Privileges Committee delivers racist decision

 

Many MPs stand and support the haka

There is no other credible interpretation of what has influenced the Privileges Committee decision regarding the penalties for performing a haka in the house other than pure racism. 

The broader context for this cannot be ignored and supports a view that Te Pāti Māori have exercised a good deal of restraint from wider attacks on Māori and the constant bullying and disrespect that their MP's have been subjected to on an almost daily basis. The excessive disciplinary action taken against them reflects not just a rejection of tikanga Māori, but a deeper systemic resistance to Māori expression and sovereignty.

Te Pāti Māori are the only elected party that exists primarily to represent tangata whenua, the first people of Aotearoa New Zealand. A previous National-led Government signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which affirms the rights of indigenous peoples and acknowledges the impact of colonisation. Te Tiriti O Waitangi is considered the founding document of our nation and provides the moral and legal basis for this recognition. The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act established the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate and address the Crown's many breaches of the Treaty. 

Contrary to what many claim, the breaches are not all historical ones dating over a century ago, they continue to this day. There are numerous post-1992 grievances and 'matters of kaupapa' where government entities have discriminated against Māori nationally rather than against individual iwi or hapu. Māori still languish at the bottom of statistics for health, employment, housing, education and within the justice system. Institutional racism still exists as has been born out of much research over recent years, especially in relation to the justice system. The Auditor General's review of how settlements are being fulfilled revealed that public organisations are struggling to do so. In many cases they are given little direction regarding their responsibilities and their treaty settlement obligations are not prioritised or identified in plans. 

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the document that the tribunal has recognised as the one the majority of Māori signed (those who signed the English version were never given the option of the te reo one) and therefore the text within it should define what was agreed to by both parties. Sadly, the English translation is the one still recognised by the governing parties which creates the false impression that Māori gave up their sovereignty to the Crown. The te reo version affirms that the Crown would govern settlers and Māori would continue to exercise tino rangateritanga (absolute authority) over their own lands, villages and treasures. 

Māori have been been systematically denied sovereignty and have been forced to advocate for their people via the colonisers system of governance that enforces archaic Westminister protocols that starkly contrast with tikanga Māori. In doing so they have had to compromise a good deal and continually have to fight to retain the limited concessions they've managed to secure.

The Māori electorates were first established in 1867. After the signing of Te Tiriti they were denied sovereignty, had their lands confiscated by the crown and had no representation in the New Zealand Parliament formed 13 years earlier. They were denied enfranchisement because the only people allowed to vote originally were men who had single title to land. Māori made up 20% of the population and were given  4 seats out of the 70, a token gesture. 

Today Māori comprise over 17% of the population and have 7 of the 120 seats, well below the 21 proportional representation would suggest. Critics argue that Māori can choose to be on the general role and with 32 Māori MPs currently, they are over-represented. However, of the 32, 12 belong to the governing parties and they have all voted to reverse gains for Māori. Some have even been publicly denounced by their own hapu as not representing their interests. Winston Peters and Shane Jones in particular appear to have sold their souls completely to the neoliberal, anti-environment, racist philosophies that are diametrically different from the core values of te ao Māori: Whānau (family), Manakitanga (hospitality and generosity), Whanaungatanga (building positive relationshps), Kaitiakitanga (guardianship of the environment) and Aroha (love and compassion for others). 

The Treaty Principles Bill, spearheaded by David Seymour, proposed to bulldoze through 50 years of research and legal determinations. He wanted parliament alone to establish a referendum to determine the future status of Māori. By using the tyranny of the majority, and ignoring the rights outlined in the United Nation's declaration (UNDRIP), Seymour wanted to erase the values of te ao Māori from any regulatory processes to enable corporate interests. 

What the government failed to anticipate was the groundswell of support for te ao Māori and the intent of Te Tiriti across Aotearoa. The massive protests against the Treaty Principles Bill across the motu brought together people of all cultures walking in solidarity with Māori.  A record 307,000 submissions were received,  three times more than the previous record for a bill, the majority against it. 

For Te Pāti Māori removing the Principles Bill was the most critical battle they had ever fought in the interests of their people. At the end of the first reading process, as the smallest party, they were the last to state their voting numbers and it was clear that the bill received support to go to a second reading. The youngest MP in the House, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clark had this role and spontaneously burst into a haka. She was joined by her co-leaders, those filling the public gallery and members of other oppositions parties. The haka was mainly directed at the Act Party and lasted less than a minute. Maipi-Clark was asked to leave the House and was stood down for 24 hours. 

