logo
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke on Her Viral Haka, New Zealand's Treaty Bill, and Fighting for Maori Rights

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke on Her Viral Haka, New Zealand's Treaty Bill, and Fighting for Maori Rights

Yahoo28-05-2025

Photo by Apela Bell
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
A spark flashed across the internet last November. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, a member of Te Pāti Māori, or the Māori Party, broke out into a powerful haka on the floor of New Zealand's Parliament, disrupting a vote on a controversial piece of legislation known as the Treaty Principles Bill. Another lawmaker was supposed to tear the bill in half and start the haka, a traditional Māori dance, but 22-year-old Maipi-Clarke was incidentally handed the paper instead. The lawmakers' protest went viral, lighting up social media and making global headlines.
On April 10, the legislation, which critics believe would have rolled back the rights of Indigenous New Zealanders, was defeated. In Maipi-Clarke's speech preceding the bill's rejection, she said, 'The real problem is that this institution, this House, has only ever recognized one partner, one culture, one language.'
Maipi-Clarke tells Teen Vogue, 'It's basically the cat out of the bag; the attitude of that bill is represented across so much legislation.'
The bill sought to redefine New Zealand's founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), which established the rights of Māori and non-Māori people. Though the principles of the treaty are referenced in law, it is not integrated into the country's legal structure.
In creating a rigid reading of the treaty, the bill would have supplanted the treaty itself. It was promoted by the right-wing libertarian ACT Party, which argued that Māori have special legal rights and privileges due to the treaty's interpretation, as the BBC reported. Māori politicians and activists saw the legislation as yet another example of the current conservative-coalition government's efforts to erode Māori rights.
The Māori Health Authority was established by the outgoing Labour government in 2022 to address historical inequities, only to be dissolved by the current National government in 2024; officials have also rolled back the use of Māori language in public services — moves that a Guardian analysis found could 'deepen existing inequalities in the country.'
'The rules of Parliament don't really see or fit Māori people,' Maipi-Clarke says. 'There's a lot more resistance and advocation that we're doing because, basically, our rights are being stripped left, right, and center. It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience that we shouldn't be going through, but we have to find coping mechanisms to defend it.'
Days after the bill's first reading — and Maipi-Clarke's viral haka — people took part in a nine-day march from the north of New Zealand to the capital, Wellington, culminating in a protest that was attended by more than 40,000. It is believed to be one of the biggest protests in the country's history. Additionally, more than 300,000 written public submissions flooded in, with an estimated 90% opposing the bill, according to the parliamentary justice committee, which recommended the legislation be stalled. When it was finally voted down at its second reading last month, cheers and waiata, or song, rang through the chamber.
But now Maipi-Clarke faces censure from her own colleagues. A committee found her and two other lawmakers behind the haka protest in contempt of Parliament, alleging they intimidated their opponents, and recommended unprecedented unpaid suspensions. According to the Associated Press, these would be the harshest penalties ever assigned to New Zealand parliamentarians. Parliament's debate on the censure is delayed until early June.
As the story continues to unfold, Maipi-Clarke has emerged as the young lawmaker who catapulted this story of Indigenous strength, of Māori mana, or spiritual power, into international news. The Treaty Principles Bill is dead, but her work is not done.
Inside Maipi-Clarke's parliamentary office in Wellington in early April, a week before the treaty bill was killed, she cut a stately figure. Elected at age 21 in 2023, she became the youngest member of Parliament in 170 years. Politics was never part of her plan when she was growing up ('At 21, you just want to be 21 and… do 21-year-old things'), but activism was all around her.
Even now, signs of activism cover the walls, wrapping Maipi-Clarke in mementos of her purpose: The phrase 'Tupuna Fed, Mokopuna Led' (to be nurtured by the ancestors and shepherded by the next generation) shines in neon orange; the Street Fighter logo, altered to read 'Tiriti Fighter' ('Treaty Fighter'); and records that fueled her on the campaign trail, including All Eyez on Me by Tupac Shakur and DAMN. by Kendrick Lamar. (Maipi-Clarke calls hip-hop and Black American culture 'an inspiration of movements.')
'Ka ora tōnu mātou, ake ake ake,' Maipi-Clarke's words, are scrawled across a hanging jacket and written in red on her framed, torn copy of the bill. 'We shall live forever and ever,' she translates, before adding: 'Yes, we can fight. We know how to fight easily. But I think the biggest message is for us to survive.'
For Maipi-Clarke, her activism — that deep need to stand up for what's right — seems almost genealogical. When her mother, who is from the geothermal lands in the country's north, was pregnant with her, she was advocating against building a prison on what they consider to be sacred land. And in the 1970s, Maipi-Clarke's grandfather was a member of Ngā Tamatoa, a Māori activist group that was heavily involved in treaty activism and sought to have Māori language taught in schools. So it's no surprise that she's in Parliament today.
Maipi-Clarke's whānau, her family, are with her every step of the way; her mom and dad are even part of her parliamentary team. It's the Te Pāti Māori way: 'It may be a conflict of interest for some, but the biggest thing that will keep us safe is whānau,' Maipi-Clarke says. 'When you come into this place, it's very unique, and if we're driving kaupapa Māori, we're coming with three generations.'
