Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour MP Kieran McAnulty was ordered to leave the House during a tense session that included many challenges on the Speaker’s rulings.

Question Time began with Gerry Brownlee indirectly rebuking New Zealand First leader Winston Peters for his remarks towards Green MP Teanau Tuiono on Wednesday, but stopping short of demanding an apology.

The situation meant tensions did not die down in Parliament, leading to McAnulty eventually being thrown out for accusing the Speaker of double standards.

On Wednesday, Peters took issue with a question line by the Green MP, after he referred to the country as Aotearoa in his primary question.

“Why is [the minister] answering a question from someone who comes from Rarotonga to a country called New Zealand…” Peters started, before being interrupted by noise from other MPs in the debating chamber.

At the time, Brownlee said he had not heard Peters’ remark.

Peters then completed his question, asking why somebody from Rarotonga had decided “without any consultation with the New Zealand people” to change the country’s name.

In response, Brownlee said that was not an acceptable question, and it would be the last time those sorts of questions were directed “so personally” to other members.

Tuiono has both Māori and Cook Islands Māori heritage but was born in New Zealand.

On Thursday, Brownlee stood ahead of Question Time to rule on Wednesday’s incident, and said it was “highly disorderly” to question an elected member’s rights and privileges.

“Members who engage in such comment can expect to be ejected from the House. Such comments are not only disrespectful to the member concerned, but also to this House, and also disrespectful to the electors in the electoral process that allows members to sit in this House.”

While Brownlee said he undertook his review to Peters’ question, he did not refer to Peters directly in his ruling.

In March 2025, Brownlee ruled that the use of Aotearoa was not a matter of order.

On Thursday, he again pointed members to that ruling.

“I would encourage members unfamiliar with it to become familiar with it. Further questioning of the ruling will be considered highly disorderly, with the usual consequences.”

In a lengthy back-and-forth, Labour MPs took issue with Brownlee’s decision not to take further action against Peters, particularly as he had said members who made such comments could be ejected.

Shadow Leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said at the very least, Peters should have been made to withdraw and apologise.

“In August last year, you required Chlöe Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for comments that were made on the day prior. Now, at the time we expressed concern about that, because we felt in doing so, that was setting a precedent,” McAnulty said.

“But nevertheless, here we are again in a situation where you are saying that you are unable to require a member to withdraw and apologise for something that happened yesterday.”

McAnulty said it ran the risk of applying different standards to some but not others, a point Brownlee accepted, and said he would avoid in the future.

Labour MP Willie Jackson said he took “personal offence” to Peters’ comments, to which Brownlee asked why he did not raise that at the time.

Swarbrick also encouraged the Speaker to apply the same consistency, “lest you be accused of double standards”, a comment Brownlee said was “borderline trifling” with the chair.

Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March pursued a different line of questioning, relating to Peters’ assertion that Tuiono was from Rarotonga.

“Unless the former deputy prime minister was deliberately trying to mislead the House, I think a correction should be an order, because there was a factually incorrect statement being made about where he was born.”

Brownlee said Menéndez March was making a suggestion there had been a breach of privilege, and there were processes for dealing with that.

Eventually, Brownlee called the matter to a close, and Question Time began, but the matter was not settled for the opposition.

After Brownlee chastised Jackson for repeated interruptions, McAnulty raised a further point of order.

“It’s quite clear that Willie Jackson is on a warning that if he interrupts you again he’ll be sent out,” McAnulty began.

“No it’s not,” Brownlee said.

“OK, so he can carry on?” replied McAnulty, to which Brownlee warned him he would be trifling with the chair if he carried on.

“I’m concerned that just by that statement it’s quite clear that you’re saying that if I trifle with you again that I will leave, but you won’t even require someone making a racist comment to withdraw and apologise,” McAnulty said.

He was then ordered to leave the House.

Speaking on the tiles shortly afterwards, McAnulty repeated his belief the Speaker was applying double standards.

“Winston Peters is able to trifle with him, undermine him, make racist comments, make questionable comments, certainly unparliamentary comments and actions in the House, and there is no action against that,” he said.

“We challenged the Speaker today in a respectful and highly appropriate way, and yet I’m the one that gets kicked out. Proving my point, to be fair.”

He reiterated that Labour had lost confidence in the Speaker following his ruling there was no private benefit in an amendment paper that listed projects under the Fast Track bill.

Peters insisted Swarbrick’s situation was different, as she had been told to apologise and would not, and then when she came back the next day again refused to apologise.

“[McAnulty] was raising the parallel circumstance, which were not parallel,” he said.

Peters said he was not sorry for his comments towards Tuiono.

“You’re saying that we can change the name of the country without asking the New Zealand people? That’s fascist. That’s antidemocratic.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Labour says the Housing Minister has been undermined by his leader and colleagues following the announcement to lower the maximum number of houses in Auckland from 2 million to at least 1.6 million.

Meanwhile, ACT leader David Seymour says “we’re not there yet” and wants to see the location of the 1.6 million homes before supporting it.

Chris Bishop announced the change to Auckland leaders at the International Convention Centre on Thursday.

Deputy leader and spokesperson for Auckland Carmel Sepuloni said it’s a humiliating backdown for Bishop and there’s been a relationship breakdown between government ministers.

Sepuloni said there’d been “self-interest” from some MPs, including Epsom’s David Seymour and Howick’s Simeon Brown, and that they were “concerned with their own leafy suburbs” and the feedback they’d got from their constituents.

“This is a humiliating backdown for Chris Bishop, who has spent months talking up housing reform only to be forced into swallowing a dead rat when Christopher Luxon threw his plan under the bus,” Sepuloni said.

She said Bishop had been ambitious for Auckland, “he knows how important housing is”, and called it a huge blow for Auckland families looking for affordable homes.

She’s concerned about the uncertainty the change brings, given council entered into agreements with government in good faith and “this really turns all of that on its head”.

The Greens were similarly frustrated, with co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick saying she’d call it embarrassing if it wasn’t “harmful”.

“We’ve been having this debate for longer than I have been involved in politics. Aucklanders and New Zealanders deserve far better.”

She said cities weren’t museums, and they needed to house people.

Swarbrick said she found it “profoundly ironic” that the government was capitulating to those who own property at the expense of everybody else at a time where the Infrastructure Commission called for “clear-eyed, evidence-based criteria” for development in New Zealand.

She asked if Bishop was willing to show his spine and do the things he said he believed in.

Neither Labour nor the Greens would rule out making further changes or campaigning to make further changes to the plan.

Nor did the ACT leader give his full endorsement for the change, with Seymour saying it was good progress the government was making changes, “but we need to see what 1.6 million looks like before we vote for it”.

He said when parliament voted for 2 million homes, “we hadn’t seen the maps from the council”.

“They had kept them hidden and basically released them the next day. This time, we need to see what 1.6 million looks like before we vote for it.”

Asked about Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s comments that the change was an overreach from central government, and he didn’t want to seek Cabinet’s approval on another plan, Seymour suggested the mayor “be a bit of a democrat” and help inform the public of what 1.6 million looks like.

“I don’t think he has the right to withhold information that’s important to many Aucklanders.”

Seymour said people did want housing intensification but they wanted to see it being consistent and looking sensible, saying it would be “crazy” to have a field of single family homes with a 150 metre tower in the middle.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was pleased the change was happening, saying a lower number of homes was “doing better” and the change was more “attuned to the actual realities of future growth” rather than “wild speculation”.

“You’ve got to compromise, in my view. I’ve talked to a lot of planners there. We could have done better, and we still can.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand