Kiota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. New Zealand's Parliament is a house of chaos. At least that's how our own Deputy Prime Minister described the debating chamber last week. The sea bomb was dropped in Parliament last week by Brook van Velden, quoting a stuff column by Andrea Vance that was criticizing the government's changes to pay equity.
It's muddied an already.
Dirty debate over women's pay that is set to overshadow the budget this year, and at the same time Debati Maldi's co leaders have been threatened with suspension from parliament dropped three weeks over last year's headline, making Hucker today on the front page to help us make sense of all the chaos, We're joined by News Talk ZB political editor Jason Wolves. Jason Winston Peters has called it a house of chaos. Audrey Young wrote that it has been an appalling fortnight.
How would you describe it?
Unprecedented would be the word that I would describe it. On many levels. I mean, obviously we haven't seen the sea bomb used in the House like that. There was one time where I think David Carter might have used it accidentally, but using it in the way that Brook van Velden did certainly unprecedented. She didn't call another member of the Sea words. She was using it, or was quoting from a newspaper opinion piece which used well in
seed dot dot dot. We can all figure out what it was that the columnist actually meant there, but very unprecedented. And Winston Peters, you know, a stickler for the rules, doesn't like to be a sweary fairy, was obviously a little bit aggrieved by this. But I think it is a touch ironic because Winston Peters does fly very close
to the sun when it comes to Speaker's rulings. I mean, at any given time on any given Thursday, when he's answering for the Prime Minister, Kieran McNulty, who is the Shadow Leader of the House for Labor, will stand up and question elements of what it is that Winston Peters is doing. For example, he quite often likes to use government questions to attack the opposition, which is out of
order in the House. So it is a bit ironic for Winston Peters to be kicking up such a stink over this when he is one of the one of the greatest offenders when it comes to the standards of the house at the moment.
I disagree with the comments made, and particularly the note of the use of the term backhanded, which refers to Andrea Advance's article which was quoted from this weekend. And I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronizing language that Andrea Advance used to reduce your cabinet ministers to girl bosses, height squads, references to girl meth and.
Yeah, I didn't think the sea word being said in the house was on my bingo card for this week, but it wasn't in the newspaper either.
Oh well, I mean it was just c dot dot dot in the newspaper. But Brooke van Velden afterwards we questioned her about her use of the word and she could have just said the sea word, but she argued that media wouldn't have covered it if she had just said the sea word, and I do disagree with her. We would have covered it nevertheless, But I do agree in the fact that it wouldn't have made such a splash because it was such an unprecedented moment. And I'll
tell you what. I was sitting in the press gallery when it happened, and as soon as she said the word, the oxygen just evaporated out of the place and everybody kind of took a backward step on that one. So she does have a point. It did certainly did capture people's attention, that's for sure.
So if we move on to the issues of the week, can we start by cutting to the facts on these pay equity changes. What has the government done here with this change in legislation.
Well, they've essentially changed the law and they did it under urgency in the House to kind of change the scope of how pay equity is dealt with. Their argument has always been throughout this whole the whole saga is that the original pay equity legislation was was too broad and it led to and you would have heard this phrase being thrown around quite often, people like library workers
being compared to fisheries officers. And because of that, the unions and labor have been using that to ratchet it up people's pay where it wasn't based on sex based discrimination. So the government have clawed it back somewhat and said that we're going to refocus the law so it is just specifically focused on this issue of sex based discriminations.
And the unions and the lab and the Labor Party and the Greens have jumped on on top of this and said that you're quote cutting women's pay, and there's been quite a bit of back and forth over that.
And is that because most of the claims that are being thrown out by women, the thirty.
Three pay equity claims the moment in there, essentially, I mean a lot of them are having to be reset. And the argument from the opposition is, and this is what Chris Hipkins said, is that because the future pay packet of the women in question through some of these settlements would be lower because of what the government is doing, it does mean that insofar as the fact of their pay in the future, that will be being cut. So it means that it is a cut from women's pay.
Now the National Party have listened to his explanation on this and say that it just doesn't make sense and it doesn't actually pass the sniff test when it comes to this blanket and quite definitive statement that the government is cutting women's pay. So there has been quite a back and forth over the semantics of this issue. I say semantics. I think the people involved probably think that it's a lot more than that.
