By Chris Trotter*
Christmas is fast approaching, which, as it does every year, means gearing up for an abstruse general knowledge question. “Who was the first woman elected to the House of Commons?”
My wife, an ardent Irish nationalist, enjoys trapping all those non-ardent Irish nationalists gathered around our Christmas dinner table into volunteering the name of Nancy Astor. Having fallen into the trap, they are then informed that the first woman elected to the House of Commons was the ardent Irish nationalist, Countess Constance Markievicz. As one, all the quizzers reach for their cellphones and Google “Nancy Astor”. Only after a gratifying amount (at least to my wife) of argy-bargy is the dispute settled.
Countess Markievicz was, indeed, the first woman elected to the House of Commons – as confirmed by Wikipedia, which states:
“At the 1918 general election, Markievicz was elected for the constituency of Dublin St Patrick’s, beating her opponent William Field with 66% of the vote, as one of 73 Sinn Féin MPs. The results were called on 28 December 1918. This made her the first woman elected to the United Kingdom House of Commons. However, in line with Sinn Féin abstentionist policy, she did not take her seat in the House of Commons.”
As is still the case today, Sinn Féin candidates, being good republicans, refused to swear allegiance to the British Crown, which meant that, although they had been elected, they could not be seated in the House of Commons – could not become a Member of Parliament.
That’s why my wife’s Christmas Dinner question is a trick question. If she had asked who was the first woman to be seated as a Member of the House of Commons, then all those who answered “Nancy Astor” would have been correct. Nancy Astor was elected to represent the constituency of Plymouth Sutton in 1919, duly swore allegiance to King George V, and thus became the first woman MP to be seated in the House of Commons.
The dubious pleasures of family parlour-games notwithstanding, there is a reason for raising the question of the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance at this time.Tomorrow (5 December 2023) the 54th New Zealand Parliament will be sworn in. Before taking their seats, each and every one of the 123 members of the House of Representatives must, in English or in Māori, swear, or affirm that:
“I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
If they do not so swear, then they cannot take their seats, cast a vote, or be paid. The seats in question are not declared vacant, the people who won them continue to hold them until the House is dissolved. In the interim, they become ghosts in the parliamentary machine.
All of which adds up to a big problem for Te Pāti Māori. Why, because TPM aren’t exactly the biggest fans of King Charles III and his constitutional monarchy. Indeed, in a media statement released on Friday, 1 December 2023, all six TPM representatives declare:
“We do not consent, we do not surrender, we do not cede, we do not submit; we, the indigenous, are rising. We do not buy into the colonial fictions this House is built upon. Te Pāti Māori pledges allegiance to our mokopuna, our whenua, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We will continue to do our best by you, in accordance to our tikanga, amongst the monsters whose portraits still hang on the walls of Parliament.”
Strong words! And there are plenty more.
“Māori owe no allegiance to the genocidal legacy of the British Empire. There is no honour in the Crown. It is tainted with the blood of indigenous nations, and its throne sits at the apex of global white supremacy. To the sovereign of England, we say history will judge whether you have the moral capacity to shoulder responsibility for your family’s heinous legacy. It is beyond you to restore its honour - the harm caused by your Crown is now intergenerational and irreparable. Indigenous blood stains the throne you [sit] on.”
Having eloquently and publicly repudiated everything the Monarch stands for, it is difficult to accept that any Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance subsequently spoken by any signatory to the Te Pāti Māori media statement of 1/12/23 could possibly be uttered in good faith. How could someone “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to what they had, only days before, described as the “genocidal legacy” of the British Crown?
What would happen if the bona fides of an oath offered pro forma and without sincerity was challenged? What if, more honourably, all six elected representatives of TPM simply refused to take the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance?
Several things.
Arguably the most important consequence would be that the number of votes in the House of Representatives would be reduced by six, from 123 to 117. This would, in turn, mean that National and Act, with 60 seats between them, would no longer need the 8 votes of NZ First to secure a majority of the votes cast in the House of Representatives. With a winning margin of just one seat, however, that majority would be rather precarious. So the three-party coalition would, in all likelihood, remain in place – albeit with significantly altered power dynamics.
Another consequence would be the electorate’s radically changed perception of Te Pāti Māori. Like Sinn Féin in 1916, TPM would have proclaimed itself an implacable foe of the British Crown and the political system erected in its name. TPM would no longer be perceived as a “normal” political party committed to upholding the core conventions of New Zealand’s constitutional monarchy.
