Haka In The House: What Will Te Pāti Māori's Protest Mean For Tikanga In Parliament?
Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention.
Parliament's Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will.
The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament's rules. The MPs say they don't think they'll get a fair hearing because the committee won't allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori.
According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this 'is a display of power designed to silence us'.
But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general.
Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP.
Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart.
But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga?
The problem with 'partnership'
According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally:
[Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction.
If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote.
This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent.
At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually 'owns' parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value?
Part of the problem is the notion of 'partnership' between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an 'us and them' way of thinking.
In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that's the case, parliament can't then belong to everybody or reflect everybody's customs and ways of being.
But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament.
Tikanga Māori in practice
However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself.
As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is
a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do.
Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics.
Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or 'active discussion', Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn't necessarily require consensus.
Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy
The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It's basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on 'having the numbers', which sometimes happens without any debate at all.
Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about
putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies.
If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn't help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate.
But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a 'house of representatives'. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice.
Dominic O'Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
4 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Despite Donald Trump's tariffs, we continue to produce world-class meat, dairy and wine
So, in summary and even factoring in US state sales taxes, in totality, New Zealand is only marginally disadvantaged. Further mitigating factors both in favour of the American consumer and the New Zealand exporter is the ongoing strength of the US dollar and Donald Trump's recent big, beautiful tax bill, which will pass significant tax relief and buying power into the hands of millions of American consumers. Also front of mind should be that other countries and direct New Zealand competitors are facing similar, if not greater, tariff increases than New Zealand. Given we continue to produce world-class meat, dairy and wine products, it's unlikely, after a period of adjustment, that price increases at the retail level will have any meaningful impact on American consumers. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers. Voting changes People are criticising the Government for closing voting enrolments two weeks before the election. If you don't want to vote, that is fine. However, if you do, but can't be bothered to put in a small amount of effort to enrol over two weeks before an election, the problem isn't the system, it's you. If you want to vote, make an effort. Mark Young, Ōrewa. Electoral requirements If it is a legal requirement to be enrolled on the electoral roll, as stated by the Government on national television Q&A programme yesterday, why are all those on a benefit or Superannuation or in public services jobs not being checked by either employers or Winz? Who is responsible for checking that all New Zealanders are enrolled and are therefore not in breach of the law? Or does this Government not care about the 'dropkicks' or those who have been removed from the Māori roll? What happens to those who turn 18 on or near polling day? If the enrolment time is shortened, how will NZ Post guarantee that all New Zealanders are enrolled in time, and also the many thousands of Kiwi who have moved to Australia this past year who are still New Zealand citizens? Where is the democratic right for all New Zealanders? It behoves every Kiwi eligible to vote and all parliamentary parties to check the electoral roll in 2026 to make a concerted effort to gather those who are in breach of the law. Marie Kaire, Whangārei. Credit card fees So, the Government is banning credit card fees, whoop de do. Not all retailers charged extra anyway and the ones that did will recover them in some other covert way instead. A waste of Government time and energy all round. A.J. Petersen, Kawerau. Lions v Australia In a dead rubber, Australia won one test against the British and Irish Lions which, in spite of rugby's prevailing conflicting laws, held a passing interest. The game again was an eight-man-a-side wrestling contest with hardly any flowing seven-man backline plays. The tries scored were due only to individual opportunism, rather than teamwork. Once again, rugby was ... the loser. Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay. Jami-Lee Ross' political return Former National MP Jami-Lee Ross has said he is aiming for a political comeback, and will run for a seat on the Howick local board in the Flat Bush subdivision. No doubt he has weighed up the pros and cons of this move, but given the way the final chapters of his previous time in politics played out in the media, I'd suggest it would probably be best to give it a miss. He would open himself up for scrutiny, old controversies will be brought up, and his new venture, running an escort agency, will no doubt be 'grist for the mill' for his opponents. The message in Kenny Rogers' song The Gambler says it best: 'You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run...' Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Misusing The Children: The UK Online Safety Act, Privacy And Censorship
