:07:58.000
<v Speaker 3>not address the issue of pay equity, but to address

0:07:58.040 --> 0:08:03.360
<v Speaker 3>the issue of misogyny. And it turned the whole argument

0:08:03.440 --> 0:08:06.400
<v Speaker 3>around No one is talking about pay equity anymore. Everybody

0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:09.240
<v Speaker 3>is talking about misogyny. And as sad as it is

0:08:09.400 --> 0:08:12.680
<v Speaker 3>and as horribly callous as it sounds, that's good for

0:08:12.800 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 3>the government because it means that they're not focusing on

0:08:15.280 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 3>what was quite a damaging issue for them. They're now

0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:20.920
<v Speaker 3>talking about something that they actually looked like they're the

0:08:21.000 --> 0:08:21.560
<v Speaker 3>victims of.

0:08:30.280 --> 0:08:32.880
<v Speaker 2>The Other big controversy at the moment is around the

0:08:32.920 --> 0:08:36.520
<v Speaker 2>Privileges Committee and Tibati Moldi. The Committee has ruled that

0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:41.360
<v Speaker 2>Titi and Debbie Nadewa Paka be suspended for three weeks

0:08:41.360 --> 0:08:45.040
<v Speaker 2>without payover last year's huka during the Treaty Principle's Bill debate.

0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:58.400
<v Speaker 1>Hannah Ralfit the Mighty Clark got one week.

0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:01.520
<v Speaker 2>So this is a harsh punah and it's the harshest

0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:03.120
<v Speaker 2>ever in Parliament's history.

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:05.480
<v Speaker 1>Does it feel like an overreaction, Well.

0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:08.440
<v Speaker 3>Technically it's not the punishment yet. What Jerry Browne was

0:09:08.640 --> 0:09:11.719
<v Speaker 3>very careful to do when he made his ruling on

0:09:11.840 --> 0:09:15.040
<v Speaker 3>Thursday was to say that Parliament will have the opportunity

0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:17.240
<v Speaker 3>to debate this on Tuesday and it will be up

0:09:17.280 --> 0:09:21.880
<v Speaker 3>to parliamentarians whether they accept the recommendations of the Privileges Committee,

0:09:21.880 --> 0:09:24.400
<v Speaker 3>which you quite rightly point out it was seven days

0:09:24.440 --> 0:09:27.760
<v Speaker 3>for Hannah Arapti, Mighty Clark and twenty one days for

0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:32.400
<v Speaker 3>Debbie Natty Whapacker and at Our Hitt. And it's an

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:36.599
<v Speaker 3>unprecedented debate because for a number of reasons, he's allowing

0:09:36.720 --> 0:09:42.280
<v Speaker 3>members to make various different changes to the recommendations of

0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:44.720
<v Speaker 3>the Privileges Committee. So members could get up and they

0:09:44.760 --> 0:09:47.520
<v Speaker 3>could ask Judith Collins, the chair of the committee. They

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 3>can say that this is far too excessive. We want

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 3>the punishment to actually be maybe four maybe five days.

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:55.760
<v Speaker 3>The other thing is that it is going to be

0:09:55.920 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 3>essentially a limitless debate. Jerry Browne ruled this. Members can

0:10:00.559 --> 0:10:02.600
<v Speaker 3>speak a number of times and there's not a time

0:10:02.640 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 3>limit on, however how much they want to speak, which

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:09.600
<v Speaker 3>is the debate could go on for as long, I mean,

0:10:09.600 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 3>how long is a piece of strength te Party Marty members.

0:10:12.200 --> 0:10:14.880
<v Speaker 3>If Degree members want to keep getting up and making

0:10:15.200 --> 0:10:18.240
<v Speaker 3>various different points, they're absolutely free to do that. And

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:21.360
<v Speaker 3>that comes on a budget week that's happening on Thursday.