Like the Irish nationalists of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century, TPM would be seen as actively promoting an independent Māori nation, with its own culture and language, and with its own ideas about how its affairs should be organised. Unlike Sinn Féin, however, TPM cannot simply withdraw to its own island territory, populated overwhelmingly by its own people. TPM represents only a minority of the indigenous minority required to share the same geographical space with the descendants of the “genocidal” colonisers they despise.
If TPM persisted in absenting itself from the House of Representatives (as even today the Northern Irish Sinn Féin representatives absent themselves from the House of Commons) there could be one more serious consequence. Conservative Pakeha, both inside and outside of Parliament, could pose the question: “If those elected to the Māori Seats refuse to take them, then what possible reason could this country have for retaining them?”
It is difficult to imagine Labour being willing to give up the seven Māori Seats without a fight. Rather, the party would condemn TPM for betraying the hopes and dreams of the Māori electors (especially the rangatahi) who voted for them. Chris Hipkins might cut a deal with Christopher Luxon and David Seymour, whereby, if those on the Māori Roll confirmed TPM’s revolutionary nationalist programme at the next election (which could be called at any time) then Labour would raise no further objections to the abolition of the Māori Seats.
There is a great deal more to the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance than confounding the family at Christmas Dinner. If contemporary Māori nationalism has reached the same rejectionist conclusions as Irish nationalism back in the time of Constance Markievicz, then the next step can only be towards violence, and we must prepare ourselves for the same transformation that inspired the Irish nationalist poet, William Butler Yeats, to declare in his poem “Easter 1916”:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
91 Comments
Reposting from Breakfast Briefing
"You can’t have a liberal democracy if two babies born on the same day already are determined to have preexisting grievances against each other.”
Thomas Sowell
Lord Hannan speech (20 minutes): Tribalism vs Liberal Democracy
The problem with TPM is they see Maori as first-class citizens and everyone else as second-class citizens. They believe they have the right to rule over all the second-class citizens and tell them what they can and cannot do, with no recourse. This is how the feudal system operated and was dismissed by the masses and replaced by democracy, with each person having equal rights and responsibilities. Elected officials are held accountable and can be replaced by the population if they fail, or do not meet standards.
TPM want to rule over all New Zealand with no recourse or repercussion to the elite Maori leaders who can dictate over all. It’s the feudal system, we have done this, it is not a world we want to live in any more.
Treaties have a magic effect. Like a public marriage helps keep a relationship rolling along despite the bumps along the way years later. Magna Carta and the US Declaration of Independence have their power and maybe the Treaty of Waitangi can do so too; i.e. be a document that helps bind us together. If it is to succeed then it must be publicly discussed not just left to academics, journalists and judges. Expect an acrimonious debate but that is so much better than re-interpretation by stealth.
A treaty is a form of contract and someone has to have authority to enforce a contract. A system of law that is above the parties who signed.
Interesting. We shall see whether the law is enforced or whether TPM's declarations are just words on a page (ironically, a bit like Te Tiriti, words only to be broken by the proclaimer).
We do need to become a republic as the Oath is indeed antiquated and meaningless. Every one taking it is insincere to my mind. After all, we never joined Britain in the Coalition of the Willing.
We do not need to and should not become a republic Kate. You should sit down and think through the modern separation of monarchy and Government. That coalition you link to is not one driven by the monarchy, but one driven by the governments of the time and politics. A very big difference. I expected better of you.
There's also some interesting information around about the US declaration of independence. Apparently, the objections had by the revolutionaries were more about their unwillingness to accept George III as sovereign than actually wanting to be a republic. Bill Bryson's Made in America is one source:
the DOI indicted only 'the present King of Great Britain.'....'It is not much of an exaggeration to say that one had to be a fool or a fanatic in early January 1776 to advocate American independence.'
Are there somē parallels here?
What did the TPM representatives actually swear? A quick search highlights that the oath of allegiance content to be sworn in to parliament is laid out in legislation. If TPM members refuse to make that oath, then surely they cannot take their seats?
Indeed that content of their statement suggests to me that they are promoting a revolution, a rebellion, which will in all likelihood to some will mean 'by any means'. Look to Trumps words and their consequence in the US to understand how important that is!
