Te Pāti Māori reinvented as self-determination protest movement
Te Pāti Māori is a re-invention of the Māori Party, formed twenty years ago in response to Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed legislation. It entered government with National, serving from 2008 to 2017, with its leaders and senior MPs serving as ministers. The party was voted out of Parliament in the 2017 election, and its seats were recaptured by Labour. This was seen as punishment by Māori voters for serving in a rightwing government and becoming too moderate.
In the 2023 election, Te Pāti Māori regained six of the seven Māori seats, and Waititi’s use of the word “activation” to describe its protests signalled a very different direction for his party while raising questions about the role it could play in a leftwing coalition.
The party's current leadership rejects Parliament as the legitimate sovereign legislating over Māori. Instead, Te Pāti Māori’s role is to challenge the institution's authority and build an alternate political system. Rather than being just another political party in Parliament, it styles itself as a “protest movement inside Parliament”.
The haka initiated by MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, challenging David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, deliberately broke parliamentary protocol. The footage went viral, generating global attention. The purpose was not to debate the law but to challenge the institution’s right to pass it.
Te Pāti Māori is using the resources and power of Parliament to build a nationwide movement
There was a second activation day in May to protest the coalition’s Budget, during which the party declared political independence. Like the first day of activation, this consisted of moderate-sized protests.
But this week’s hikoi mo te tiriti is believed to have been the capital’s largest political protest, with Police estimating the size of the crowd at 47,000. Its key organiser and spokesperson was a parliamentary staffer, Eru Kapa-Kingi, son of Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and a candidate on the Te Pāti Māori’s list in the 2023 election. Parliamentary staffers are supposed to function as public servants supporting legislative functions, but it is routine for political parties to use them as activists within their organisations.
It’s unlikely that any other political party or activist group could arrange a protest event on this scale. Te Pāti Māori’s ability to do so will make National and its coalition partners very nervous about the prospect of escalation. Although the focus of the hikoi was David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, many speakers talked about devolving Māori political power from Parliament. Kapa-Kingi said of his march: “Today, a Māori nation has been born.”
What a “Māori nation” means is yet to be determined, but typically, creating or recognising a “nation” has highly significant constitutional ramifications. The Te Pāti Māori website suggests that it means the establishment of a separate and devolved Parliament, much like that in Scotland, which has significant authority over a specific geographical space.
Labour’s response and problems
Labour’s response to the hikoi has been to endorse it. The leader of its Māori caucus, Willie Jackson, has been a vocal advocate for the movement.
There’s considerable risk in this approach. Jackson’s stated aim in Parliament is to win back the Māori seats, but he may be seen as endorsing the politics of Te Pāti Māori. Public reaction against Labour’s co-governance policies seemed to play a meaningful role in their heavy defeat last year, and centrist voters may switch to National in preference to Jackson’s politics, while more radical Māori voters prefer Te Pāti Māori.
Labour’s opponents will also question the nature of a leftwing coalition containing such a radical movement. New Zealand First and Act are minority parties with politics that are opposed by many voters, but they still support the political system as it currently stands. The Green Party has always presented itself as the anti-establishment alternative to the centre-left politics offered by Labour. It might also lose voters to the more radical vision offered by Te Pāti Māori. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has called on all Māori to sign up to the Māori electoral roll, which could increase the number of Māori seats in Parliament – and her movement’s power base.
National’s immediate problems
National’s problems are more immediate. Seymour’s Principles Bill could win him centre-right voters, but if the debate intensifies, it could also trigger civil disorder. National has agreed to allow the Bill to spend six months in select committee before voting it down at its second reading.
The bureaucratic nature of the committee process may take the heat out of the issue, but both Seymour and Te Pāti Māori have an incentive to amplify the conflict. The Waitangi Day celebrations in early February will be an obvious flashpoint for further activations.
It must be tempting for National to place the House under urgency, progress Seymour’s bill to second reading, and vote it down. But this would put immense strain on the coalition, which is supposed to operate based on good faith and Cabinet consensus. An early election could be provoked, leading to National bleeding votes to Act.
The Integrity of Te Pāti Māori is still under investigation
Te Pāti Māori is a re-invention of the Māori Party, formed twenty years ago in response to Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed legislation. It entered government with National, serving from 2008 to 2017, with its leaders and senior MPs serving as ministers. The party was voted out of Parliament in the 2017 election, and its seats were recaptured by Labour. This was seen as punishment by Māori voters for serving in a rightwing government and becoming too moderate.
In the 2023 election, Te Pāti Māori regained six of the seven Māori seats, and Waititi’s use of the word “activation” to describe its protests signalled a very different direction for his party while raising questions about the role it could play in a leftwing coalition.
The party's current leadership rejects Parliament as the legitimate sovereign legislating over Māori. Instead, Te Pāti Māori’s role is to challenge the institution's authority and build an alternate political system. Rather than being just another political party in Parliament, it styles itself as a “protest movement inside Parliament”.
The haka initiated by MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, challenging David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, deliberately broke parliamentary protocol. The footage went viral, generating global attention. The purpose was not to debate the law but to challenge the institution’s right to pass it.
Te Pāti Māori is using the resources and power of Parliament to build a nationwide movement
There was a second activation day in May to protest the coalition’s Budget, during which the party declared political independence. Like the first day of activation, this consisted of moderate-sized protests.
But this week’s hikoi mo te tiriti is believed to have been the capital’s largest political protest, with Police estimating the size of the crowd at 47,000. Its key organiser and spokesperson was a parliamentary staffer, Eru Kapa-Kingi, son of Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and a candidate on the Te Pāti Māori’s list in the 2023 election. Parliamentary staffers are supposed to function as public servants supporting legislative functions, but it is routine for political parties to use them as activists within their organisations.
