Racist or righteous? Privileges Committee versus Te Pāti Māori
Change my mind
I have written many times before about narratives and the role of constructing the binary of good and evil in politics. This week we again see how storytelling is shaping a prominent political conflict with the race to own the narrative as the Privileges Committee hands down its recommendations. On the one hand, Te Pāti Māori has rushed to take the role of victims enabled by the other opposition parties and the majority of the media. They have run with accusations of racism and colonisation. On the other, the Government parties argue that the punishment for the trio of Te Pāti Māori MPs is simply fair consequences for breaking the rules of Parliament.
I have my own opinion on the matter. But I will try my best to set it aside and present a fair summation of both sides. Despite indulging in opinion in my Substack, I don’t want to simply be the inverse of the media by uncritically supporting the Government position just because our news outlets are running the ‘racism’ narrative for Te Pāti Māori. We need to attempt to bring things back to the middle sometimes.
How did we get here?
Three Te Pāti Māori MPs - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi, and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke - were referred to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee following their protest during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill on November 14, 2024. As we all know, the bill aimed to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which some, especially Te Pāti Māori, viewed as a threat to established interpretations safeguarding Māori rights. In response, Maipi-Clarke initiated a haka and tore up a copy of the bill, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi joined the haka. Labour MP Peeni Henare also left his seat to perform a haka while others remained in place while doing so. During the haka, the Te Pāti Māori MPs crossed the floor and crowded the ACT Party benches. Ngarewa-Packer twice made a gun sign with her hand and mimed shooting the ACT MPs. Speaker of the House, Gerry Brownlee, suspended Parliament for about half an hour to regain order and then suspended Maipi-Clarke from the House for 24-hours.
On December 10, 2024, Brownlee referred Maipi-Clarke, Ngarewa-Packer, Waititi, and Henare to the Privileges Committee. Henare immediately accepted responsibility for his actions and was required to apologise. However, the three Te Pāti Māori MPs declined to appear before the committee, citing breaches of natural justice, including the denial of a joint hearing, restrictions on their legal representation, and the refusal to allow expert testimony on tikanga Māori. They described the committee's process as a "kangaroo court" and declared they were going to hold an alternative hearing.
On May 14, 2025, the Privileges Committee recommended suspending Maipi-Clarke for 7 days and Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi for 21 days, all without pay. The committee found their actions during the protest to be in contempt of Parliament, citing intimidation and disruption of parliamentary proceedings. Te Pāti Māori condemned the suspensions as excessive and politically motivated, viewing them as a punitive measure against Māori dissent.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has expressed support for the proposed suspensions, emphasising the importance of adhering to parliamentary rules. Opposition parties have criticised the severity of the penalties, with Chris Hipkins proposing 24-hour bans instead.
The 21 day bans are much longer than what we have seen previously in New Zealand Parliament. The next longest was the 3 day suspension of former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon. Te Pāti Māori point to the lack of punishment for historical serious matters like the physical altercation between Trevor Mallard and Tau Henare, but that did not occur inside the debating chamber nor did it interrupt the business of the House.
On Tuesday 20 May, the Privileges Committee was to report their recommendations to the House to vote on. There was great media speculation about how Te Pāti Māori might resist the punishment and opposition parties were thought to be planning to filibuster the debate in order to prevent a resolution before the Budget debate on Thursday. There was much made of the implications of the three Te Pāti Māori MPs missing the Budget debate due to their suspensions.
The Privileges Committee recommendations have been called the harshest ever imposed in New Zealand political history by those sympathetic to Te Pāti Māori. The Green Party opposed the suspensions entirely, expressing concern that Te Pāti Māori voters would be unrepresented during the Budget debate. Chris Hipkins repeated the same concerns, but would have been aware that he was being economical with the truth. Even with three MPs missing, Te Pāti Māori would have been represented by their remaining MPs who could vote against the Budget and speak on behalf of the party. In fact, later Rawiri Waititi spoke to a small crowd of protestors outside of Parliament and made this exact point. He said Te Pāti Māori would be represented at the debate regardless.
Well and truly digging in with their narrative of persecution, Te Pāti Māori condemned the proposed suspensions as a "punishment for being unapologetically Māori," viewing them as a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent. The MPs argued that their haka was an expression of tikanga Māori and a legitimate form of protest against legislation they believed undermined Māori rights.
The controversy has sparked broader discussions about the role of cultural expression in parliamentary proceedings and the treatment of Māori MPs. While some view the haka as a legitimate form of protest, others perceive it as a breach of parliamentary decorum.
The debate over their potential suspension kicked off with a speech from Privileges Committee Chair Judith Collins who set out the case and reasoning. Next Labour Leader Chris Hipkins gently rebuked Te Pāti Māori and then thoroughly rebuked the Government for what he perceived as excessive punishment. At times in his speech he appeared almost like a defence lawyer for Te Pāti Māori advocating for a 95% discount on their sentence.
Following this, Leader of the House Chris Bishop surprised almost everyone by moving to defer the debate until June 5, allowing the MPs to participate in the Budget debate after all. This decision was met with mixed reactions despite the fact that this solved the expressed concerns of opposition parties about them missing the Budget debate. Opposition parties viewed the delay as a strategic move. Chris Hipkins expressed concern that the adjournment could impact the MPs' ability to vote on the Budget, as the suspensions would take effect before the Budget vote on June 5. The debate occurs before the vote.