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:25.040
<v Speaker 3>So the government ministers are quite worried that the House's

0:10:25.040 --> 0:10:28.560
<v Speaker 3>time is going to be used debating this when the

0:10:28.559 --> 0:10:31.839
<v Speaker 3>budget is just on our doorstep. And I can understand

0:10:31.880 --> 0:10:35.280
<v Speaker 3>why the likes of Judith Collins and Shane Jones, who

0:10:35.360 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 3>made the point in the House on Thursday that Tea

0:10:39.160 --> 0:10:42.240
<v Speaker 3>Party Marty have already had the opportunity to front up

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:45.840
<v Speaker 3>to the Privileges Committee. They've had multiple opportunities to front

0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:49.400
<v Speaker 3>up to the Privileges Committee to to lend their side

0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:52.840
<v Speaker 3>of the story to what the deliberations might be. At

0:10:52.920 --> 0:10:56.320
<v Speaker 3>every opportunity they've chosen not to do that. Not only this,

0:10:56.520 --> 0:10:59.360
<v Speaker 3>they've also decided and they've also chosen to do things

0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:03.520
<v Speaker 3>like some of the confidential recommendations of the committee on

0:11:03.559 --> 0:11:06.440
<v Speaker 3>Facebook in the form of a joke poll to say

0:11:06.480 --> 0:11:08.160
<v Speaker 3>how long do you think we're going to be banned for?

0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:10.439
<v Speaker 3>And how would be White Titty went as far as

0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:13.520
<v Speaker 3>calling it a silly little committee and showing absolute contempt

0:11:13.800 --> 0:11:17.120
<v Speaker 3>for the Privilege's Committee. So you can understand why there

0:11:17.160 --> 0:11:19.320
<v Speaker 3>would be some members that are feeling quite upset at

0:11:19.360 --> 0:11:22.000
<v Speaker 3>the fact that the Privileges Committee has been meeting for

0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:26.480
<v Speaker 3>some time to make this determination, and Jerry Brownlee is

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:31.240
<v Speaker 3>giving members another opportunity to say, well, hang on a second,

0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:33.560
<v Speaker 3>is this too harsh of a punishment.

0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:36.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, it puts the government between a rock and a

0:11:36.240 --> 0:11:39.920
<v Speaker 2>hard place, right because, on one hand, particularly from a

0:11:39.960 --> 0:11:43.880
<v Speaker 2>global level, given how viral that Harker video went last year,

0:11:43.920 --> 0:11:46.640
<v Speaker 2>if you dish out a harsh punishment, you could get

0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:51.240
<v Speaker 2>global you know, discontent right. On another hand, it could

0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:54.280
<v Speaker 2>create a precedent. I mean something like doing that in

0:11:54.360 --> 0:11:59.240
<v Speaker 2>Parliament is unprecedented, like you said, and what's to stop

0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:00.640
<v Speaker 2>someone else from doing it again?

0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:03.720
<v Speaker 3>Well, the problem that Jerry Browne has and government has

0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.120
<v Speaker 3>is that the nuances of the punishment and the reason

0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:10.040
<v Speaker 3>behind it have been completely lost. They're not being punished

0:12:10.080 --> 0:12:12.000
<v Speaker 3>because they did a harker in the house. You're allowed

0:12:12.040 --> 0:12:14.760
<v Speaker 3>to do hawkers in the house. They're being punished because

0:12:14.840 --> 0:12:17.559
<v Speaker 3>they did a harker during the voting session, which you're

0:12:17.600 --> 0:12:19.960
<v Speaker 3>not allowed to do it. It's completely off the table.

0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:23.520
<v Speaker 3>And also they approached David Seymour, the leader of the

0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:26.040
<v Speaker 3>act Party while they were doing it, in a way

0:12:26.080 --> 0:12:30.280
<v Speaker 3>that the Privileges Committee has ruled was an intimidating way.

0:12:30.360 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 3>So those are the reasons why they may be suspended.

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:35.920
<v Speaker 3>But that nuance is going to be lost when you

0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:39.160
<v Speaker 3>read the BBC and CNN and all these other outlets

0:12:39.160 --> 0:12:42.160
<v Speaker 3>that carried the initial video of the Harker, they're just

0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:44.800
<v Speaker 3>going to say they got banned from Parliament because they

0:12:44.800 --> 0:12:48.040
<v Speaker 3>did the Harker, which is not strictly speaking true. So

0:12:48.200 --> 0:12:50.800
<v Speaker 3>there is a problem there, But that ship has already

0:12:50.920 --> 0:12:53.520
<v Speaker 3>essentially sailed. That is how this is going to look

0:12:53.559 --> 0:12:56.679
<v Speaker 3>to an international audience. Closer to home, I think the