I agree with Spike above, who suggests that some Maori would drag us back to an old feudal system where only the elite have rights and the rest just have to do as they are told. Not acceptable.
The only reason Labour was able to fund a campaign in 2017 was because Sir Bob Jones thought that a strong 2 party system would be better for NZ.
After Labours last term that’s never going to happen again
I read that TPM are planning protests against the government tomorrow. I hope they point out that the two parties most keen on renegotiating The Treaty and doing away with dual language and race based policies (ACT and NZF) are led by men of Māori descent. The Pakeha led National party is not so keen to rock the boat. This is as much a conflict of ideas between Māori themselves as it is between Maori and Pakeha. It needs a mature debate rather than hyperbolic protest.
What is integrity? Does it still exist, particularly at the level of the NZ Parliament?
I've separately read the press release.
Today will be an historic day in NZ history for one of 2 reasons:
First, will the TPM members demonstrate integrity (to the assertions in the press release) and refuse to make the Oath?
Secondly, will the NZ Parliament demonstrate integrity by denying TPM members who refuse to make the oath, taking a seat in Parliament?
Interesting times we live in.
Probably to TPM the function is of necessity only, of as little consequence as a potential perjurer swearing on the bible in court although obviously if that is discovered then there are consequences. Be that as it may given the stark contradiction between the declarations made by TPM and the parliamentary oath of allegiance itself, if TPM swear to the latter then that is bare faced hypocrisy.
Why do you think you are entitled to the privileges of office without the responsibilities that go with it. This is not a cafeteria system where you get to pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like, and just give the middle figure because YOU feel entitled.
Charles is not my kind of guy, but I would be happy to swear to as required. Simply put you would be pledging allegiance to the system you were elected to have a major controlling role in.
If you want all that power but take no responsibilities about how it works then f**K off. There are a lot of layers of protection for all of us as part of the system. Don't play with it.
All good really. TPM can NOT now take the oath as they have so publicly abjured it. They then become a nullity within the institution - legally elected but unsworn and therefore NOT members, and not able to participate in any way. Great! Well thought through people - duh. We'll all get on so much better without you - and save money.
I struggle to see how refusing to accept the crown having the authority to govern (and gets to set the rules) and "pledg[ing] allegiance to ... [the] Te Tiriti o Waitangi" works. I think that some legal or moral loophole would be required.
Surely if the elected MP wants to be apart of governing NZ you have be prepared personally submit your self to the rules agreed in the treaty, unless you disagree with the Treaty itself.
Of course if they don't swear the oath that will be all the excuse needed for the current government to remove the seats.
I think the “undeclared war” on Māori by the British crown and government perpetuated by the colonial government is now all of a sudden “declared” finally. Declared in the sense that a greater and greater proportion of the Māori population are learning just what has occurred since 1840. The deliberate and orchestrated impoverishment and repression of the Māori population from then onwards. Better educated Māori youth are learning their shared history and are none too pleased with what they have learnt. So far the learnings have had a generally benign flowering of culture and language. Except these same young people are demanding more from the country to in some way make up for what they have lost and never had. This is the greatest ever challenge facing NZ and has the potential to turn very ugly if handled poorly. Of which I am sure it will be. As evidenced by the new coalition government. The Te Pati Māori stance is simply an early warning shot across the bows. The big unknown is the attitude of the better educated non-Māori population of this country. Especially the youth. How will they respond to Māori demands for being deprived of opportunity since 1840?
"The deliberate and orchestrated impoverishment and repression of the Māori population..."
ah - we can all play the wikipedia game.
I'll take your 2 Uncle Toms and raise you with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Ua_Haum%C4%93ne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Whiti_o_Rongomai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dne_Heke
Well said. If they don't take their seats, that knocks NZ First out of the coalition, effectively. I have a great deal of respect for TPM leadership and direction - they are true representatives of a people scorned. Through the expression of tino rangatiratanga in education we are now getting to a place where Māori youth imbedded in the language and culture understand the history of what was promised; what was stolen; and what was engineered via laws to oppress, alienate, demoralize and deny rights granted by Te Tiriti.
What will the next move(s) be? 200 years is nearly upon us and we remain shackled by ignorance.
But what I don't 'get' is that it is only because of a document signed with the Crown that Māori have been able - through much heartache and struggle - to achieve what they have. Why would they want to deny the Crown that effectively gave them these rights in the first place. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (that which brought the international treaty into domestic law) could be repealed by a simple majority - much easier than the referendum route than ACT has promoted.
Then Māori would be back to throwing eggs at the sovereign and shouting 'Honour the Treaty'. We've come so far from those days.
This coalition looks to be a disruptor like no other gone before. And it does sadden me.
Sometimes a disruptor is needed. MLK was a disruptor. Ghandi a disruptor. It pleases me to see the issues debated so eventually a consensus will form. What has been happening for the two decades since I came to NZ has been divisive and rarely challenged. So much so that one of my bosses who was 1/16th Māori and knew his iwi etc had deliberately not told his daughter that she had Māori heritage. That's sad.
Why sadness Kate? Is it rooted in our forebears riding rough shod over a pioneering treaty based relationship between the indigenous population and the new arrivals (my forebears)?
Or is it rooted in the uncertainty over the trajectory that this long simmering tension creates or coalesces?
Or is it something else?
From my own perspective, my current, comfortable, situation has accrued through generations that have benefited from the actions of those few, powerful actors who orchestrated that circumvention of the treaty.
What would NZ be today if the Crown had instead provided Governor Fitzroy with the police/military support he begged for, to hold the perpetrators of the illegal Wairau massacre (17 June 1843) to account under the newly established treaty based system of law and governance? Rather than sacking him and installing Grey.
Sadness in that I'm proud of what NZ has accomplished since 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was brought into law. With nearly all the historical settlements behind us, I'd have looked forward to further progress on the melding of our two worldviews. Te ao Māori is a national treasure - I recall many years ago when Te Maori the exhibition visited Chicago (my home town) all my friends and relatives were so humbled at the cultural depth and the renaissance that all of NZ was celebrating with the exhibition.
When you grow up in a place that wrote and broke so many treaties with the indigenous peoples and tore apart all those unique ways of life and knowledges, you tend to really admire a society/country that eventually admits its crimes against its first peoples humanity. That to me is what NZ has done since 1975 and the more we strive to reverse the effects of colonisation - the better, more upstanding, we are as a nation.
I find this coalition, which seeks to deny/destroy all that we have achieved since 1975, really sad and really disturbing.
Kate what you and many other commenters don't seem to get is the apparent "attitude" of Governments. This is evident from the very first colonial ones here in NZ. Their persistent attitudes has appeared to be the creation of an elite layer within society. essentially running against the principles of democracy. They began with actively dispossessing Māori of their land. This essentially consigned Māori to the same status of most of the other settlers who came to NZ with little or nothing to their name. Since then the economic policies have been essentially to favour the wealthy. Oh sure they tossed crumbs to the population to suppress dissent to manageable levels, but the long term effect is the same. Those economic policies are not in themselves racist. They have the same impact of anyone who is not able to, for what ever reason, accumulate wealth. And parts of the policies seem to be targeted to actively prevent the accumulation of wealth. A 'principle' of the treaty is 'tino rangatiratanga' or self determination. Maori activists see that as independence from pakeha colonial restrictions, but I see it as every one from the lowest levels being able to earn sufficient living through working to have a decent lifestyle, to be able to make independent choices about how and where they live and all that goes with that. None of the parties seem to driving for that.
"This essentially consigned Māori to the same status of most of the other settlers who came to NZ with little or nothing to their name."
Which is the point. Including my own ancestors who arrived in 1861.
Not that they helped me personally much beyond instilling my work, thrift & other ethics, I started with nothing in full time work age 16 alongside Maori Pacifica & many other ethnicities until I retired 45 years later. We all got paid the same for the same job. Over the years we all made different good & bad choices (eg. in my 30's I went to University for 3 years while still working full time which contributed to my 1st marriage breaking down & my starting with nothing again) & therefore we have achieved different outcomes: that's life.
Which Māori-only programs were those?
We sent our kids to kohanga - no Māori ancestry whatsoever. I was referred to a service delivered by a Māori health provider once - no Māori ancestry whatsoever. I vote in each election at a local marae - no Māori ancestry whatsoever.
What millions of dollars for what "Māori-only" program are you speaking of?
And before you answer, just be aware that Treaty Settlements are not government programs, they are recognition of and compensation for breaches of the law (e.g., theft, murder, wrongful imprisonment and so on).
You are right. There are some minor programs and usually they are repealed when noticed.