The United Kingdom can always be relied upon to supply us with the eccentric, the admirably dotty, and the odd extreme bit of adventure in policy. Lately, those mad protectors and censors with their shields of false virtue and hollow intellect have decided to launch an assault on the users of the Internet. In this, they are joining the platoons of hysteria from such countries as Australia, where age verification restrictions on platforms are all the rage. It's all about the children, and when adults start meddling with children, all sorts of trouble arise. Much in line with the foolish, and potentially dangerous efforts being made by the eCommissioner (not a misspelling) in Australia to impose 'industry codes' of child safety, the UK Online Safety Act (OSA) is being used to blanket social media, search engines and virtually any other site of service with age verification restrictions. The OSA lists three categories that are said to be harmful to children: primary priority content, priority content and non-designated content. Primary priority content is a British favourite of the repressed classes: pornography, and content that supposedly encourages suicide, self-harm, or various behaviours and disorders with eating. (If only there was a form of pornography that might encourage good eating habits.) Priority harmful content covers abuse relevant to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment and any content that incites hatred against such people. To this, among others, can be added bullying, the promotion of 'serious violence, and depiction of serious violence' whether authentic or fictional. To make things even more expansively ludicrous, the regulations cover content that is non-designated (NDC), which might as well be the entire body of knowledge and existence on this planet and beyond seen by the regulators of the day as dangerous. Examples are skimpy, and do not mention the enriching apple in the Garden of Eden offered to Eve by the opportunistic serpent. Something, however, is 'NDC if it presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK'. What a triumph of insufferable vagueness. The onus is placed on the online service providers to ascertain whether the hosted content is harmful to children. 'As the regulator, we won't be accessing individual pieces of content, or telling online services to remove legal material,' states the UK Office of Communications, Ofcom. They are, in effect, being enlisted by the government as moral, vigilant guardians, never the wisest thing when it comes to technology companies. If the providers in question determine the material to be harmful, they must implement various mitigation measures. Ofcom lists some of them: 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from [harmful content online]'; safer algorithms to limit access to such harmful content (goodbye much literature and culture); effective moderation; transparent reporting and complaints processes; supportive information for children and 'strong governance and accountability'. This constituted a true charter for docile imbecility. The platforms are told to implement an age verification process that is 'technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair.' These include, among a range of options, facial age estimation, granting the age-check service access to bank information, digital identity services, which include digital identity wallets, credit card age checks, mobile network operator age checks and uploaded photo-IDs. Social media platforms such as Reddit, Bluesky, Discord, and have already imposed age checks to comply with the July 25 deadline. Ditto Pornhub, the most visited pornographic online provider in the UK, Tube 8, YouPorn and RedTube. The well named Carl Dong, Obscura VPN founder, is not shy in calling the law a 'ticking time-bomb for the privacy of UK citizens.' The broader consequences of the OSA are snappily summed up by Paige Collings, senior speech and privacy activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: the OSA is nothing less than a 'threat to the privacy of users,' a restriction on free expression by arbitrating online speech, an imposition of 'algorithmic discrimination through face checks' and excludes 'millions of people without a personal device or form of ID […] from accessing the internet.' The cleverer users will simply make a mockery of the whole show by using other means of regulatory subversion, including installing a VPN (Virtual Private Network) and browsing the web as if the user was from another country where age-verification rules do not apply. 'The logistics,' explains Graeme Stewart, head of public sector at Check Point Software, 'are near impossible. You could, in theory, ban the sale of VPN equipment, or instruct ISPs not to accept VPN traffic. But even then, people will find workarounds. All you'd achieve is pushing VPN underground, creating a black market for VPN contractors.' A rush for the most appropriate VPNs has already been ushered in while a petition featuring over 481,000 signatures urging the repeal of the OSA has gathered steam. On July 28, the government responded in the customary tone deaf manner, admitting to having 'no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act'. Instead, it was 'working with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.' Critics of these digital walls of restriction and exclusion face a body of manipulated public opinion. Gone are the days when everyone could post, mention and vent on any topic with merry impunity and noisy enthusiasm. Information superhighways have become potholes fought over by tribes and regulatory zealots inoculated against debate. Many members of the public seem to want censorship as a form of stand-in parenting, and a YouGov poll found a majority of Britons satisfied with the law (the latest figure as of July 31 comes in at 69%). Yet again, such an encroachment is being done in the name of the children, who are to be left permanently immature and unspoiled by the richer, more complicated life. Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