There's a refreshing lack of territoriality when Maipi-Clarke opens up about her role in Te Pāti Māori. 'We are just the messenger stick for the bigger kaupapa,' she explains, using the Māori term for core principles and beliefs that are passed through generations of Indigenous New Zealanders. At the end of the day, she continues, the constituents of her district — Hauraki-Waikato, one of seven Māori electorates for which voters of Māori descent can opt in to vote — are represented by only one seat. 'There's gonna be other MPs that fill this seat, and it just happens to be us for the day.'
Maipi-Clarke grew up in Auckland with her mother and grandmother, and traveled about 60 miles to spend weekends with her dad in the town of Huntly. Having been waitlisted for Māori-immersion education programs, she attended mainstream school until age 11, when she relocated to Huntly to attend a Māori school, known as wharekura.
That experience informed her campaign ethos, 'Kōhanga Reo Generation,' a reference to young Māori who attended immersion schools and are deeply connected to their language and culture. It was met with 'a little bit of backlash' from people who felt she was excluding those who attended mainstream schools from the conversation, but she says it was 'more about children who had grown up with their grandparents.' Maipi-Clarke's grandparents didn't have their language, but they had their knowledge of customs, of working by the maramataka — the Māori lunar calendar — and she learned by their hand.
'Kōhanga Reo Generation' was a clear statement to Parliament: 'This place once wanted us to literally go extinct, and we have come back stronger by being one million strong who know their reo (language), their whakapapa (genealogy). That was the biggest weapon we could ever bring to them, is surviving. But actually, we're on that level thriving for our kids.'
In February 2021, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi refused to wear a tie in Parliament, instead wearing an Aotea stone necklace. It sparked conversation about what was considered appropriate business attire, with Waititi himself asking, 'Why are Pākehā (a term for European New Zealanders) making Māori dress like they want us to dress?"
This inspired Maipi-Clarke from afar. 'It wasn't a law that he changed on paper, but it was changing the minds and society,' she says. 'All the time now, you will see taonga Māori, or prized possessions, represented across the board and in corporate spaces.'
Maipi-Clarke got her first real taste of the politics realm when her grandfather gave a submission regarding the creation of 'Māori wards' with their local government in 2021. She explains, 'Māori wards is when you have one representative who is Māori from that place to advocate on council.'
At the time, Maipi-Clarke stood up to give her Pop's submission on his behalf, and she questioned the lack of Māori representation in front of her. ''You have Māori doing your cups of tea and your karakia, or prayer, but you don't have Māori at the decision table,'" she recalls. 'I said it at that point, 'I've never experienced racism like that,' and oh my God, I came here [to Parliament] — now I know all about it."
When the proposal was voted down by the council, Maipi-Clarke and others blasted it across social media. She thinks the public scrutiny and pressure is what ultimately solidified the unanimous vote in favor of creating Māori wards in Hamilton.
But the future of Māori wards is again in jeopardy, due to a law introduced by the coalition government; another breach of Te Tiriti, she adds. 'That's all the conversation we're trying to have — there's nothing bad about us being at the decision table. It's actually a good thing, but people think it's a threat and [are] intimidated by it.'
Despite becoming the worldwide face and voice of a major moment of Indigenous resistance, Maipi-Clarke isn't aggrieved by the burden of legacy. Instead, she's looking to the future: 'There are so many of our people out there who feel disconnected, and the way we want to articulate ourselves in here is feeling you're a part of it. What is a typical, stereotypical Māori? What even is that? …We just want to empower people to feel that they're enough.'
For rangatahi, the youth, she says, the issues critical to them are mental health, the cost-of-living crisis, and affording groceries. 'And then, obviously, our rights,' she adds with a laugh — the kind of chuckle that rises from outrage and shock because of the plain fact that rights are actually on the line. It's painful, but it's reality.
'Indigenous people around the world are fighting the same struggle,' Maipi-Clarke says. 'When I think of Kanaky (New Caledonia), when I think of Palestine, when I think of… our whānau (family) from Te Whenua Moemoeā (Australia), when I think of Native Americans and what they're going through with [an] extreme right-wing government — we all kind of face the same struggles, right?'
On May 20, 2025, she unveiled her first proposed bill. It would place a statutory obligation on members of Parliament to uphold and learn about Te Tiriti, and require Parliament to develop a Māori strategy.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke remains grounded and steadfast in her fight. 'We're Indigenous through and through,' she says. 'We're not left or right, because left or right is still part of the system.' Te Pāti Māori is willing to work on either side of the aisle, but they'll always push for Māori rights. Maipi-Clarke's reminder to her community and opponents in Parliament is simple: 'We're the treaty. You're the partner.'
Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue
More great activism coverage from Teen Vogue:
'Young Activist' Label Can Be a Burden for Youth Organizers
Economic Disobedience: What Is It and How Does It Work?
The Jewish Teens Who Fought Back Against Hitler
The 13 Best Protest Songs Of All Time

