From 1917 until today, those elected as Sinn Féin MPs have had the integrity to recognise that they couldn’t swear allegiance to a King they don’t believe is sovereign, take his pay and perks, or participate in his Parliament.
TPM denies that the chiefs of the various hapu ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria, at least in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which the English common law says should be preferred in the event of textual ambiguity.
They’re probably right, even if the majority of New Zealanders disagree.
But even most of those who agree with TPM on that point, including Labour leader Chris Hipkins, insist that King Charles is nevertheless sovereign now.
That’s probably right too, since you need not be far-left to agree with Mao Zedong that, ultimately, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
But TPM rejects all of this. It says Māori sovereignty is inalienable. It’s not the sort of thing that the chiefs could have ceded in 1840, nor could it have since been taken away.
Believing sovereignty still lies with tangata whenua, TPM can’t and doesn’t believe that the King or Parliament is sovereign. Even to the extent it accepts the chiefs allowed Queen Victoria to set up a Government, including Parliament, it disagrees whether she was meant to be in charge of just the new settlers or of Māori as well.
In any case, TPM says the system of government that was set up is oppressive.
“It is time,” it wrote in its 2023 manifesto, “to dismantle this system so we can rebuild one that works for everybody.”
Sinn Féin couldn’t have put it better, in 1917 or today.
The original Māori Party’s founders, Dame Tariana Turia and Sir Pita Sharples, probably wouldn’t have disagreed with TPM co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi on the true constitutional position. Nevertheless, they were prepared to live with ambiguity around deep questions of sovereignty in order to make economic, social, cultural and constitutional progress as they saw it.
That included forming a Government with National and Act, both of which certainly believe Māori ceded sovereignty in 1840. Their legacy includes Parliament adopting more elements of tikanga Māori while also respecting tikanga Pākehā, consistent with the idea of partnership between hapū and the Crown.
Haka and waiata have become commonplace in today’s House of Representatives, including even from the public gallery on momentous occasions.
Members of Te Pati Māori perform a haka in front of Act MPs during the first reading of The Treaty Principles Bill in Parliament.
Photo / Adam Pearse
There’s no doubt any MP can perform haka and waiata in Parliament whenever taking a call. Since the English Parliament began in the 1200s and New Zealand’s in 1854, great demonstrations of anger have also been commonplace, as well as expressions of joy.
Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi appear less committed to balancing tikanga Māori and tikanga Pākehā in our Parliament, and letting its rules, conventions and traditions evolve.
Among the conventions inherited from tikanga Pākehā is the so-called two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule.
It’s a good rule, ensuring that however heated matters became, MPs couldn’t resort to a duel, and had to take that outside. Every culture, including tikanga Māori, has similar rules. They often continue long after people can quite remember how they began.
The two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule applies to MPs doing a haka, whether in celebration or anger. Another rule is that everyone shuts up when the Speaker stands up.
Today, the rule continues to demand that MPs speak from wherever they are when called, and that the two sides should stay two-and-a-half sword-lengths apart during debates, even when angrily bellowing at their opponents, which is also allowed.
The two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule applies to MPs doing a haka, whether in celebration or anger. Another rule is that everyone shuts up, listens and does what they’re told when the Speaker stands up.
During the heat of Act’s Treaty Principles Bill, many MPs became enraged with Act leader David Seymour. Even the Prime Minister, who agreed to the bill being introduced, called it divisive. But four MPs weren’t content to express their rage with a haka from their side of the House.
One of them, Labour’s Peeni Henare, has since apologised. Maipi-Clarke, who became famous on social media, has also expressed contrition.
But the TPM co-leaders, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi, remain utterly defiant. They say a haka was the only way for them to express their rage against Seymour and they should be able to do it in Parliament – but that is not in dispute.
The issue is that they ignored the Speaker and tried to physically intimidate Seymour and his colleagues by breaking the two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule – and then refused to apologise or appear individually to explain themselves to Parliament’s Privileges Committee, which enforces the rules.
It seems Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi demand respect for tikanga Māori, including haka, which Parliament rightly accepts. But they refuse to respect traditions of Parliament from tikanga Pākehā, like the two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule. So much for partnership.
Parliament will decide next week whether to accept the Privileges Committee’s recommendation to suspend Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi for three weeks. They won’t lose their perks, like being able to fly around New Zealand for free, or access to their offices. But they will lose three weeks’ pay and won’t be able to enter the debating chamber.
Maipi-Clarke will get a lesser, one-week suspension.
One option is for Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi to spend their suspension flying around their electorates and New Zealand doing their usual work as MPs and party leaders.
Others fear they may opt to further express their disrespect for Parliament – and play victim – by trying to enter the debating chamber, requiring the Speaker to order force be used to keep them out. Matters would then risk escalating, with the Speaker having the power to imprison them. What more could they want than to then position themselves as political prisoners?
It would of course all just be theatre, an attempt to rally their supporters no less cynical than Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.
But, if they so disrespect Parliament and deny its legitimacy, the principled position would be henceforth to boycott it entirely, including not taking the pay and perks. That would at least mean they’d have some of the mana of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.
Matthew Hooton has over 30 years’ experience in political and corporate communications and strategy for clients in Australasia, Asia, Europe and North America, including the National and Act parties and the Mayor of Auckland.