The look of disdain on Gerry Brownlee's face (The Speaker) likely summed up the feelings of many in the government benches. 

Despite te reo Māori being an official language, many Government MPs only accept the use of it grudgingly.  Even the use of 'Aotearoa', as the commonly used Māori name for New Zealand, has been challenged. When Maipi-Clark's haka became a viral news item around the world it will have caused intense frustration and embarrassment for the Government and most especially the Act Party. The use of the haka in the house clashed with the entrenched Westminister traditions that had been adopted 141 years before. For the many who still supported the patriarchal culture that was behind the protocols, the fact that a very young Māori wahine led the challenge made it particularly galling. 

The Act Party lodged a formal complaint to the Speaker describing the haka as a breach of privilege and represented a high level of misconduct. Act described the "shouting and making aggressive gestures" as intimidating. The irony was lost on them - millions of New Zealanders saw their bill as one of the most aggressive and divisive ever tabled. 

The usual process for complaints of breaches of privileges is for them to be considered by the Speaker and possibly passed on to the Privileges Committee. Judith Collins currently chairs the nine member, cross-party committee, five government members and four from the opposition.

Prior to this, two high-profile breaches of privilege had been addressed:

• David Seymour has already had a number of complaints made about his behaviours but it was his refusal to follow a security officer's directive that he shouldn't drive a Land Rover up Parliament's steps as part of a charity event that forced the speaker to consider what action would be appropriate. His attempt to continue driving while the officer stood in front of him was highly arrogant and disrespectful as was his refusal to apologise to him. Seymour eventually wrote an apology to the Speaker, who decided no further action was necessary - although he did note that police action was still a possibility. 
• Julie Anne Genter was disciplined for crossing the floor of the debating chamber during a committee stage of an Appropriation Bill. She loudly expressed her frustration at the Hon Matt Doocey, demanding that he should read a report. He aggressive behaviour was considered to be in contempt of the house and it was recommended that she should "apologise to the house unreservedly and without qualification". 

The treatment of the three Te Pāti Māori members exposed a clash of two cultures. The MPs refused to face the Privileges Committee because of "a lack of  procedural fairness". They presented a submission outlining their concerns that included the following points:

• The Committee refused to hold a joint hearing and allow their counsel to present legal arguments about tikanga
• Haka is a constitutionally protected form of political expression often used in the house 
• The level of disrespect for Te Tiriti encapsulated in the Principles Bill was unprecedented in modern times and the exceptional circumstance sparked an exceptional response.
•  Maipi-Clark had already been punished for her actions and further punishment would result in double jeopardy. 

These arguments are compelling. The rules and protocols of the NZ Parliament have changed little over 141 years and what changes have occurred are well behind what is widely embraced in schools, work places and public institutions. As a former member of the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa I experienced first hand how tikanga Māori was imbedded in much that we did. Karakia began and ended meetings, powhiri and mihi whakatau preceded hui with guests, haka and waiata were widely used throughout hui. It is striking that the House of Representatives lags so far behind. 

The decision from the Privileges Committee was unprecedented. Co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbi Ngarewa-Packer would be suspended for 21 days without pay and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clark would be suspended for 7 days. Judith Collins explained that the punishment was not just about the use of haka but the fact that it resulted in the vote of the House being interrupted and the Speaker having to suspend Parliament for almost half an hour. This is hard to justify when the voting had been completed, the haka took less than 60 secs to perform, with many other MPs supporting, and the order of the house could have been quickly achieved if the Speaker hadn't escalated the matter. 

No MPs in New Zealand's history have been punished so severely. The Clerk's advice indicates for a first offence involving gross misconduct an MP is 'named' and possibly suspended for a day without pay. A second offence within the same parliamentary term could result in a weeks suspension and a third would result in 28 days. Given the two earlier examples of misconduct, for the punishment to jump immediately to the level of second or third offences, it is clearly extreme. Labour MP Peeni Hanare, who also took part in the Haka, was only asked to provide an apology. Robert Muldoon held the previous record with his three day 'gardening leave' suspension. 

Duncan Webb, Labour's senior member on the committee, noted it was the first time that he had experienced no attempt to reach a consensus and the Government members had used their majority to impose the decision. 

In the broader context, rising anti-Tiriti and anti-te reo rhetoric, glaring double standards of behaviour and the seeping influence of divisive US politics - there is no doubt that blatant racism was at play here. 

RNZ's Phil Smith, among others, also suggests that race may have been an aggravating part of the decision.