Three New Zealand MPs have been temporarily suspended following a controversial incident in parliament where they performed a haka and one of them tore up a copy of a bill. The suspensions represent one of the harshest penalties ever issued to parliamentarians in the country.
The MPs involved are the co-leaders of Te Pāti Māori (the Māori Party), Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, along with the party’s youngest member, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. The trio performed the traditional Māori haka during a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill at its first reading in November last year.
The haka performance was highly visible, with footage spreading rapidly across the globe and garnering hundreds of millions of views. The moment that captured the most attention was when Maipi-Clarke dramatically ripped up a copy of the bill.
The Treaty Principles Bill itself was highly contentious. It sought to radically reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi, which is New Zealand’s foundational document signed in 1840 between Māori tribes and the British Crown. This treaty has long been a cornerstone in upholding Māori rights and sovereignty. The bill, introduced by a minor libertarian coalition party, raised significant alarm due to concerns that it would roll back decades of progress for Māori people. Its proposal triggered the largest-ever protest movement focused on Māori rights.
Ultimately, the bill was defeated at its second reading earlier this year.
In a report released recently, the parliamentary privileges committee recommended suspending Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi for three weeks and Maipi-Clarke for seven days. The committee described the trio’s actions as potentially intimidating other legislators and found them in contempt of parliament. These suspensions are unprecedented in their severity.
Although haka have been performed in parliament previously including by Waititi himself — the committee emphasized that the manner and timing of this particular haka were unacceptable. It interrupted other members’ ability to vote on the bill, which was considered a serious breach of parliamentary procedure.
The report also criticized Ngarewa-Packer for a gesture she made that was interpreted as simulating firing a gun at another MP. She rejected this interpretation, explaining that the motion was a “wiri,” a gesture rooted in haka tradition and Māori oratory rather than a threatening action.
Judith Collins, the attorney-general and committee chair, described the incident as the worst she had witnessed in her 23 years in parliament. She said the punishment was the toughest the committee had ever handed down, highlighting the seriousness with which they treated the breach.
The suspensions are expected to be confirmed by a vote of all lawmakers during an upcoming sitting. While suspended, the MPs will not receive their salaries and will be absent from key parliamentary events, including the annual budget debate.
Te Pāti Māori condemned the suspensions, calling them the harshest penalties ever imposed and accusing the political establishment of responding with maximum severity to indigenous resistance. They framed the suspensions as a warning aimed at discouraging further opposition.
The opposition Labour party concurred that the MPs’ conduct was contempt of parliament but criticized the severity of the punishment, suggesting a suspension of one or two days would have sufficed.
Meanwhile, the Green party opposed the suspensions altogether, arguing that the penalties were disproportionate to the actions and expressing concern that the absence of these MPs would leave Te Pāti Māori voters unrepresented during crucial debates such as the budget.
The three MPs themselves defended their actions in statements included in the report. Ngarewa-Packer said the haka was a necessary response given the context debating the rights and interests of tangata whenua (people of the land). She emphasized that the haka was performed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Māori people who were being harmed by the bill and the political climate surrounding it.
This incident highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding Māori rights and sovereignty in New Zealand politics, and it raises important questions about how indigenous cultural expression is accommodated within formal parliamentary processes.