I simply cannot understand why there should be a separate Māori health service - we are all human and all Māori are fluent in English. It may have equal expenditure but it doubles the bureaucracy. A separate health service for elderly Mandarin or Cantonese speakers makes more sense. Where they could act is to ensure all museums and art galleries were majority run by Māori; they have 800 years of history in NZ and Pakeha 200 years and the forgotten third are recent immigrants like myself.
Well, after a VERY brief internet search here is one:
"The Mātauranga Māori Te Awe Kōtuku programme provides $24.5 million over three years to fund at least 18 diverse initiatives which will support iwi, hapū, whānau and Māori communities to safeguard at-risk mātauranga." https://mch.govt.nz/covid-recovery/matauranga-maori-te-awe-kotuku.
Referring to my earlier comment, I fail to see how this programme is for “the deliberate and orchestrated impoverishment and repression of the Māori population."??
If you want more examples may I suggest you do a quick google search through objective eyes.
I think the opportunity is there if they take it. My daughter chose not to take Māori scholarships or apply for prioritised entry on university courses, as she felt it should be based on need rather than ancestry.
Lots of bad things happened in the 1800s. Particularly to poor people with land rights. Including the Highland clearances, English enclosures act, Irish potato famine plus many imperial atrocities. We can’t turn the clock back but we can work toward a better future for all.
Well said. When the treaty was signed married English women had no rights; 9-year-old girls would work a seven day (not hour) shift down mines pulling wagons through seams too low for pit ponies. And when at the end of a week they came up to daylight they were criticized for their rudeness where the rope they wore round their waist to pull wagons had worn their trousers at the crotch. Definitely one side signing that treaty was barbarian.
Same with my children.
As Thomas Sowell points out that when he went through University there was no affirmative action so for him to get to where he got, people knew he deserved it and he was given the respect due. However others like him that came soon after and had started studies with no affirmative action but graduated under affirmative action felt the suspicion that people now viewed the value of their educational achievements.
It's easier for Maori in Australia to show their equality by outcome than in NZ.
Most scholarships are based on need (targeting those whose parents/caregivers cannot afford the costs of tertiary education).
Some target ethnicities; some target whakapapa; some target area of study/profession; some target religious affiliation; some target sporting codes; etc. Scholarships are generally privately funded via trusts, not government funded. Trustees reward scholarships based on criteria they set, e.g.,
https://keystonetrust.org.nz/scholarships/
We do not have any affirmative action (by central government decree) that I know of. If we do, it would be interesting to get a link to the legislation that defines and enacts it in law.
.
"We do not have any affirmative action (by central government decree) that I know of. If we do, it would be interesting to get a link to the legislation that defines and enacts it in law."
That's a very disingenuous & wilfully blinkered comment when you know that the decades of institutionalised affirmative action (= racist discrimination) in for eg. academia Medical & Law schools exists only because there is no central central Govt decree specifically preventing it, despite ignoring the Human rights Act & Bill of rights.
Yet.
I think what you are saying is that you believe that the objective of fostering diversity by tertiary institutions runs contrary to the Human Rights Act 1993 and NZBORA.
But the whole idea of fostering diversity aims to counter discrimination, not promote it. For example in health, as a woman I prefer to contract my services to a female GP. Hence, if the medical profession determined that women were underrepresented and looked to boost the number of women enrolling in medical school, are you saying that that would breach one or other of those acts?
From a legal perspective, it is quite the opposite. Seeking to promote diversity in line with the representative population is a duty under those acts, not a breach.
You can write to the Human Rights Commissioner to clarify this.
No, I wouldn't. Female is all I prefer and that's the whole point of diversity and inclusion in any/all professions - the notion that we all have preferences and are able to make choices. That's the definition of a healthy, functioning market.
Not unlike having multiple food stores, supermarkets and farmers markets where we can choose to shop based on our food (or whatever) preferences.
Why should we think any differently regards services?
I'm not prejudice towards male GPs - heck, I'm happily married to a man and have two male children. And neither would I refuse medical care based on any kind of criteria. But, that said, I'm pleased that I have choices.
There really is nothing sinister about it, Dale.
.
Not saying there is anything sinister, but the argument is about equality of outcome to give a faux face of diversity at the expense of having the right qualifications regardless of one's race, gender etc.