0:12:56.800 --> 0:13:01.000
<v Speaker 3>nuances have been well demonstrated and well communicated to us

0:13:01.040 --> 0:13:05.040
<v Speaker 3>on on a more domestic level, But there is a

0:13:05.080 --> 0:13:08.760
<v Speaker 3>problem with the president. I mean, if this goes through

0:13:08.800 --> 0:13:11.679
<v Speaker 3>and there is a lesser punishment, what's stopping the likes

0:13:11.720 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 3>of Julia and Jena the next time when she's before

0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 3>the Privileges Committee saying, hang on a second. I know

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:19.040
<v Speaker 3>the Privileges Committee has ruled, but why don't we have

0:13:19.080 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 3>another debate, for a limitless debate to say, well, shouldn't

0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:26.920
<v Speaker 3>my punishment be lesser? In saying that though twenty one

0:13:27.040 --> 0:13:30.960
<v Speaker 3>days is unprecedented, Jerry Browne said, the last longest time

0:13:31.000 --> 0:13:33.520
<v Speaker 3>somebody has been suspended from the House was three days,

0:13:33.559 --> 0:13:36.560
<v Speaker 3>so twenty one days is enormous. So he feels like

0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:38.760
<v Speaker 3>it might be a little bit too strict. But Judith

0:13:38.760 --> 0:13:41.320
<v Speaker 3>Collins says, well, maybe this will teach them not to

0:13:41.360 --> 0:13:42.280
<v Speaker 3>act like this again.

0:13:45.440 --> 0:13:52.000
<v Speaker 5>I think the whole wooding and the attitude how personally

0:13:52.040 --> 0:13:58.280
<v Speaker 5>offended they are by us just actually from our gut

0:13:59.160 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 5>to the call piece of legislation that's been in here.

0:14:04.120 --> 0:14:04.959
<v Speaker 1>Long story, Shoore.

0:14:05.000 --> 0:14:08.760
<v Speaker 6>I think it just shows us exactly what they think

0:14:08.800 --> 0:14:12.880
<v Speaker 6>about us set They still see us as a bunch

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:20.000
<v Speaker 6>of unruling people that they need to put back into order.

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:25.280
<v Speaker 2>It does feel like multi issues are remaining a point

0:14:25.320 --> 0:14:27.840
<v Speaker 2>of contention in the House. A review into the Way

0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:32.000
<v Speaker 2>Tonguey Tribunal has begun as part of the National Ends

0:14:32.000 --> 0:14:35.840
<v Speaker 2>at First Coalition deal. The tribunal is urgently reviewing Acts,

0:14:35.880 --> 0:14:40.480
<v Speaker 2>Regulatory Standards Bill, and last week Labor MP Willie Jackson

0:14:40.640 --> 0:14:44.720
<v Speaker 2>was booted from the debating chamber while discussing multi issues.

0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:48.440
<v Speaker 1>Now, I'm not sitting down. I'm not sitting down.

0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:51.200
<v Speaker 3>I'm not sitting down.

0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:55.240
<v Speaker 2>You don't you don't walk over our copupperas it suits you,

0:14:55.720 --> 0:14:56.400
<v Speaker 2>mister speaker.

0:14:56.640 --> 0:15:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Leave the house. Retrojection down, Leave the house, mister Jackson.

0:15:03.080 --> 0:15:03.920
<v Speaker 3>Leave the house.

0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:09.360
<v Speaker 1>Mister Jackson, leave the house, mister Jackson.

0:15:12.640 --> 0:15:15.640
<v Speaker 2>I think some people thought the treaty Principle's Bill being

0:15:15.720 --> 0:15:19.320
<v Speaker 2>voted down would be the end of it to some degree.

0:15:19.400 --> 0:15:21.880
<v Speaker 2>But it feels like it's just getting started, though, isn't it.

0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:26.320
<v Speaker 2>And that's exactly what some commentators said. Acting David Seymour wanted.

