Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee is asking the High Court to recall a judgment that ultimately reinstated Mariameno Kapa-Kingi to Te Pāti Māori.
Brownlee has asked for the rewording of a clause in the judgment which he believes is tantamount to the court intruding on the business of Parliament,which is Parliament’s jurisdiction, not the courts’.
It raises questions of parliamentary privilege and comity, the principle by which the branches of government respect their various jurisdictions.
Brownlee is not concerned with the actual outcome of the case.
In March, the High Court ruled in favour of Kapa Kingi, agreeing her expulsion from Te Pāti Māori last year over claims she brought the party into disrepute was unlawful.
That judgment said Kapa Kingi, who is the MP for the Māori seat of Te Tai Tokerau, should be reinstated to Te Pāti Māori.
Justice Paul Radich said the party “must now inform the Speaker” that Kapa-Kingi had been “reinstated to Te Pāti’s parliamentary membership under that Standing Order”.
Te Tai Tokerau MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi at Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Court documents obtained by the Herald and filed on Brownlee’s behalf said such directions were “the purview of the Speaker” and that “directions of this nature did not align with the principles of comity and non-interference”.
This direction to the party also then “implicitly directs the Speaker to then take actions” to achieve the outcome.
“The implicit message that Te Pāti Māori and/or the Speaker might be acting contrary to the court’s directions should they not act in a manner that the court has outlined also suggests a pre-emptive impeachment of the proceedings of Parliament.”
This action happened in Parliament on March 10 when the Speaker announced that he had been advised by Te Pāti Māori that it “parliamentary membership has changed” and Kapa-Kingi was now a member of the party for “parliamentary purposes”.
Te Pati Maori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi (top right) sitting behind co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi during question time in Parliament in November. Photo / Mark Mitchell
But the documents ask the court to consider reframing the paragraph that states that the party “must now inform the Speaker” to consider “whether it would be appropriate to notify the speaker” under the relevant Standing Order, or parliamentary rule.
Under the Bill of Rights 1688, a core principle of parliamentary privilege is described as “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached in any court or place out of Parliament”.
The documents acknowledge it is rare for a court to recall a judgment, even if doing so did not affect the outcome.
But “where issues of parliamentary privilege arise, the wider constitutional significance and the potential impact on the relationship between courts and Parliament may justify that step”.
The Speaker’s office declined to comment further.
Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.
