Graeme Edgeler: Constitutional law expert on Te Pati Māori members being summoned before the privileges committee

The Privileges Committee will meet with or without Te Pati Māori. 

The party's refusing to front up for alleged threatening behaviour towards David Seymour during last year's Haka in the House. 

Co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi —along with Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke— have all been separately summoned. 

They say they haven't been allowed to appear together, at a time their lawyer can attend. 

Constitutional Law Expert Graeme Edgeler told Mike Hosking the committee will meet regardless. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
In a sign of how ragged some of our democratic
processes are, the Marray Party are not turning up to
their Privileges Committee appointment today. Couldn't you see that coming
a mile away. They've got a laundry list of issues
they claim haven't been addressed. So what now constitutional law ricks?
But Graham Edgel is back. Well, this's Grahame, very good
morning to you.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning.

Speaker 1 (00:14):
So what now? Because I understand the Privileges Committee can
basically do anything they want to. The balls in their court,
isn't it.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yeah, I mean it's there's the hearing. They choose not
to turn up the Privileges Committee, will I would guess
make a decision. Yep, this is already they've already made
an interim decision so that they had one laboring peak.
Penna Hennerede was involved in the Harker as well. They
made a finding on his They said it in his
case it wasn't contempted to parliament, but it was disorderly

(00:43):
and I think he apologized and so yeah, they can
make sort of the same recommendation or a slightly different
different recommendation if they feel it was the behavior was
slightly different and go from there.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Where does the sit in terms of seriousness for a
privileges committee and their reputation going forward? Do you think.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
Not that serious? But you know, sort of the committee
will just you know, it's the committee is doing what
it was told to do. You know, speaker has there
was there are a couple of complaints to the speaker.
The Speaker referred the issue, and the committee is going
to make a decision or recommendation. It's not a particularly
serious breach. I don't think if you remembers, say, for example,
that the Julian Genta one was probably slightly more serious.

(01:25):
But you know, she relatively quickly apologized and and that
was part of the resort. Well you know, they said,
well she's apologized. Yeah, that was good that we wanted
and that's what happened. And so it's a similar level maybe,
but yeah, maybe even slightly less serious.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
Does it go to the wider issue of attitude and
respect and professionalism and what we may or may not
expect as punters of our leading institution.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
Maybe. I mean it's sort of like it's the different
parties involved here are playing to their own audience, I think,
And it's not sort of it's political matter, not a
legal matter or anything like that. It's the you know,
there is some benefit to being the party on the
outside saying you guys need to change. And I think
the Marti Party is you know, they're inn opposition, you know,

(02:12):
quite firm lockstep on the government on passing their bills
that they all agree to the next two three years,
Marty Marty is not going to get much of its
legislation passed and they see some benefit to this, and
well they're politicians, just like everyone else in Parliament is
a politician. When they see a political benefit of doing something,
they're going to do it. Other parties the same.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Very realistic view. By the way, are you following the
South Island water case.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Slightly? Yes?

Speaker 1 (02:39):
Is it worth talking about? I'm trying to follow it,
but it's going on for a tremendous amount of time
with a great deal of complexity, and I'm working towards
the idea that it will probably end up being nothing
based on the fact that it needs to be done
by Parliament or am I wrong?

Speaker 2 (02:53):
I mean that would be my guess. You know, the
time to really talk about that case is when it
comes out with a decision. To be perfect honest, you know,
sort of having that sort of thing, you know, and
at that point, you know there'll probably be an appeal
whichever side loses, but you'll have a bit of an
argument and a bit of a discussion to be okay,
well we've got our court decision. You know, there's probably
be an appeal, so that'll delay things again whichever side loses.

(03:17):
But that's the time to really have a discussion rather
than sort of you're guessing what a judge's got to
do when he heard from all these lawyers.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
So okay, Graham, I'll get you on at the time.
Appreciate very much, gram Agel. It's worth following because it
has the potential as a nightA who's you know, the
government doesn't run the place we do when it comes
to water argument, which as I say from my reading
so far, is going nowhere, but it has the potential
to go somewhere.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.