Aaron Smale: Jail for a haka? The arrogance of ignorance in Parliament
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?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
David Seymour and James Baldwin: The fire this time
Act leader David Seymour had to deal with massive opposition to his Treaty Principles Bill. Photo / Mark Mitchell THE FACTS Act Party leader David Seymour was guest of honour at a party held by his party recently, to celebrate his becoming Deputy Prime Minister. In his speech, Seymour quoted the American founding father and Boston Tea Party revolutionary Samuel Adams: 'It does not take a majority to prevail
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Party Tried To Get Treaty Of Waitangi Clause Removed From Education Legislation
The ACT Party fought to have a Treaty of Waitangi clause stripped out of amended education legislation - but was overruled. ACT leader David Seymour says not removing it entirely has "certainly created some controversy", but it was "simply political". The prime minister is defending the decision because the government wants clarity around these clauses, and wants to deal with it in a "comprehensive and coordinated way" as part of a wider review. The Education and Training Amendment Bill tweaks Section 127 of the Act from 2020 - which outlines how schools operate in the country - to update what the "paramount objective", or highest priority objective, is for boards governing schools. It was part of the ACT and National coalition agreement which sets out to "amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools". The Education and Training Act currently outlines a board's primary objectives in governing a school was to ensure every student can "attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement"; the school is "physically and emotionally" safe; that it includes and caters for students with differing needs; and "gives effect to Te Tiriti of Waitangi". It specified it must do that by: (i) working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and (ii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori; and (iii) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students. The Amendment Bill changes Section 127 so the "paramount objective" is first and foremost to "ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement". To meet that objective, the board must also meet "supporting objectives" such as those outlined in the original legislation, including the clause to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and other objectives around school attendance and evaluating students' progress and achievement. The order of the Tiriti o Waitangi clause was also slightly changed, so the "achieving equitable outcomes" came first. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "it might sound odd to have to say this" but it was necessary for boards to have a "number one priority on advancing academic achievement". "So that's job number one." Seymour agreed, saying the ACT Party campaigned on putting academic achievement "front and centre." He said these changes will ensure that academic achievement is the paramount objective. "The Act Party has long felt that we have not had an adequate emphasis on just simply making sure that valuable academic knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next." He said there had been "a lot of disquiet" the requirement to uphold the Treaty had not been removed. He claimed parents "frequently complain" their children were spending time on subjects and activities that have no value to them, but "appear to be part of a wider political project to change the culture of New Zealand". He said that was a source of "enormous anger" and parents wanted their children focused on "reading, writing and arithmetic". He rejected the notion the removal of that clause was itself a political project, saying "there's no political project in wanting children to learn only things that are valuable to them". Seymour said he would not reveal any kind of "cabinet or other private discussion", but that people can "probably guess" the ACT Party would want to remove a clause like that. The reason for not removing it was "simply political" he said, "not all political parties agree with the removal". "Perhaps other parties were less eager to hence, it remains, but will be reviewed as part of the government's wider treaty clauses reviewed." When asked about the differences between National and ACT, Seymour said the National Party would always explain itself as a "broad church". Luxon refused to say who pushed back on ACT's proposal, saying it was simply a "series of conversations that happen in cabinet and cabinet committees". Luxon said there was a set of questions around treaty obligations and the implications within legislation. He explained the government had a broader piece of work to outline specific treaty clauses rather than "general, open ended" ones so "everyone has maximum clarity about how a piece of legislation is to be operationalised". As a result he said the clause would be considered as part of that review. He said the most important thing was to make sure boards understand the priority was getting kids to school, teaching them maths and teaching them to read. Education Minister Erica Stanford told RNZ "legitimate questions" were raised regarding the existing Treaty clause in section 127 of the Education Act during the Cabinet process in August last year. She said Cabinet agreed to include the section 127 treaty clause, along with many other references to the treaty in the Education Act, in the wider review the Justice Minister was undertaking. "This process of reviewing the whole Education Act at once was seen as a more coherent approach to ensure consistency of decision making rather than considering Treaty clauses on an ad hoc basis." The Amendment Bill is currently at select committee stage. Submissions close on 12 June and a report is due back in September.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Youth MPs Accuse Government Of 'Censoring' Them, Ministry Says Otherwise
