Haka disrupts New Zealand Parliament

You’ve probably seen the haka, a Māori war chant, performed at sporting events, school events and maybe even by church missionaries. But have you ever seen it performed on the floor of a house of government?
Last week, the New Zealand House was briefly suspended after Māori members of parliament performed a Ka Mate haka to disrupt a vote on a controversial bill that has ignited protests across New Zealand. The bill proposes to change the way in which the Treaty of Waitangi — a 184-year-old pact between the British Crown and Māori people — is interpreted.
During a first reading of the bill, the speaker of the House asked New Zealand’s youngest member of parliament, 22-year-old Māori Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, how she and her party, Te Pāti Māori, would vote. She stood, said “six no votes,” then ripped up a copy of the bill and started performing the haka. Members from her party, other parties and some in the public gallery joined in.
Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said, “Oh, don’t do that,” as Maipi-Clarke began to chant. At the conclusion of the haka, Brownlee suspended the House session and cleared the gallery. Maipi-Clarke was suspended for 24 hours over the protest. The Te Pāti Māori party has filed a complaint against Speaker Brownlee for his actions against Te Pāti Māori leaders for doing the haka, reports The New Zealand Herald.
The haka in parliament was part of a protest that has galvanized the nation. According to local media, an estimated 42,000 people, Māori and non-Māori alike, were part of a hīkoi, or protest march, taking as many as nine days to get to the grounds of Parliament. Maipi-Clarke’s haka came four days into the hīkoi.
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed by 500 Māori chiefs and the British Crown in 1840, is considered New Zealand’s founding document. It forms the basis of the laws and policies aimed at redressing historical wrongs against the Māori. In exchange for ceding governance to the British, the treaty promised tribes broad rights to retain their lands and protect their interests.
Margaret Mutu, professor of Māori studies at the University of Auckland, marched in the first hīkoi in 1975 to protest the erosion of Māori rights and vast tracts of land. That march resulted in new legislation that created a tribunal which has heard almost 4,000 claims since its passage. Mutu called the tribunal “a safety valve for Maori,” reports The Washington Post. Over time, Parliament and the courts have come to see the treaty as promising the Māori significant decision-making powers and special protections.
The “Treaty Principles Bill” is being proposed by David Seymour, the leader of the ACT party, the most right-wing member in the conservative coalition government. Seymour said that because the original treaty does not list specific principles, the bill would define principles in law, including equal rights for all, and that special provisions for people based on their ethnic origin have been divisive for New Zealand society.
The Post also reports that Seymour says the bill is not racist because it extends treaty rights to all New Zealanders. Mutu says that removing Māori rights will keep them relegated to second-class status. For over a century, ongoing research has shown that Māori have experienced poorer health outcomes than non-Māori. They have a life expectancy more than seven years shorter than non-Māori. They also have double the rate of cardiovascular disease mortality and almost double the rate of diabetes, and younger Māori were almost twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma and have a cancer mortality rate more than 1.5 times higher than non-Māori. The disparities extend beyond health, into areas of education, justice, housing, income, access to services and quality of care.
The bill is deeply unpopular, reports The Washington Post. While Prime Minister Christopher Luxon allowed the bill to be read for the first time, he does not support it. “You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion,” he said. More than 40 of the country’s most senior lawyers have written an open letter to Luxon this week, urging him to abandon the bill.
The bill is expected to die, but as of now, will still go through the normal bill process described by local media outlet RNZ. After passing the first reading, which it did last week, the bill is sent to committee. The committee will hear input from the public, then makes recommendations to Parliament on whether the bill should proceed. The bill has been assigned to the Justice Committee, which will take public submissions until Jan. 7. Oral hearings are expected to conclude by the end of February. The total process is expected to take six months.