This article was first published by RNZ
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has taken aim at it being only Māori MPs who have been sent to the privilieges committee for doing a haka during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.
Four opposition MPs who left their seats as part of the haka at the end of the Treaty Principles Bill debate last month have been referred to the committee.
They are Te Pāti Māori MPs Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi, Hana Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke and Labour’s Peeni Henare.
Speaking to Morning Report Hipkins said a number of non-Māori were doing the haka from their seats and haven’t been referred by the Speaker, “so you can draw your own conclusions from that”.
Pressed as to what he meant exactly, he said “I think it’s a political statement more than anything else”.
He said it the haka was “confrontational” but so was the bill.
“Until Parliament’s established some rules that have been agreed around haka then I think referring people to the privileges committee for breaching rules that don’t currently exist seems a bit premature.”
Hipkins said haka take place in the House often and “we seem to be punishing people for something that in other circumstances has been allowed.”
Speaker Gerry Brownlee said in the House on Tuesday when he made his ruling that the haka was “disorderly and disruptive”.
However, he said he was not ruling about the appropriateness of haka and its place in the tikanga of the House, which was a different matter to be considered by the Standing Orders committee.
But Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told Morning Report she didn’t believe the haka was disorderly.
“The haka isn’t a protest, it’s an expression of who we are full stop.
“Standing orders can be changed, but to say to Māori you’re disorderly to do the haka in the House, you’re not disorderly to do it at the All Blacks game, you’re not disorderly to do it at a graduation, you’re not disorderly to do it at a tangi for Māori and non-Māori, but you are disorderly to express yourself in the House on a particuarly heavy day is out of order.”
She said the reading of the Treaty Principles Bill was a “really dark day for us as tangata whenua”, and she disagreed the haka wasn’t an acceptable expression.
“I don’t accept the ruling, we have the right to express ourselves.
“You cannot haka sitting in those squashed spaces behind your desk or your bench, it was the right to express ourselves,” she said.
“What I guess is a struggle is that whether you look at the standing orders or just that place everyday as Māori MPs, who are proud to be Māori, we’re under siege every day.”
She said it was hypocritical of the House to say its haka was disorderly and disruptive when members engaged in yelling, name-calling and interjecting every day in Parliament.
“From our perspective the expression was done at the end, it’s not something we do every day and certainly confronting that bill isn’t something we do every day.”
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Ngarewa-Packer said Brownlee had an opportunity to “leave a legacy that was receptive to Māori and tikanga”.
“I think the bigger principle and issue here is we are Māori and the House should be able to adapt and adjust to the fact we are Māori and we should be able to express that in the House.”
Following the haka in the House Brownlee received letters about the matter from NZ First Minister Shane Jones, National MP Suze Redmayne, and ACT MP Todd Stephenson.
In his ruling he noted he had already “named” Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke who led the haka, saying it should be considered a serious matter by every MP.
“Taking an action to prevent votes being completed is completely unacceptable. At this point, however, naming has been the only action I’ve chosen to take on that matter.
“The letters I’ve received name a number of members who participated in a haka in the House, and in particular four members who left their seats to stand on the floor of the house, three of those members advancing towards the seats of another party. That is disorderly and cannot be considered anything other than disorderly.
“The issues of members leaving their seats to participate in an activity that was disorderly and disruptive to the procedure of the House is something that should be considered further. The House may treat as a contempt any act which obstructs or impedes the house in the performance of its functions.”
He said it was therefore his decision the privileges committee - Parliament’s watchdog which has membership from all the parties in Parliament and can hand down punishments for bad behaviour - should consider the actions of Henare, Ngarewa-Packer, Waititi and Maipi-Clarke.
The Speaker has been contacted for comment.
By Jo Moir of RNZ