This debate.
For a little while there felt like it was going well for labor and the left. But then of course the Andrea Vance column for stuff with the sea word was written referring to those six female government ministers as girl bosses as well. And we all know what the sea word is, Like you said, we don't need to say it. That's just hijacked this whole debate now to make it one big debate about misogyny towards politicians kind of hasn't it?
Oh? Absolutely? I mean if we spent the last week with the unions and labor basically at every opportunity they could get talk about how the government was cutting women's pay, and I think it Gimmy Anderson at one point was asked about the government's policy to crush cars, and she brought it back to women's pay by saying the government's better than crushing women's dreams than they are crushing cars.
So they were really really on a one track sort of mind over this issue, and they were developing quite a lot of momentum and then the column hit and then Nikola Willis wrote an article in response, essentially saying this a sexist and then she was able to lay out her argument against all the criticism, and then that's where it kind of took off. Now where the Labor Party went wrong is that the question in the House that led to the now infamous sea bomb was quoting
directly from that piece in the Sunday Star Times. Labor weren't shying away from it. It was the question on notice, which means that we get a copy of all the oral questions that are going to be asked during a parliamentary sitting day. And if it's on notice, it means that the government party can see it and they can prepare for it. So it wasn't an accident. This was a pre planned tactic by the Labor Party that backfired significantly.
I mean everyone everyone from the I mean Helen Clark called out the comment, but yet the Labor Party still decided that they would use it in a oral question, which meant that the government had yet another opportunity to not address the issue of pay equity, but to address the issue of misogyny. And it turned the whole argument around No one is talking about pay equity anymore. Everybody
is talking about misogyny. And as sad as it is and as horribly callous as it sounds, that's good for the government because it means that they're not focusing on what was quite a damaging issue for them. They're now talking about something that they actually looked like they're the victims of.
The Other big controversy at the moment is around the Privileges Committee and Tibati Moldi. The Committee has ruled that Titi and Debbie Nadewa Paka be suspended for three weeks without payover last year's huka during the Treaty Principle's Bill debate.
Hannah Ralfit the Mighty Clark got one week.
So this is a harsh punah and it's the harshest ever in Parliament's history.
Does it feel like an overreaction, Well.
Technically it's not the punishment yet. What Jerry Browne was very careful to do when he made his ruling on Thursday was to say that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this on Tuesday and it will be up to parliamentarians whether they accept the recommendations of the Privileges Committee, which you quite rightly point out it was seven days for Hannah Arapti, Mighty Clark and twenty one days for
Debbie Natty Whapacker and at Our Hitt. And it's an unprecedented debate because for a number of reasons, he's allowing members to make various different changes to the recommendations of the Privileges Committee. So members could get up and they could ask Judith Collins, the chair of the committee. They can say that this is far too excessive. We want the punishment to actually be maybe four maybe five days. The other thing is that it is going to be
essentially a limitless debate. Jerry Browne ruled this. Members can speak a number of times and there's not a time limit on, however how much they want to speak, which is the debate could go on for as long, I mean, how long is a piece of strength te Party Marty members. If Degree members want to keep getting up and making various different points, they're absolutely free to do that. And that comes on a budget week that's happening on Thursday.
So the government ministers are quite worried that the House's time is going to be used debating this when the budget is just on our doorstep. And I can understand why the likes of Judith Collins and Shane Jones, who made the point in the House on Thursday that Tea Party Marty have already had the opportunity to front up to the Privileges Committee. They've had multiple opportunities to front up to the Privileges Committee to to lend their side of the story to what the deliberations might be. At
every opportunity they've chosen not to do that. Not only this, they've also decided and they've also chosen to do things like some of the confidential recommendations of the committee on Facebook in the form of a joke poll to say how long do you think we're going to be banned for? And how would be White Titty went as far as calling it a silly little committee and showing absolute contempt
for the Privilege's Committee. So you can understand why there would be some members that are feeling quite upset at the fact that the Privileges Committee has been meeting for some time to make this determination, and Jerry Brownlee is giving members another opportunity to say, well, hang on a second, is this too harsh of a punishment.
