By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Three New Zealand MPs from Te Pāti Māori were recommended for suspension following a haka performance during a parliamentary vote on the Treaty Principles Bill. The unprecedented penalties—three weeks for two MPs and seven days for the third—stem from the committee’s determination that the actions constituted intimidation and contempt of parliament. The haka, which included the symbolic destruction of the bill, was deemed unacceptable due to its timing and disruptive nature, despite acknowledging past haka performances in parliament. While the MPs argued the haka was a justified response to the bill, the committee and the attorney-general characterized the incident as the most serious ever witnessed.
Read the original article here
New Zealand MPs performing a haka in parliament received what’s being described as an unprecedented punishment: suspension from parliamentary duties. The specific length of the suspensions varied, with some MPs facing a three-week ban, while others faced a far lengthier 21-day suspension. This punishment has sparked considerable debate, raising questions about the balance between upholding parliamentary decorum and allowing for the expression of dissent, especially when that dissent involves deeply held cultural practices.
The haka itself took place during the consideration of a controversial Treaty Principles Bill, a piece of legislation that has drawn significant opposition, with over 270,000 submissions opposing it. The MPs involved viewed their haka as a powerful form of protest against this bill, believing it to be deeply damaging to their culture and community. They saw their actions as a literal and symbolic act of resistance, placing themselves directly in the path of what they perceived as an attempt to erase their cultural heritage.
The severity of the punishment, described by many as unprecedented, has led to accusations of an abuse of power. Critics argue that the suspension is a disproportionate response to a protest, particularly given the historical context of the relationship between the Māori people and the New Zealand government. This history is marked by conflict, land confiscation, and the ongoing struggle for recognition and self-determination. The argument is made that the government’s response isn’t merely about maintaining order; it’s about silencing dissent and maintaining a power imbalance.
The timing of the protest, during the debate on a particularly divisive bill, also fuels the controversy. The argument is that the MPs were expressing their deep concerns regarding legislation that directly impacts their people and their ancestral rights, and their protest should be seen within this context. To some, the reaction from those in power is a continuation of historical injustices.
Interestingly, the very definition of what constitutes “disorderly” behavior in parliament is called into question. While some argue the haka was inappropriate for the setting, others maintain that it was a necessary and powerful expression of dissent given the gravity of the situation. They contend that the act was not intended to disrupt the proceedings in a violent or destructive way, but rather to draw attention to the profound implications of the bill. Furthermore, the lack of a historical precedent for such a harsh punishment against a similar form of protest only serves to intensify this debate.
The focus on the haka itself, as opposed to the underlying concerns about the bill and its implications for Māori communities, is another point of contention. Many believe the emphasis on decorum serves to deflect from the substantive issues raised by the protesters. The argument is that the government’s focus should be on the content of the bill, not on the form of protest employed by those who oppose it.
The differing perspectives highlight a significant clash between upholding parliamentary decorum and the right to protest. The reaction from the government, characterized by many as heavy-handed, has raised further questions about the democratic nature of the process. The length of the suspensions has shocked many, prompting comparisons to the lengths of punishments given out in other less democratic systems.
There’s also a discussion about the power dynamic in play. Critics assert the government’s response shows a disregard for the cultural significance of the haka and reinforces existing power imbalances. Some see this event as an instance of the majority imposing its will on a minority group, even when that minority group is utilizing a traditional method of cultural expression. The disproportionate punishment, in their view, further marginalizes Māori voices.
Beyond the specific incident, the broader debate highlights the ongoing complexities of reconciliation and cultural recognition in New Zealand. While some see the MPs’ actions as disruptive and inappropriate for the parliamentary setting, others view the incident as a symbolic representation of the ongoing fight for Māori rights and the inherent injustice of their historical treatment. It’s a conflict between preserving parliamentary order and allowing for passionate and potentially disruptive forms of protest, particularly when they stem from deeply felt cultural grievances. The debate, ultimately, exposes the deep-seated tensions and unresolved issues within New Zealand’s political landscape.