Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi has been suspended from Parliament after a vote by political parties, following comments he made in the House.
Speaking in Parliament under the legal protection of Parliamentary privilege last week, Waititi appeared to refer to a case before the courts to which suppression orders apply.
After an objection about it, Speaker of the House Adrian Rurawhe told MPs he would review the comments.
Rurawhe this afternoon told the House he found Waititi’s conduct was “grossly disorderly.
“Therefore, I name and call on the House to judge his conduct.”
MPs were asked to judge whether Waititi should be suspended from the service of the House. The question passed with only Te Pāti Māori voting against on the voice vote but did not call for a more specific party vote, which would have recorded how the parties voted.
Waititi was not in the House at the time. According to his social media, Waititi was participating in New Zealand Fashion Week today.
The punishment will mean Waititi loses his voting rights while he is suspended, reportedly for a day.
“Naming” is a form of punishment reserved for the most serious breaches of Parliament’s rules, amounting to grossly disorderly conduct.
It is more serious than an MP being expelled from the House for a brief period - if Parliament votes that an MP be suspended after being named, that MP loses their voting rights.
It refers to the old tradition that MPs’ names not be used in Parliament, instead they were traditionally referred to as “the member”.
The last MP to be named and suspended was National’s Nick Smith in 2019, after Smith was kicked out of the Debating Chamber during a skirmish with then-Speaker Trevor Mallard and called Mallard “soft on drugs, like the Government,” while he was leaving.
Mallard named and suspended Smith “for grossly disorderly conduct” - Labour, NZ First and the Greens supported the vote.
Parliamentary privilege protects MPs from legal action for comments they make in Parliament, but Parliament’s own rules covers issues that are sub judice or subject to suppression orders.
Parliament’s rules require an MP who wants to speak about an issue that is before the courts to give advance notice to the Speaker. Rurawhe said that had not happened in this case.
“The words Mr Waititi used in the House indicate that he believed that the matter concerned was subject to a suppression order and yet he raised it without first notifying the Speaker.
“Parliament’s relationship with the courts is of utmost constitutional importance, reckless use of the freedom of speech enjoyed by the house damages that relationship and undermines the standing of this parliament and the privileges on which it depends.”
Rurawhe referred a “general question of privilege” to Parliament’s Privileges Committee, which would consider how the House should address instances when an MP may have breached a suppression order, but not risk breaching suppression through investigation by the House.
“In this case, the difficulty is that investigating whether Mr Waititi has [breached suppression] risks compounding the harm caused by the original breach by confirming the existence of a suppression order and possibly identifying the subject of it,” Rurawhe explained.
