九一星空无限

ZB ZB
Opinion
Live now
Start time
Playing for
End time
Listen live
Up next
ZB

Te Pāti Māori MP ‘deliberately misled’ House, required to apologise - committee

Author
Jamie Ensor,
Publish Date
Wed, 12 Feb 2025, 1:38pm
Takuta Ferris. Photo / RNZ
Takuta Ferris. Photo / RNZ

Te Pāti Māori MP ‘deliberately misled’ House, required to apologise - committee

Author
Jamie Ensor,
Publish Date
Wed, 12 Feb 2025, 1:38pm

The Privileges Committee has found Te P膩ti M膩ori MP T膩kuta Ferris deliberately misled the House and asked him to apologise for denying he had called other Members of Parliament 鈥渓iars鈥.

A report just released by the powerful committee said Ferris had 鈥渃ommitted a contempt鈥 and causing the House to be misled 鈥渋s a serious matter鈥.

He continued to deny making the statement in a letter to the committee.

鈥淭o find no fault in this case would risk undermining a fundamental principle of the House: that its members behave truthfully and honourably. Members of Parliament, and indeed the public, must be able to trust in the truthfulness of members for the House to operate effectively. We therefore recommend that Mr Ferris be required to apologise to the House.鈥

The question of privilege arose from a contribution Ferris made during a general debate session in September last year. He was explaining at the time that 鈥渒nowledge gaps鈥 were a 鈥渄angerous thing鈥 and 鈥渁llow lies to be presented as truths鈥.

鈥淧oliticians call this obfuscation. The art of making something unclear, intentionally vague, ambiguous, to conceal or obscure the truth, to confuse others. Lies in other words. Many in this House are masters of it and it is a disservice to those who voted you in to your positions.鈥

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said at the time Ferris was claiming members were 鈥渕asters鈥 of lying. MPs are not allowed to call others liars under House rules.

Ferris replied by saying he had not made that statement. The Speaker later ruled there was an 鈥渁pparent inconsistency鈥 between Ferris鈥 speech and his subsequent statement, leading to the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee.

The report outlines the committee鈥檚 process in investigating the matter. It shows the MPs on the committee reviewed the Hansard transcript and considered the facts of the matter 鈥渃lear鈥.

However, it wanted to hear more from Ferris. The MP provided the committee with a written comment, but declined an invitation to appear before the committee.

In his letter, Ferris denied calling MPs liars and 鈥渦tterly reject[ed]鈥 that he had misled the House.

鈥淢r Ferris noted that the topic of his speech during the general debate was obfuscation. He argued that any 鈥榓verage, normal person鈥 after listening to the dictionary definition of the word obfuscation would agree with also defining obfuscation as 鈥榣ies, in other words鈥. He explained that this does not mean that 鈥榣ies, lying, or liars鈥 were the topics being presented in his general debate speech. Mr Ferris reiterated that he described many members of the House as 鈥渕asters of [obfuscation]鈥.

鈥淢r Ferris told us that unless the Speaker has come to the conclusion that obfuscation 鈥榓ctually鈥 means lying, then there is no 鈥榪uote, statement or inference鈥 of members of Parliament being called liars.鈥

The committee said making an inaccurate statement in the House was 鈥渓ikely to involve a single temporal moment in the charged atmosphere of the debating chamber, and it is appropriate that inadvertent misleading without intent should not be judged too harshly鈥.

鈥淒enying that a misleading statement was made may be quite different 鈥 it may involve a sustained course of action and judgment, rather than a single moment.鈥

It said that Ferris鈥 written response 鈥渃onfirms he stated that many members of the House are masters of obfuscation, and that obfuscation is commonly understood to mean lying鈥.

鈥淲e find the content of his letter contradictory and his argument confusing. Mr Ferris鈥 response ultimately suggests that he is aware that the ordinary meaning of his statement can be understood to mean that many members of the House are masters of lying.鈥

In conclusion, the committee said it found 鈥淢r Ferris deliberately misled the House鈥.

鈥淚t is evident to us that Mr Ferris believes that obfuscation is synonymous with the act of lying. We agree. To call members of Parliament masters of obfuscation is an allegation that members of Parliament are liars.

鈥淲e reiterate that the House operates on the basis that members are assumed to behave truthfully and honourably. The House must be able to rely on the truthfulness of its members in order to operate. In deliberately misleading the House, Mr Ferris has impeded the House in its ability to do so. For this reason, we find that Mr Ferris committed a contempt.鈥

New Zealand First MP Shane Jones told the Herald last year that Ferris had been given 鈥渆very chance鈥 to 鈥渟how humility鈥.

鈥淗e not only offended Parliament, but he lied to Parliament,鈥 he said.

鈥淭here鈥檚 been lots of M膩ori who have tried and failed to come to Parliament, and I, personally, haven鈥檛 struck his level of arrogance in Parliament before,鈥 he said.

The NZ First MP believed Ferris had done a 鈥渄isservice鈥 to those who elected him and believed he would be a 鈥渙ne-term wonder鈥.

鈥淔or Takuta, his conduct is Ngutu p墨, talking gibberish. Sadly, his unwillingness to set the record straight casts him in a bad light.鈥

The Privileges Committee, which acts as Parliament鈥檚 court, has been busy over the past year or so. It has considered several matters, such as Julie-Anne Genter鈥檚 outburst at Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey and claims about National MP Tim van de Molen鈥檚 behaviour at a select committee.

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the 九一星空无限hub Press Gallery office.

Take your Radio, Podcasts and Music with you