0:15:26.520 --> 0:15:29.400
<v Speaker 3>Well, I mean exactly, and I think that we saw

0:15:29.520 --> 0:15:32.400
<v Speaker 3>with the Treaty Principal's Bill, the every time it's in

0:15:32.440 --> 0:15:36.320
<v Speaker 3>the news, Tea Party Marty's vote goes really high, and

0:15:36.360 --> 0:15:38.600
<v Speaker 3>when it's not and they're a little bit more quieter,

0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:41.280
<v Speaker 3>their vote tends to go down. So of course they'll

0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:43.840
<v Speaker 3>be looking to bring these sorts of issues back to

0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:46.640
<v Speaker 3>the fore. I mean, other issues in terms of the

0:15:46.720 --> 0:15:50.000
<v Speaker 3>Regulatory Standard Bill nowhere near as big as the Treaty

0:15:50.040 --> 0:15:51.960
<v Speaker 3>Principle's Bill, but you can be sure as heck to

0:15:53.080 --> 0:15:57.360
<v Speaker 3>count on TI Party, Marty and other political parties really

0:15:57.400 --> 0:16:00.000
<v Speaker 3>really making these issues a thorn in the government's side

0:16:00.120 --> 0:16:02.240
<v Speaker 3>because politically it plays well for them.

0:16:02.760 --> 0:16:06.280
<v Speaker 2>And finally, Jason, do you think the chaos will come

0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:09.320
<v Speaker 2>down at any point or is it just about to

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:13.920
<v Speaker 2>ramp up, particularly considering the Seymour Peters deputy switchover is

0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:16.840
<v Speaker 2>happening very very soon, It's going to ramp up.

0:16:16.840 --> 0:16:19.480
<v Speaker 3>It'll be ramping up until election day. I mean, this

0:16:19.560 --> 0:16:22.840
<v Speaker 3>issue isn't going to go away quietly. The big question

0:16:22.920 --> 0:16:25.440
<v Speaker 3>mark that is hanging over Parliament right now is what

0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:27.920
<v Speaker 3>happens next. I mean, do you think that Debbie Nardi,

0:16:27.920 --> 0:16:31.440
<v Speaker 3>Wapaka and Atrawiti Waititi are going to accept this and

0:16:31.520 --> 0:16:34.160
<v Speaker 3>just say okay and just go away. I don't think that.

0:16:34.320 --> 0:16:36.160
<v Speaker 3>I think that they're going to be making a fuss

0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:38.360
<v Speaker 3>and you know, all power to them to be able

0:16:38.400 --> 0:16:41.320
<v Speaker 3>to do that. That is their prerogative. But it's going

0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:44.720
<v Speaker 3>to be an uncomfortable time for parliamentarians and especially for

0:16:44.800 --> 0:16:47.840
<v Speaker 3>Speaker Jerry Brownly as he looks into what is essentially

0:16:48.320 --> 0:16:49.760
<v Speaker 3>uncharted territory here.

0:16:49.800 --> 0:16:51.120
<v Speaker 1>Where's Luxon in this debate?

0:16:51.560 --> 0:16:53.920
<v Speaker 3>Luxon has been very absent from this, and I think

0:16:53.920 --> 0:16:57.720
<v Speaker 3>it's by design. The National Party don't want him caught

0:16:57.800 --> 0:17:01.400
<v Speaker 3>up in any of this this situation because you know,

0:17:01.440 --> 0:17:05.240
<v Speaker 3>it reflects negatively on his brand and the National Party's brand,

0:17:05.320 --> 0:17:07.720
<v Speaker 3>So I wouldn't expect to see him being very front

0:17:07.760 --> 0:17:10.560
<v Speaker 3>foot over this issue between now and the election at all.

0:17:10.680 --> 0:17:16.920
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for joining us, Jason, No problem at all. That's

0:17:16.960 --> 0:17:19.960
<v Speaker 2>it for this episode of the Front Page. You can

0:17:20.000 --> 0:17:23.840
<v Speaker 2>read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at

0:17:23.920 --> 0:17:28.200
<v Speaker 2>enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced

0:17:28.200 --> 0:17:31.760
<v Speaker 2>by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our

0:17:31.880 --> 0:17:32.720
<v Speaker 2>sound engineer.

0:17:33.200 --> 0:17:34.679
<v Speaker 1>I'm Chelsea Daniels.

0:17:35.280 --> 0:17:38.439
<v Speaker 2>Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you

0:17:38.480 --> 0:17:42.240
<v Speaker 2>get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look

0:17:42.320 --> 0:17:43.600
<v Speaker 2>behind the headlines.