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Up to £3bn may be needed to fix building cladding
Up to £3bn may be needed to fix building cladding

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Up to £3bn may be needed to fix building cladding

Up to £3bn of public money may have to be spent assessing and removing potentially flammable cladding from buildings in Scotland. New estimates from the Scottish government suggest up to 1,450 residential buildings may need remediation work, including about 250 high-rises. It was previously estimated about 900 buildings were affected. However, full surveys will be needed to establish what needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, with 107 buildings being examined as part of a pilot phase. It is now estimated that the Cladding Remediation Programme could cost £1.7bn to £3.1bn over a 15-year period. If new legislation is passed by the Scottish Parliament, additional funding could be unlocked to fix building safety issues. Ministers making 'painfully slow' cladding progress Scottish ministers given new powers to tackle cladding The Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill will see a tax charged on the construction of certain new residential properties, in line with equivalent legislation in England. The bill seeks to raise about £30m a year to help fund work to fix residential buildings with unsafe cladding which have no linked developer. Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee said: "The Scottish government is committed to doing what is right and necessary to address the challenge of fixing buildings affected by unsafe cladding. "That includes putting the appropriate funding arrangements in place to ensure that the associated costs of cladding remediation do not fall directly onto affected homeowners. "I know that developers share our determination to keep people safe and this levy will ensure they make a fair contribution to these costs, just as they will be doing in England." He added: "I also welcome the continued co-operation of developers who have accepted responsibility for the assessments and any required mitigation and remediation of their buildings." Trade body Homes for Scotland, whose members deliver the vast majority of all new homes in Scotland, said they were committed to remedial action on buildings they had built. But a spokesperson raised concerns about the impact of a building safety levy. "In addition to the proposed Building Safety Levy, Scotland's largest home builders are already contributing to the remediation of other impacted buildings through their payment of the Residential Property Development Tax (RPDT)," they said. The spokesperson said the proposed levy would mean an additional layer of taxation which "will add thousands of pounds to the cost of new homes, pushing families, first-time buyers and future generations further away from home ownership". They added: "At a time when Scotland is facing a housing emergency and 693,000 Scottish households are living in some form of housing need, this is simply unacceptable." The UK government agreed in principle to devolve the powers needed for a Scottish Building Safety Levy last year. Last month ministers announced plans to speed up efforts to inspect and repair buildings in response to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London that killed 72 people. The 23-storey tower's cladding is believed to have contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. It broke out in the kitchen of a fourth-floor flat at the tower block in North Kensington, just before 01:00 on 14 June 2017. Within minutes, the fire had rapidly spread up the exterior of the building and moved across all four sides. By 03:00, most of the upper floors were well alight. As well as those killed, more than 70 people were injured. The Cladding Remediation Programme was set up in the aftermath of the disaster but Scottish ministers have been criticised for its slow progress. How are the laws on cladding changing in Scotland? 'No warning' over cladding evacuation, couple say

The Real Reason Trump Has Created This Autopen Scandal
The Real Reason Trump Has Created This Autopen Scandal