It’s unlikely that any other political party or activist group could arrange a protest event on this scale. Te Pāti Māori’s ability to do so will make National and its coalition partners very nervous about the prospect of escalation. Although the focus of the hikoi was David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, many speakers talked about devolving Māori political power from Parliament. Kapa-Kingi said of his march: “Today, a Māori nation has been born.”
What a “Māori nation” means is yet to be determined, but typically, creating or recognising a “nation” has highly significant constitutional ramifications. The Te Pāti Māori website suggests that it means the establishment of a separate and devolved Parliament, much like that in Scotland, which has significant authority over a specific geographical space.
Labour’s response and problems
Labour’s response to the hikoi has been to endorse it. The leader of its Māori caucus, Willie Jackson, has been a vocal advocate for the movement.
There’s considerable risk in this approach. Jackson’s stated aim in Parliament is to win back the Māori seats, but he may be seen as endorsing the politics of Te Pāti Māori. Public reaction against Labour’s co-governance policies seemed to play a meaningful role in their heavy defeat last year, and centrist voters may switch to National in preference to Jackson’s politics, while more radical Māori voters prefer Te Pāti Māori.
Labour’s opponents will also question the nature of a leftwing coalition containing such a radical movement. New Zealand First and Act are minority parties with politics that are opposed by many voters, but they still support the political system as it currently stands. The Green Party has always presented itself as the anti-establishment alternative to the centre-left politics offered by Labour. It might also lose voters to the more radical vision offered by Te Pāti Māori. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has called on all Māori to sign up to the Māori electoral roll, which could increase the number of Māori seats in Parliament – and her movement’s power base.
National’s immediate problems
National’s problems are more immediate. Seymour’s Principles Bill could win him centre-right voters, but if the debate intensifies, it could also trigger civil disorder. National has agreed to allow the Bill to spend six months in select committee before voting it down at its second reading.
The bureaucratic nature of the committee process may take the heat out of the issue, but both Seymour and Te Pāti Māori have an incentive to amplify the conflict. The Waitangi Day celebrations in early February will be an obvious flashpoint for further activations.
It must be tempting for National to place the House under urgency, progress Seymour’s bill to second reading, and vote it down. But this would put immense strain on the coalition, which is supposed to operate based on good faith and Cabinet consensus. An early election could be provoked, leading to National bleeding votes to Act.
The Integrity of Te Pāti Māori is still under investigation
The other uncertainty hanging over Te Pāti Māori is the number of ongoing investigations into its donations and alleged misuse of census data during last year’s campaign. The solicitor-general is looking into the questions around census data, and the Electoral Commission has referred the party’s failure to file an annual financial statement to the police. This week Statistics New Zealand announced that their inquiry, which was originally due to conclude on 31 July, has been extended further, with no final date known.
Te Pāti Māori President John Tamihere has stated publicly that he believes such investigations are politically motivated, saying in June of this year: “The fact of the matter is, as usual Māori are being used as a scapegoat to cover up and deflect from what is really going on in this country. Te Pāti Māori are endlessly attacked, and the matter is being made into a race debate through no fault of our own.”
Suppose Police do decide to prosecute for a breach of the Electoral Act. In that case, they will have to explain why they failed to bring charges against National MP David MacLeod for failing to disclose $178,000 in donations for his election campaign last year, which appeared to be a clear breach of the laws around donations.
Yet, suppose authorities decide that no further action needs to be taken regarding a breach of electoral law. In that case, they will have confirmed that New Zealand’s political parties are above the law, no matter who they claim to represent.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
Te Pāti Māori President John Tamihere has stated publicly that he believes such investigations are politically motivated, saying in June of this year: “The fact of the matter is, as usual Māori are being used as a scapegoat to cover up and deflect from what is really going on in this country. Te Pāti Māori are endlessly attacked, and the matter is being made into a race debate through no fault of our own.”
Suppose Police do decide to prosecute for a breach of the Electoral Act. In that case, they will have to explain why they failed to bring charges against National MP David MacLeod for failing to disclose $178,000 in donations for his election campaign last year, which appeared to be a clear breach of the laws around donations.
Yet, suppose authorities decide that no further action needs to be taken regarding a breach of electoral law. In that case, they will have confirmed that New Zealand’s political parties are above the law, no matter who they claim to represent.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
If TPM rejects Parliamentary sovereignty then why are they there? If their supporters reckon they are sovereign, then why do they vote and how can they receive welfare, health care, education and other benefits due to NZ citizens who are subjects of the Crown and which are 99% paid by pakeha taxpayers? They would also be foreigners outside their tribal boundaries, so those from say Ngapuhi need to say north of Whangarei unless they have a visa, and then if they commit crimes they should be deported there and banned from entering the rest of NZ.
This site has prominently informed the public on the secretive 18 months of negotiations the last Labour Government had with Iwi about implementing Co-Governance and the MSM fairly quiet about that. It is becoming obvious that Iwi will not seek a democratic form of governance. We the taxpayers will be footing the bill for this anti-democratic form of governance.
maybe N and L will eventually combine into a Uniparty. hard to distinguish them anyhow...
Birth of a NEW Maori nation? That means there must have been an 'old Maori nation' which there never was. The Declaration of Independence applied only to North Island tribes while the South Island remained terra nullius. Even the NI scene was not that of a nation as there was no 'federal' government. This is why the 'first nation' approach to pre-1840 NZ is unsupported by the reality.
It's hard to really imagine the type of life pre European Maori had. We know about aspects from what was taught at school, a kind of communal utopia with a few battles, backed up from books, but there's a lot of stuff which went on that some people don't want to mention. People are filling in the gaps.
The moral of the story - if you can leave NZ, do so now.
Good luck.
Post a Comment