Kerre Woodham: Te Pāti Māori and their continued breaches of protocol

Orini Kaipara gave her maiden speech in Parliament yesterday, and she's just the sort of person you want to see entering politics – she's young, she's smart, she's passionate. And I don't know about you, but I love seeing an electorate MP, somebody who has been overwhelmingly selected by voters, given a mandate by voters to be their person in Parliament, as opposed to sliding in on the list.  

But when she agreed to enter Parliament, surely she is agreeing then to the rules and conventions that govern Parliament. Her maiden speech focused on the importance of te reo and that we must respect and honour everybody, despite the colour of their skin, despite the language that they speak. All well and good.  

But the message was marred by a number of violations of House rules. Her maiden speech ran well over time, causing clear frustration for Speaker Gerry Brownlee. Maiden speeches are allocated 15 minutes of Parliament's time, and Kaipara's went well over that.  

"This is not on," the Speaker thundered, as he rang the bell for a third time to signal she had run out of time for her speech. I have no doubt she felt moved to tell the House and her supporters what it had taken to get her there, what inspired her, her reason for being there.  

But every maiden MP has a story. Every maiden MP from every party has a group of people who have guided them to where they are today and their very, very real reasons for being there. Kaipara's are important, but no more important than any other MPs from any other party in the House.  

Then, after a waiata and a haka followed her overlong speech, Gerry Brownlee had enough and suspended the House. He had given permission for a waiata, but not a haka. Permission has to be sought before you can do either. And before anyone jumps up and down and says a haka should be able to be performed anytime, anywhere, whenever the wairua takes you, rules are rules, man.  

As Brownlee put it, when the House resumed after half an hour, "We have a protocol here. This is our tikanga. That tikanga is based on agreement." He said there'd been no agreement for the haka, nor for the speech to go on and on as it did. And he said he was going to investigate whether the haka had been spontaneous —I suspect it was, that's what you do at graduation ceremonies and the like and as a sign of enormous respect— or planned by a political party. He says for people to decide they are not going to participate in that process, they put themselves very firmly in contempt of Parliament.  

Would Te Pāti Māori members accept breaches of protocol on the marae? Continued breaches of protocol? I doubt it – especially if they were deliberate. Ignorance you can kind of accept. It's annoying that people don't know the rules of your church or your golf club or your marae or your Parliament, but hey ho, that's life. Gentle correction and people are back on course. Continual breaches, when you know better, it's a different story. That's contempt. If a person or a group of people continually stick two fingers to your organisation and the way you do things, would you keep them in that organisation?  

So what does the Speaker do about Te Pāti Māori, who have made it abundantly clear time and time again that they simply do not respect the values and the rules of Parliament? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.