The government is rejecting accusations it is censoring Youth MPs, saying the protocols followed are the same as 2022 and the young people get the final say on their speeches. However, the email sent to one Youth MP carries the subject line "changes required", and stated the ministry "have had to make some changes". Some of the Youth MPs involved say they will not be suppressed and the issue has fuelled the fire to make their voices heard. The Labour Party has criticised the approach taken after some Youth MPs were asked to remove parts of their speeches, because some of their speech lacked political neutrality by criticising "this government". Changes recommended included the removal of general mentions of the Treaty Principles Bill, funding for Māori and Pasifika, and Pay Equity. Speeches about "youth voice" and "freedom of speech" were also edited. In a written statement, Ministry of Youth Development general manager John Robertson said the same protocol had been followed as was used in 2022, and the feedback provided on the Youth MPs' speeches was "generally focused on supporting them to convey their arguments clearly and effectively, and in keeping with the non-partisan approach of Youth Parliament". "We also advised some Youth MPs that changes were required to their speeches to avoid putting themselves at risk. Youth MPs are not protected by parliamentary privilege. This means young people could be held liable if the contents of their speech raise concerns around defamation, copyright, privacy, contempt of court, or broadcasting standards. "However, as noted above, the final decision about what they say is made by the Youth MPs." Robertson said the ministry had in some cases told the Youth MPs "it is your decision around what your speech does and does not contain". "From here, it is your choice how you use [our] feedback. You are the one stepping up to speak and we fully respect your right to shape your speech in the way that feels right to you," it said. However, the email RNZ has seen did not include such a statement. The ministry confirmed it had provided feedback to "about half of the 80 young people who will deliver speeches", and that they were shifting from the approach used in 2019 and 2022 of livestreaming the speeches to instead sending the recordings to the participants after the event. This was "due to resourcing constraints... the participants are welcome to share this footage with others, and online", the ministry said. Minister for Youth James Meager said the speeches were not censored. "We do not censor the speeches of Youth MPs. We provide feedback, and in some cases suggest changes for them to consider, but we have been clear to all Youth MPs that they make the final decision about the content of their speech." He provided a written statement, much of which matched the ministry's statement word for word. However, the Youth MPs spoke to reporters at Parliament with one - Thomas Brocherie, a spokesperson for Make it 16, a group pushing for a voting age of 16 - saying the approach taken to the speeches was diluting the value of the Youth Parliament. "We have been told to not argue on either side of contentious issues such as the pay equity reforms or the Treaty Principles Bill for the excuse that they are current topics in the current Parliament. This is not just illogical, it is censorship," he said. "We cannot say we value democracy unless we actually show and prove we value democracy. Silencing the stakeholders of the future does not value democracy." Another Youth MP Nate Wilbourne, a spokesperson for Gen Z Aotearoa, said rangatahi were being silenced and censored. "We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticizing certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance. This is fear based control." Brocherie said the emails being titled "changes required" was "not at all a suggestion, that is blatant editing, they want us to change something to suit their purpose, to suit their agenda". Youth MP Lincoln Jones said they were provided with "a PDF of edited changes... delivered to our inbox, and that was the expected requirement, that we speak that speech". "It's honestly like they've gone through with it with a microscope to find any little thing that might be interpreted wrong against, I guess, the current government." Some of them sent responses to the ministry asking for clarification about the changes. "And what did we get? An automatic copy and pasted reply that is not at all in the principles of what Youth Parliament is," Jones said. "They claim to listen to us, they claim to want to uplift us, they send us an automatic copy and pasted response on the thing we have three minutes to speak about. That's not good enough." He said the experience had encouraged him even further to put himself forward to become an MP. "It honestly fuels that fire within me, and I think for all of us to put it out there and to make our voices heard."
