David Farrar: Norm breaking should be condemned in NZ, not just the US

One of the major criticisms (which I share) is that Donald Trump has broken many of the norms of politics in the US, and he undermines institutional legacy.

In New Zealand, Te Pati Māori do the same. But their norm breaking is not called out to even a fraction of the scale Trump’s is.

Matua Kahurangi blogs:

Te Pāti Māori’s refusal to appear before the Privileges Committee over their disruptive haka in Parliament is a brazen display of arrogance and entitlement. Their decision to ignore a formal summons demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the rules of democratic governance and the very institution they are elected to serve. Rather than facing scrutiny like any other Member of Parliament would be expected to, they have chosen to hide behind claims of unfairness, painting themselves as perpetual victims while undermining parliamentary process.

The Privileges Committee exists to uphold the integrity of Parliament, ensuring that its members abide by the rules that govern them. If every MP who disagreed with the process simply refused to participate, the system would collapse into chaos. Te Pāti Māori’s rejection of the summons is not an act of principled resistance. It is political theatre, an opportunistic stunt designed to rally their base while shirking accountability.

One of the hidden success stories in New Zealand is how well Parliament, or the House of Representatives works. We could devolve into a system where the majority in the House can do whatever it wants with impunity, but over time we have developed a system which ensures opposition parties can be effective, but also the Government can govern. Some examples are:

1. A culture that Standing Orders are amended only by consensus, not simple majority vote – has lasted for many decades
2. An agreement that entrenched clauses are respected, and not got around by repealing the entrenchment clause (which is not entrenched) and then the clauses that were protected
3. Requirements for Ministers to face question time
4. Requirements for Ministers to front up to select committees
5. Agreement that one out of every six days is set aside for non-government bills allowing opposition parties to promote legislation
6. Agreement that the Privileges Committee is respected and MPs take part in its processes in good faith
7. A Business Committee that operates by consensus or near consensus

The antics of Te Pati Maori pose a huge challenge to the House. They think the rules do not apply to them. They think they’ll get more votes by refusing to abide by norms.

So what could the House do if Te Pati Maori refuse to abide by the rules everyone else does. Well this would be a last resort, but if TPM won’t recognise the value of abiding by the rules, then why should they benefit from them. The House could (this is very last resort):

• Remove TPM from the Business Committee
• Remove TPM from oral questions allocation
• Remove TPM from speaking slots on bills

Now don’t get me wrong. These would be terrible things to do. It would be the Government using its majority to amend standing orders in such a way to penalise a political party. This is something once done, can never be undone.

But if TPM continue on a path of thinking they are above the rules, then the only choices left are bad choices. So it is their choice.

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.