Well, it puts the government between a rock and a hard place, right because, on one hand, particularly from a global level, given how viral that Harker video went last year, if you dish out a harsh punishment, you could get global you know, discontent right. On another hand, it could create a precedent. I mean something like doing that in Parliament is unprecedented, like you said, and what's to stop someone else from doing it again?
Well, the problem that Jerry Browne has and government has is that the nuances of the punishment and the reason behind it have been completely lost. They're not being punished because they did a harker in the house. You're allowed to do hawkers in the house. They're being punished because they did a harker during the voting session, which you're not allowed to do it. It's completely off the table.
And also they approached David Seymour, the leader of the act Party while they were doing it, in a way that the Privileges Committee has ruled was an intimidating way. So those are the reasons why they may be suspended. But that nuance is going to be lost when you read the BBC and CNN and all these other outlets that carried the initial video of the Harker, they're just going to say they got banned from Parliament because they
did the Harker, which is not strictly speaking true. So there is a problem there, But that ship has already essentially sailed. That is how this is going to look to an international audience. Closer to home, I think the nuances have been well demonstrated and well communicated to us on on a more domestic level, But there is a problem with the president. I mean, if this goes through and there is a lesser punishment, what's stopping the likes of Julia and Jena the next time when she's before
the Privileges Committee saying, hang on a second. I know the Privileges Committee has ruled, but why don't we have another debate, for a limitless debate to say, well, shouldn't my punishment be lesser? In saying that though twenty one days is unprecedented, Jerry Browne said, the last longest time somebody has been suspended from the House was three days, so twenty one days is enormous. So he feels like
it might be a little bit too strict. But Judith Collins says, well, maybe this will teach them not to act like this again.
I think the whole wooding and the attitude how personally offended they are by us just actually from our gut to the call piece of legislation that's been in here.
Long story, Shoore.
I think it just shows us exactly what they think about us set They still see us as a bunch of unruling people that they need to put back into order.
It does feel like multi issues are remaining a point of contention in the House. A review into the Way Tonguey Tribunal has begun as part of the National Ends at First Coalition deal. The tribunal is urgently reviewing Acts, Regulatory Standards Bill, and last week Labor MP Willie Jackson was booted from the debating chamber while discussing multi issues.
Now, I'm not sitting down. I'm not sitting down.
I'm not sitting down.
You don't you don't walk over our copupperas it suits you, mister speaker.
Leave the house. Retrojection down, Leave the house, mister Jackson.
Leave the house.
Mister Jackson, leave the house, mister Jackson.
I think some people thought the treaty Principle's Bill being voted down would be the end of it to some degree. But it feels like it's just getting started, though, isn't it. And that's exactly what some commentators said. Acting David Seymour wanted.
Well, I mean exactly, and I think that we saw with the Treaty Principal's Bill, the every time it's in the news, Tea Party Marty's vote goes really high, and when it's not and they're a little bit more quieter, their vote tends to go down. So of course they'll be looking to bring these sorts of issues back to
the fore. I mean, other issues in terms of the Regulatory Standard Bill nowhere near as big as the Treaty Principle's Bill, but you can be sure as heck to count on TI Party, Marty and other political parties really really making these issues a thorn in the government's side because politically it plays well for them.
And finally, Jason, do you think the chaos will come down at any point or is it just about to ramp up, particularly considering the Seymour Peters deputy switchover is happening very very soon, It's going to ramp up.
It'll be ramping up until election day. I mean, this issue isn't going to go away quietly. The big question mark that is hanging over Parliament right now is what happens next. I mean, do you think that Debbie Nardi, Wapaka and Atrawiti Waititi are going to accept this and just say okay and just go away. I don't think that. I think that they're going to be making a fuss and you know, all power to them to be able
to do that. That is their prerogative. But it's going to be an uncomfortable time for parliamentarians and especially for Speaker Jerry Brownly as he looks into what is essentially uncharted territory here.
Where's Luxon in this debate?
Luxon has been very absent from this, and I think it's by design. The National Party don't want him caught up in any of this this situation because you know, it reflects negatively on his brand and the National Party's brand, So I wouldn't expect to see him being very front foot over this issue between now and the election at all.
Thanks for joining us, Jason, No problem at all. That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our sound engineer.
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.