Silencing Tikanga? Why the Privileges Committee’s Response to the Haka Reveals the Cultural Deficiencies of Parliament

By LINA JANG

Introduction

The Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT New Zealand Party, sought to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the 1840 agreement signed between Māori and the British Crown. The proposed principles did not reflect the true meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Māori text), and oversimplified a complex constitutional issue to a simple yes-or-no referendum. In November 2024, Te Pāti Māori (The Māori Party) voted against the Bill and concluded their opposition with a haka. In response, the Privileges Committee issued a recommendation for the longest suspension in Aotearoa, New Zealand’s history on the Members of Parliament (MPs) involved. This decision has sparked widespread discussion, raising broader questions about the role of tikanga in Parliament. Yet this discourse has largely been dismissed and narrowed to a matter of parliamentary procedure alone. This article interrogates the tensions underpinning such framings, exposing the disproportionality of the recommendations and a deeper, ongoing resistance to Indigenous practices.

Haka: The Response to the Bill

The Treaty Principles Bill faced widespread opposition both within and beyond the House of Representatives. Social movements such as Toitū te Tiriti mobilised nationwide hīkoi (protest marches) and helped gather over 300,000 submissions opposing the Bill. Inside the House, during the first reading, MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke accompanied Te Pāti Māori’s vote against the Bill with a performance of Ngāti Toa Rangatira’s haka, ‘Ka Mate’.

Haka is an extension of oneself, and the kaupapa you stand for. A practice Indigenous to Māori, haka was traditionally used as an assertion of presence on the whenua (land) and to demonstrate connection to whakapapa (lineage/genealogy). It involves physical prowess while powerfully embodying cultural pride, strength, and unity. In contemporary times haka is not merely ceremonial but used for a range of events. 

The Privilege Committee and Its Recommendation

In Aotearoa, the law grants MPs specific protections, most notably the privilege of free speech in the course of their legislative duties. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the constraints of Parliamentary rules. Drawing on precedent in the United Kingdom, the Privileges Committee is tasked with investigating misconduct, meeting with those involved, and providing recommendations. These recommendations have amounted to imprisonment in the UK, though this last occurred in the 1800s. In Aotearoa, the longest suspension prior to this was three days, imposed on Prime Minister Robert Muldoon in the late 1980s after he breached Parliamentary privilege by announcing via press statements that superannuation payments would cease immediately, despite lacking the authority to make such a decision.

On 14 May, the Privileges Committee released its final report regarding the MPs who responded to the Treaty Principles Bill.  This report involved recommendations for four MPs:

• Labour Party: Hon Peeni Ereatara Gladwyn Henare, required to apologise

• Te Pāti Māori: Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, 7-day suspension

• Te Pāti Māori: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, 21-day suspension

• Te Pāti Māori: Rawiri Waititi, 21-day suspension

The suspension level imposed exceeds the usual practice of the Privileges Committee. The Clerk of the House of Representatives has advised that members of the Privileges Committee should ideally have broad support for a punishment of this gravity and justify the reasoning behind the specific penalty imposed. In this case, a narrow majority of members approved the punishment, and the Committee presented a rationale that appears inconsistent with the actual events. Attorney-General Judith Collins has framed the incident as an attempt by Te Pāti Māori to interrupt the voting process, specifically that of the ACT Party, thus justifying the seriousness of the response. However, this narrative is factually flawed. Voting in Parliament proceeds in order of party size, meaning that Te Pāti Māori, as the smallest party, voted last. By the time their protest began, votes had already been cast, undermining the assertion that their actions disrupted the voting process.

The Necessity of Applying a Tikanga Lens

The Privileges Committee deemed the conduct of the three Te Pāti Māori MPs contemptuous due to its ‘intimidatory’ nature. While the Committee has previously found MPs in contempt, it has never imposed such a harsh penalty, revealing a concerning disregard for the cultural context underpinning the conduct. For example, in 2024, the Committee found Green MP Julie Anne Genter in contempt after she waved a book in Minister Matt Doocey's face and repeatedly shouted. Her actions resulted only in a formal censure and a request to apologise.

In the present case, the Te Pāti Māori MPs were called before the Privileges Committee but were reluctant to engage with the process. While the media widely reported their refusal to participate, far less attention was given to the underlying reason: the Committee’s decision to deny the presence of Sir Pou Temara, an expert in tikanga Māori. Though the Committee may assert it is not within its scope to determine the role of tikanga Māori within parliamentary rules, this matter inevitably requires analysis through a tikanga lens due to its novel nature. Prior incidents in Parliament have involved obscene hand gestures, a tractor on Parliament’s steps and unparliamentary language. As the use of haka carries distinct cultural significance this act of protest falls outside existing precedents.

Te Pāti Māori used haka to express their opposition to the bill, asserting their position through a culturally grounded protest. The Privileges Committee’s response reflects a colonial lens that mischaracterises haka as merely a form of intimidation, reinforcing a narrative of violence and aggression. This view overlooks the tikanga and purpose embedded in haka, reducing a deep cultural expression to a threat. Interpreting haka through a Western understanding strips it of its nuance and meaning, denying its legitimacy as a form of political expression within te ao Māori.  The current recommendation suggests that the cultural weight and mana of the haka are being treated as aggravating factors to justify a harsher punishment, which results in a double standard that amounts to an implicit attack on the practice of Māori culture itself.

The Ongoing Barriers to Māori Participation

Not only has the bare majority exercised its political muscle to push through these sanctions, but enduring procedural barriers have also systematically limited Te Pāti Māori's participation in the Treaty Principles Bill. Parliament initially scheduled the Bill's First Reading for 18 November but abruptly brought it forward to 14 November, a move some speculate was intended to pre-empt the planned hīkoi. Further, the punishments recommended by the Privileges Committee were disproportionate, with one ACT member even raising the possibility of imprisonment. In addition, the scheduled date for debating the suspension recommendation coincided with Budget Day, effectively preventing Te Pāti Māori MPs from participating in one of only two annual opportunities to vote no confidence in the government. The accumulation of these events is unlikely to be a mere coincidence and reveals a deeper structural bias within Parliament.

Conclusion

The vote on the matter was adjourned to 5 June 2025, when all three suspensions were applied, resulting in the longest suspension in Parliament. Given that the Privileges Committee’s recommendations were applied, there is now a dangerous precedent that silences responses grounded in tikanga and further entrenches the marginalisation of non-Western norms. There has been significant backlash from the public, nation and international voices for the imposing of the suspensions. Ultimately, this moment prompts a broader reflection on whether parliamentary rules should evolve to incorporate cultural considerations, particularly when interpreting concepts such as ‘intimidation’. As it stands, the current interpretation reflects a narrow perspective, one that is increasingly out of touch with the recognised foundational role of tikanga Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand.