Recently, I took a crack at Te Pāti Māori for being big on theatre but not backing it up with being an effective opposition party. The obvious example was their haka in the House in protest at the Treaty Principles Bill. But I didn’t think the haka was the problem.
Since then, the government has focused on dishing out utu for Te Pāti Māori daring to bring its brand of political theatre into the House. A privileges committee headed by Judith Collins – who inaccurately claimed the haka prevented Act from voting at the bill’s first reading – recommended a punishment of 21 days’ suspension from Parliament for Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders and a week for Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.
Even that delicate flower Gerry Brownlee, Speaker of the House, seemed uneasy about the harshness of the proposed penalty. But not Act MP Parmjeet Parmar. She wanted to know if prison was an option. When questioned about this, she rolled out the “just asking questions” line, supposedly wanting to know what the whole spectrum of options were to punish the unruly natives.
So, in the spirit of just asking questions, here’s a few Parmar might like to consider.
Speaking of a whole spectrum of options, does she realise Te Pāti Māori MPs not only represent but belong to communities who had members who were imprisoned, raped, hanged or shot for expressing their political opinions in ways the crown objected to?
Does Parmar know the white feather Debbie Ngarewa-Packer often wears in her pōtae is a symbol and reminder of Parihaka and the government invasion of the Taranaki pacifist community where men were imprisoned without trial and, as the Waitangi Tribunal reported, women were raped? Does she know this community was resisting the confiscation of land taken by the crown she represents? Does she know UK newspaper reports about the leaders of Parihaka, Te Whiti and Tohu, influenced Gandhi, who influenced Martin Luther King?
Does Parmar know Rawiri Waititi is from the Whakatōhea iwi, whose rangatira, Mokomoko, was hanged in 1866 for a murder he did not commit? That it and the neighbouring iwi Waititi also belongs to had their land confiscated? Does she know Mokomoko’s body was exhumed from Mt Eden Prison and taken back to be buried with his people in 1989 and he was eventually pardoned by the crown in 1992? Does she know his final words before he was hanged were a request to sing: “Tangohia mai te taura i taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata” (Take the rope from my throat that I may sing my song)?
Then his neck was broken.
Does Parmar know Maipi-Clarke whakapapas not only to Taranaki but also Waikato, who were invaded by the crown and lost a million acres through confiscation?
Does she know about Rangiaowhia, where civilians, including women and children, were burnt and shot as they sheltered in a whare?
Does she know Waikato men were imprisoned when they refused conscription in World War I because of the invasion and confiscation of their lands?
Since Parmar objects to Māori gathering in their own spaces at universities, does she know government policy was opposed to Māori even attending university until the 1960s? Has she heard of Sir Āpirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pōmare and Te Rangi Hiroa, who went to Te Aute College and on to university to become lawyers and doctors, only for the government to pressure the school principal to desist from preparing Māori students for tertiary study? Does she know these three men, along with many iwi leaders, led a targeted – ie, race-based – health campaign that helped save Māori from extinction after the population plummeted due to poverty and disease resulting from land loss?
I recently spoke to a leader of an NGO that supports Māori and Pasifika children in education who told me many of the kids they support end up dropping out of university because they are suddenly alone in an alien environment without community support. Does Parmar think that is a problem that should be addressed?
Has she ever bothered to read the history of Māori political figures like Ngata and Pōmare, whose portraits hang in the halls of Parliament? Does she know Pōmare walked those halls with a limp, due to an injury he suffered when he was one of the children who welcomed the troops who invaded Parihaka with singing, only to be trampled by horses?
In March, Parmar pronounced the University of Auckland should scrap its compulsory Waipapa Taumata Rau course. Does she think a history lesson might be of use to MPs like herself who claim to represent the country but know little of its history? Or does she take her history lessons from her party leader, who mangles or ignores the past to create a constant stream of political controversies to hold the media’s attention and misinform and distract the public?
And was Parmar’s question about the option of sending Te Pāti Māori to jail for a political protest really her question? Or was she simply doing the party leader’s dirty work for him?