It was a clever political manoeuvre by Bishop and the Government as it took much of the wind out of Te Pāti Māori’s sails. They had organised a protest and were set to keep the attention on them rather than the Budget. It will be interesting to see if Te Pāti Māori actually show up to the Budget debate given they chose not to last year - a fact ignored in the reporting on the matter. There is also a possibility that they will come up with another stunt in a bid to seize attention back and cause more chaos.
In her speech, Judith Collins emphasised the seriousness of the breaches by the MPs and clarified what it is that the Privileges Committee was actually considering. She said:
One of their arguments was that tikanga Māori and haka are not matters for the Privileges Committee to consider.
On this the Committee agrees with them: it is not there to set or debate the rules of Parliament but rather to uphold the rules as they are, not as people may wish them to be.
To be clear, the haka is not banned in the House. However, the rules of Parliament – the Standing Orders under which it operates – states permission has first to be obtained from the Speaker, and that any actions must not impede the business of the House.
No such permission was sought for the 14 November haka, and it most certainly did impede the business of the House as it was carried out during a vote.
She sought to move the conversation on from one about identity to one about behaviour and consequences:
So here we are at the crux of the matter. It is not about the haka. It is not about tikanga. It is not about the Treaty of Waitangi.
It is about following the rules of Parliament, that we are all obliged to follow and that we all pledge to follow.
It does not matter our gender, our ethnicity or our beliefs. In this House we are all simply Members of Parliament and, like any institution, it has rules.
Her frustration and anger at some of the game playing that has gone on was plain to see. She called out the disingenuous pivot to making the situation about race:
After six months of meetings and hearings – which all committee members participated in in a professional manner – it is disappointing to now hear personal attacks and allegations of racism.
I utterly reject that. We have simply done our job.
Chris Hipkins has driven much of the ‘racism’ narrative telling media that Judith Collins had publicly condemned “uncivilised behaviour from indigenous people”. This was not only untrue, but was another example of the willingness of the former Prime Minister to lie in order to score points. Collins has handled to the whole process with professionalism and a firm hand, it is a complete fabrication to make accusations of racism toward her.
In his speech following Collins, Hipkins alluded strongly to nefarious intent by the Government suggesting that they were out to take out their political opponents:
The Privileges Committee is departing from the well-established practice of this House in its recommendations, and the sanction they are proposing is totally disproportionate. It is wrong and against the traditions of our democracy for a Government to use its majority in Parliament to suspend and remove from the service of the people of New Zealand its political opponents.
He also moralised and projected a very pessimistic view of democracy around the world. There is some irony in this as Te Pāti Māori have been openly scathing of democracy with Rawiri Waititi going as far as to say he “isn’t a fan” of it. They also have announced the intention to create a separate Māori Parliament, dispute that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand, and promote policies that are frankly pro-ethnostatism.
Looking around the world—and I say this to all members on all sides of the House—democracy is quite literally hanging by a thread. Days like today hold a razor blade up to that thread. When people around the country look at this House and say, “Why should I have any faith in the institutions of democracy?”, this is a very good example of why. Parliament is spending more time talking about itself than talking about the issues that matter to them.
The battle will recommence on June 5th with speeches from around the House. Let’s hope that Gerry Brownlee is able to get himself together and will adjudicate fairly. He has lost control of the House currently and cannot afford to look weak lest the MPs of all parties smell blood in the water.
This process has done nothing but embolden Te Pāti Māori. They have held the attention of the media who have happily regurgitated their narrative of persecution. There is no doubt that at the next possible opportunity they will break the rules of Parliament. The consequences are not deterrents to them. Immediately following the discussion in the House that ended with the issue being deferred to June 5th, Rawiri Waititi spoke to protestors outside saying, “we will not be muzzled by their rules”.
Judith Collins was spot-on in her summation of what the privileges committee's function is. In a course I did some years ago, fronted by a tikanga "expert" the take-home message was that it varies enormously between iwi in different parts of the country. TPM are trying to sell us the idea that it's one system.
Ani, I am sad to see that racism is increasing on a daily basis. I spent my childhood in Southern Africa during the apartheid era and believe New Zealand is becoming an apartheid state itself.
I recall bus shelters toilets etc being marked "Whites Only", or "Non Whites Only". This is now being echoed by our universities who have set aside rooms for Maori and Pasifika only. I remember some universities trying, mostly unsuccessfully to, indoctrinate students with a particular viewpoint and culture. We now see our universities and some professional organisations making it compulsory to learn about Maori Culture and the Maori "worldview", which is simply indoctrination.
During the 1981 Springbok Tour, their were massive protests against "racially selected teams", but here we sit with The New Zealand Maori rugby team?
Finding another country that permits a race based political party to exist, let alone contest elections is rather difficult. Setting aside race based parliamentary seats is also clearly now a racist issue. These seats were quite rightly established when only landowners could vote. Given the then Maori system of land tenure, Maori would have been disenfranchised and so seats were rightly reserved to ensure Maori had a voice. With the introduction of universal suffrage they became unnecessary, and now with our MMP system, they actually distort the make up of our parliament.
Racism is not only a "one way street". Te Pati Maori meembers behaved disgracefully, and if they really believed in the things they say they would refuse to enter parliament.
Finally I find yesterday's protest quite interesting. Who knew that there were so many employers willing to give their staff paid leave to attend a protest? Sometimes people need to make sure they know the hand that feeds them.