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

The Real Reason Trump Has Created This Autopen Scandal

When Richard III seized the English throne towards the end of the Wars of the Roses, he pressured Parliament to legitimize his usurpation of the crown from his nephews. Parliament responded by passing a law that accused the late Edward IV, Richard's brother, and his wife Elizabeth Woodville of all manner of misdeeds. The law, Titulus Regius, was an incendiary one. It claimed that Edward's reign had seen the laws of God and his Church, of nature, and of England left 'broken, subverted and disregarded, contrary to all reason and justice.' It denounced his marriage as invalid, in part because Elizabeth had allegedly bewitched him through 'sorcery and witchcraft.' And it conveniently declared that their children, who stood ahead of Richard in the line of succession (and had gone missing under his care), were bastards and automatically ineligible for the throne. The United States is a republic, not a monarchy. But that has not stopped President Donald Trump from taking a similar approach to declaring his predecessor's administration invalid. This week, he issued a memorandum to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Biden's White House advisors had used an autopen device to fabricate Biden's signature on official documents. Though the memo did not go so far as to accuse Biden officials of using sorcery to bewitch him, it argued that they took advantage of his allegedly compromised mental state to wield presidential powers. 'This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history,' it said. 'The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden's signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.' Trump had already signaled that his focus was on Biden's pardons of various people whom he sees as political enemies. 'The 'Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,' he wrote in a post on his personal social-media website in March. 'In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!' Conservative media outlets have written extensively about the previous administration's use of an autopen in recent months, insinuating that it was a sign of Biden's incapacity. There is no evidence that it was used to sign things against the former president's will. Focusing on it is a throwback of sorts to the Obama years, when he began to use the device while traveling overseas. He first used the autopen to sign an extension of the PATRIOT Act in 2011 during a weeklong tour of Europe. In 2013, he used it to sign the bill that prevented the U.S. government from going over the so-called 'fiscal cliff' while vacationing in Hawaii. Less notable uses also followed, such as signing routine annual proclamations. Obama's autopen use initially raised some constitutional questions since Article I requires the president to 'sign' legislation before it can become law. Conservatives occasionally brought it up as part of their broader efforts to paint Obama's tenure as illegitimate in various ways. But a 2005 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel found no issue with a president directing his signature to be attached to a document as opposed to signing it by his own hand. It grounded its reasoning in ancient principles of English and early American legal tradition. 'Under the 'principle of signatures,' the common law recognized that one could sign a document not only with one's own hand, but also by the hand of another who was properly authorized to affix one's signature to the document on one's behalf or who did so in one's presence,' the office explained. 'Furthermore, a document signed in one's name by the hand of another in either of these manners was equally effective as a document signed with one's own hand.' It is worth noting that the original autopen controversy stemmed largely around the president's use of it to sign legislation, where the Constitution explicitly requires a signature. For practical reasons, presidents do not commit all or even most of their orders, instructions, or official actions to paper. A president's direct order to someone serving in the military, for example, carries the same legal weight whether delivered over the telephone, via videoconference, or in person. Since Trump's particular issue with the autopen centers around pardons, it's worth noting that the historical precedents for that power are much looser than for any other official act a president might undertake. The modern practice is for would-be recipients to apply to the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney, who reviews cases and makes recommendations to the president. If approved, the office gives pardon recipients a formal document bearing the president's seal and signature. That is a modern convenience rather than an actual legal requirement, however. Trump himself has ignored or bypassed the pardon attorney and issued almost all of his pardons at his personal whim. Past presidents have also wielded the pardon power by proclamation instead of individualized certificates. They have issued mass pardons to ex-Confederate officials, to formerly polygamous Mormons, Vietnam War draft evaders, and so on without difficulty. My favorite examples of the pardon power's ad hoc usage come from the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln developed a reputation during his time in office as a bit of a soft touch when it came to clemency. He was also strikingly informal about it. In one encounter, Lincoln once wrote out a pardon for a young boy accused of desertion on a nearby scrap of bandage. When General Joseph Hooker once sent a list of death warrants for 55 convicted deserters to the White House during the war, historian Ron Soodalter recounted, Lincoln simply wrote 'pardoned' on the envelope and mailed it back. Lincoln's current successor is familiar with this freewheeling approach to governance, albeit to achieve far different ends. Trump has often gone to great lengths to conceal or destroy government records, whether by tearing them up after he is done with them or absconding with them to his Florida golf resort. He notoriously does not use email or a computer and prefers to conduct business over the phone instead of putting anything into writing. This approach conveniently avoids creating a paper trail that could be used against him later. Trump has also argued before that a president's intent matters more than the precise physical or ministerial act that he performs when running the executive branch. He asserted in a 2022 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, that he could declassify documents telepathically. 'There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it,' Trump said. 'You're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it.' Naturally, part of Trump's argument is that Biden's intent was dubious because of his 'cognitive decline' while president. 'This was especially true of actions taken during the second half of his Presidency, when his cognitive decline had apparently become even more clear to those working most closely with him,' his memorandum stated. The 'investigation' appears designed to create a pretextual justification to nullify a wide range of official actions undertaken by the Biden administration. The White House's documents take pains to mention Biden's executive orders and judicial appointments as part of this alleged scheme. 'If his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name,' the memorandum claimed, 'that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden's name.' If someone forged Biden's signature on an official document that carried legal weight, that would indeed be a scandal and could be a criminal offense. But Trump's theory has a few flaws in it. For one thing, there is no evidence that any Biden officials took any actions without his approval or consent. Biden himself has also denied that it happened. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,' he said in a statement on Friday. 'Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' Trump's idea that a president could invalidate all of his predecessor's acts by claiming that predecessor was mentally incompetent at the time is also untenable, both practically or legally. There is no 'undo' button in the Constitution. A Democratic president could also do the same thing to the Trump administration's executive actions and judicial appointments upon taking office in 2029, perhaps even extending it to his first term. After all, Trump's own mental fitness is far from uncontested: He publicly defended himself from such claims in 2018 by boasting that he was a 'very stable genius.' For those reasons, Trump's own attempt to delegitimize his predecessor's administration would be unlikely to achieve any substantial legal goals. A Supreme Court where one-third of the justices were appointed by Trump is unlikely to agree that a mentally incompetent president's judicial appointees can be removed from the bench by executive fiat. As with Richard III's Titulus Regius, the memorandum's real effect may be as propaganda—grist for the content mills of right-wing media. That this is all arriving ahead of a summer simmering with bad economic headwinds is significant. Even so, it will be hard to distract from the damage wrought by Trump's own administration over the next four years.