The NZ economy is still sick, doubts are growing about the Govt prescription
Are these the right antibiotics? Are the antibiotics making me feel sick? I do feel a little better I think. But it's taking longer than I expected. Maybe I should see the doctor again. Or am I just being impatient? Ugh, so much uncertainty. Hopefully, those who've tuned in for a fresh read on the state of the economy can see where this is going. Never let a metaphor go by, I say! Anyway, here's me and the New Zealand economy, both sick in the midst of a miserable wet winter and worrying about whether our recoveries have stalled. A run of negative data has knocked the wind out of the nation's sails. The bad vibes are being pushed along by a strong political current. Both the left and right are telling us that the Government has prescribed the wrong medicine. The left blames the Government for cutting spending into a downturn. The logic is pretty simple. Any good Keynesian will tell you, when demand in the private sector falls, that's the time for the Government to come to the party. Borrow a bit more, don't slash and burn civil service, hire more teachers and nurses, build more stuff ... it won't be inflationary because it won't be crowding out private sector competition, which is in recession. The trouble is, we're still in the aftermath of the last big spend-up, which went on too long. Labour's stimulus, once we got through the initial Covid shock, did clash with a private sector boom and exacerbated inflation. That muddied the political narrative. It made it inevitable that the incoming centre-right coalition would cut back despite the extra damage that would do to economic growth. In the context of using fiscal policy to drive economic prosperity, you can make a good case that successive governments have got things completely arse about face. You'd expect this argument from the left. But Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are being savaged even more aggressively from their right flank. The monetarists, the supply-side guys, the neo-liberals, (whatever you want to call them) are berating the Government for not dealing with the national debt and Crown deficit by administering a Rogernomics-style reboot of the whole economy. I doubt that would make the current downturn any more pleasant, but they argue it couldn't be much worse. And the payoff would be longer-term gains as the economy found a more productive and financially secure baseline. Both arguments can be compelling and, if nothing else, add to the concern that the current strategy of subtle market-oriented tweaks risks underdelivering on all sides. But through all of this gloom, one thing we need to remember is that most economists still believe the foundations of recovery are in place. Step back a bit from the mess of ugly recent economic data – the second quarter sucked, we get it! What are we actually experiencing? The labour market is tough. Unemployment is rising, and new job creation is almost non-existent. But this is not a surprise. In fact, while economists do get things wrong, they've been forecasting unemployment to be about where it is now for more than a year. We know it's one of the last pieces of data to turn in any recovery. Unfortunately, it is now overlapping with an unwanted and unexpected spike in inflation. Like a jump scare in the final scene of a horror movie, food prices (with rates and power, and insurance) have conspired to pause Reserve Bank rate cuts and rattled our faith in the recovery. Then there are tariffs and global unrest and all of that. It's not really surprising that it all feels bleak. So it's a bit ironic to be writing an optimistic take on the economy, especially given the rough week stuck at home that I've just had. My view wouldn't have been so upbeat if I hadn't been woken from my sick bed on Friday morning by a text from investment bank HSBC's Australian head of communications. He was asking how far away I was from my scheduled meeting with their global chief economist, Janet Henry and and Australia-New Zealand chief economist Paul Bloxham. Oops ... I was a long way away. But they kindly let me Zoom in later, and I'm very glad I did. As anyone with Australian cousins will know, sometimes it's healthy to be slapped in the face with a slightly condescending, external view of the New Zealand condition. Bloxham told me his forecasts currently make him one of the gloomiest economists on Australian growth. However, he's one of the most positive on New Zealand growth. Last year, New Zealand had the single largest contraction of any economy in the developed world, Bloxham points out. That inevitably comes with a hangover. But if you believe in the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy, which he does, there is no reason to assume the cycle won't turn. 'I suspect why I'm a little bit more upbeat than others is I sit in Sydney and watch it from the outside and go: hey, you've got two big forces at work that are set to continue to lift growth and give you a recovery.' No prizes for guessing those two forces – falling interest rates and booming agricultural commodity prices. The money flowing into the rural economy must eventually flow through to the cities and lift growth, Bloxham says. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (my words, not his). We've had a big downswing, which means we're due a pretty big upswing to get back to trend, he says. And we've got monetary policy and the terms of trade in place to drive that cyclical upswing. 'All cycles look different. We always ask the same question going through: oh, it's not quite happening as quickly as we thought. 'The question you ask yourself is: is that because it's not working? Is it that interest rates aren't going to have the same effect? That a positive-terms-of-trade shock won't have the same effect? Or are things just a bit different this time around?' Great question. And look, the sun's finally out and I think my head's clearing. Time to go for a walk and ponder it all. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
