Inside Act’s dramatic tiff with Speaker Gerry Brownlee

Act leader David Seymour speaking to reporters on the tiles. Photo / Mark Mitchell

ANALYSIS:

In the 1700s, a few pins changed the course of human history when political economist Adam Smith devised the theory of the division of labour after visiting a British factory where he observed 10 men produce 48,000 pins in a day.

Nearly three centuries later, one man, wearing one pin, threatened to upend the course of the 54th Parliament, after an altercation between lapel pin-wearing Act MP Todd Stephenson and Speaker Gerry Brownlee led to the the invisible hand of the Act Party pointing an accusing finger in the direction of the Speaker’s Office.

The altercation was not the first between Act and the Speaker in recent days. In fact, it was not even the first on Wednesday. Parliament opened with Act Leader David Seymour saying he had correspondence in which Brownlee appeared “to give a green light to racial harassment”.

Things only escalated from there. After a long detour involving Act MPs’ right to wear or not wear branded lapel pins in the House (Brownlee thought not, overruling Speaker Trevor Mallard who said the pins were fine), Seymour told the Herald he was beginning to lose confidence in Brownlee.

One of the sources of the breakdown in relations between Act and and the Speaker actually involves tensions between Act and Te Pāti Māori over matters relating to race, which have escalated as Act MP and Children’s Minister Karen Chhour began shepherding the repeal of Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act through the House. That section includes includes Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations.

Chhour has clashed with Mariameno Kapa-Kingi in particular, with Kapa-Kingi’s alleging the legislation amounts to “extermination” of Māori because it is likely to see fewer Māori tamariki placed with Māori when taken into state care.

Chhour argues that a child’s immediate needs must be prioritised when taken into care. She said that in the past, “Oranga Tamariki staff prioritised cultural considerations and the desires of a child’s family over the individual need of the child. This sometimes led to unsafe care decisions and disruption for both the children and the caregivers.”

During general debate in May, Kapa-Kingi said “E te Minita, ka aroha ki a koe kua karetaohia e tō pāti. Kia kaha rā”.

It was only when reading the translated Hansard of this statement later that Chhour understood the meaning of the remarks, which was: “To the minister, how sad that you have been made a puppet by your party. Be strong.”

Chhour told the Herald she complained to the Speaker about the incident, as well as others, where she felt she was being subject to “bullying behaviour” rather than being attacked on issues of policy.

“I went to the Speaker’s Office and said I was really concerned this is starting to become continuous bullying behaviour in the House,” Chhour told the Herald.

Chhour said she was later told by Brownlee, that Kapa-Kingi would come to her with an apology. However months later, Chhour has yet to hear back from Kapa-Kingi.

Kapa-Kingi and Te Pāti Māori declined to comment.

The second recent incident relates to the same bill’s journey through Select Committee.

Stephenson, who is also Act’s whip, recently complained to the Speaker about an incident involving Act MP Laura Trask, the Greens’ Kahurangi Carter, and Kapa-Kingi.

The Herald has seen Stephenson’s letter of complaint, but not the response. The Herald has approached Brownlee for comment, but he has not responded.

During a private session of the Social Services and Community Select Committee in July, it was proposed that Trask chair a sub-committee to hear submissions on the 7AA repeal Bill.

Trask accused Kapa-Kingi of saying words to the effect of, “With all due respect people will be very stressed giving evidence on 7AA where most submitters will be Māori, it would be better if they had someone chairing who is Māori, or Pasifika, as they won’t recognise themselves in you.”

Carter backed Kapa-Kingi.

Speaker Gerry Brownlee during Question Time. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Trask’s recollection was corroborated by three National MPs on the committee.

Stephenson argued that the matter might be a matter of contempt because the MPs were trying to stop Trask from discharging her duty.

“I have not been able to find a precedent for calling into question a member’s ability to discharge their duty on the grounds of their race,” Stephenson said, adding Trask was “shaken, saddened, and angry”.

Seymour attempted to have Stephenson’s letter tabled at the start of Question Time arguing that Brownlee’s response to it, which the Herald has not seen, gave a “green light to racial harassment”.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Seymour’s attempt to have the letter tabled was “an absolutely outrageous attack on the Speaker of the House” appearing to argue Seymour was using the position of the Speaker to make a political point.

“This is directly questioning your ruling as a Speaker, at your authority as a Speaker in a way that I’ve not seen in the time that I’ve been in this House,” Hipkins said.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer stood up for Brownlee saying Seymour was “abusing” his ole.

“Te Pāti Māori received that ruling and we stand by your judgement,” she said.

Seymour was not given the ability to table the letter as Opposition parties objected to it.

Question Time devolved into semi-chaos, with Brownlee taking issue with Act’s branded lapel pins and ordering no Act MPs could speak until they were removed.

That decision came after Act MP Cameron Luxton took issue with Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s sticker-adorned laptop last week. The laptop broke a longstanding rule about affixing large party slogans to objects brought into the debating chamber.

The decision to ban these was made some time ago after a proliferation of party coloured and party branded boxes that MPs would put on their desks.

Speaker Mallard ruled that Act’s lapel pins were innocuous enough to fly under that rule. Brownlee has overturned that decision and said they must be removed.

This has frustrated Seymour who said it was the latest in a series of incidents that have shown Brownlee’s poor knowledge of standing orders. Seymour said his confidence in Brownlee was “falling by the day at the moment”.

“I think he’s got to start enforcing the rules consistently,” Seymour said.

Seymour said Brownlee’s enforcement of standing orders “isn’t always that solid”.

Thomas Coughlan is deputy political editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the Press Gallery since 2018.