Canada introduces proposed citizenship by descent legislation
Canada introduces proposed citizenship by descent legislation

Hamilton Spectator

time19 hours ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Canada introduces proposed citizenship by descent legislation

The federal government has tabled a new bill that would allow Canadians born abroad to pass citizenship by descent to children born overseas via a test to prove family ties to the country. Bill C-3 is meant to satisfy a court order that has ruled the current two-generation cut-off provisions of the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional because it limits the automatic passage of citizenship to the first generation of Canadians who were born outside Canada. 'Citizenship is more than a legal status — it's a profound connection to the values, history and spirit of Canada,' Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said in statement on Thursday. 'By requiring those who pass citizenship to their children born abroad beyond the first generation to have a substantial connection to our country, we are honouring that bond. 'It reflects our belief that being Canadian means more than just a place of birth; it's about belonging, shared experiences, and a commitment to the inclusive and diverse community we all call home.' In 2009, the Conservative government abolished the 'substantial connection' regime and adopted a blanket rule that denies the first generation born abroad the right to pass on citizenship by descent outside Canada to the second generation born abroad. The result created a generation of 'lost Canadians.' A group of affected Canadian families took Ottawa to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which, in December 2023, ordered the federal government to repeal the second-generation cut-off rule and amend the Citizenship Act to make the law compliant with the Constitution's Charter of Rights. However, the court order has been suspended after numerous requests by government officials for extension due to delays caused by the opposition Conservatives and the administration of the Immigration Department. The parliamentary prorogation and subsequent spring election contributed to further delays in amending the law. The federal government cannot appeal the Ontario court's ruling on the second-generation citizenship cut-off rule because the appeal period has expired. It also cannot invoke the Constitution's 'notwithstanding clause' to re-enact the provisions deemed unconstitutional because mobility rights — which are central to the case — are exempt from that clause. Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represents the families in the lawsuit, said Bill C-3 is identical to the previous citizenship bill introduced by the Liberal government a year ago and died on the order paper because the government failed to make it a legislative priority. 'The government must use every tool at its disposal to ensure that the same fate does not befall Bill C-3, which must be passed and brought into force by November 20, 2025,' said Choudhry, as stipulated by the Ontario court. In a news release, the government said the proposed legislation would: 'People who may be impacted by the changes proposed … will no doubt have questions about what this means for them and their families,' said the news release. 'If the bill passes both Houses of Parliament and receives royal assent, we will work as quickly as possible to bring these changes into effect and will provide more information for eligible individuals on our website.' Until then, those denied Canadian citizenship as a result of the second-generation cut-off can seek it on a case-by-case basis.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store