Females are already overrepresented in doctors, and nurses. If they got here by equality of outcome it means they are less qualified, if they got there by equality of opportunity, then they are just as well qualified.
But we know there is positive discrimination/affirmative action for Maori medical students in the first year. Thomas Sowell speaks to the devastating effects this has in causing very high failure rates amongst those on affirmation action programs, by mismatching them with their skill level and causing them to fail and making them drop out of the health profession altogether. I personally know of examples. You would have the same result if you did it to any race or culture.
And that is why, in spite of all the good intentions, if you look at the stats., things are getting worse, not better.
Here for example is one part of the Act - the duties and responsibilities of the HR Commissioner, that explains that promoting diversity is a requirement; see section 5(1)c
https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304276.html?…
Exactly. Many Acts and many Commissioner roles have dual/multiple mandates. You imply these conflict with one another? Not according to the Parliaments that passed them.
You really need to give up on this train of thought as it is not the law of the land, as you seem want to push.
The law of the land is quite the opposite - it not only welcomes, but promotes diversity.
For all the bleating going on at TPM & there-about, Maori have had it pretty good over the last 50 years. Tell me of another nation which has done more to redress their shortcomings than the NZ Govt since 1975. We lead the world in this regard, by a long way. It amazes me that so much has been done by so many [the actual govts, their state services, media, education etc.] for so few, over this time, to so little gratitude by the recipients, that it is galling to say the least.
Maori have no idea just how lucky they are. None what-so-ever. They should get out & about & have a look at the reality of all other nations & realise that this sort of thing has been going on since humanity began & that most of it has never been redressed, nor will it ever be. They need some global context which they refuse to consider, as they know damn well that they're on the pigs back. They are just greedy & angry [both of which they were long before the white man arrived I might add] & are playing on our western weaknesses [wokenesses] which are apparent right across the western world, sadly.
I repeat, grow up & be grateful TPM.
My family is from PNG - ancestors from Papua, the Highlands and the Islands. No where on earth is like PNG although the highlands of Irian Jaya share some characteristics.
The British did colonise Papua (very reluctantly) and then handed it over to the Australians. Very little land was alienated but land disputes are very common - sometimes still causing tribal warfare.
My family and I love NZ but it is a very normal dull country compared to PNG. Whoever had colonised NZ would have made little difference. NZ is 814 languages short of PNG and even English and Te Reo are quite similar compared to the variety of PNG languages. The only countries that might be compared to PNG are the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia.
My ancestors shot more Englishmen than Maori by orders of magnitude. For good reason. And there was absolute disadvantage to me directly in early decades right here in New Zealand
But I am a proud New Zealander and proud of our protections and systems. I see it very dangerous if we take the system lightly. I never expect it to give me exactly what I want but it does do balance well. Democracy has to be protected.
If TPM want power but ignorantly screw around New Zealanders protections they are dangerous. No swearing allegiance, then no place in our most powerful body for them.
Frankly I hope they get sent home, there will be a ruckus, and we will deal with it.
“sent home?” It will be more than a ruckus I suggest. First of all if it is intended by TPM to refuse to take the oath then they will have as numerous supporters gathered as possible and in all likelihood a Mexican stand off will result. TPM know full well that they are sidelined for the next three years, sitting in parliament but impotent, therefore disruption offers a definite and provocative means to make themselves heard and if they are dismissed there will be an abundance of listeners and activists at the ready. Wonder if parliament is going to be any better prepared for that, than Ardern’s one was for that protest. History might be in the making, headline - “New Zealand cannot open parliament.” Blimey!
As I said, I really don't support too many of TPM's policies however on this issue they will have widespread support.
Luxon/GG would have to be brain dead to try and force elected Maori MP's to pledge loyalty to the king and crown in threat of losing their seats. It will kick off like nothing you have seen. Get the Army in? 20% of the Army are Maori and that's the 20% you would want on your side.
Well if there is to be a confrontation on this issue would wager TPM have put a great deal more thought and preparation into it than let’s say those bearing the standard of normal parliamentary protocol. In 2020 there was a dispute over the wearing of a tie that then speaker Mallard escalated and then backed off. That was in the face of two TPM members, now there are six and ready with a much larger fish to fry from the look of it.
Turns out there is already precedent for TPM candidates not taking the oath to the Crown, but taking up their seats;
Then there's the issue of the Parliamentary oath - all MPs must do it.
But like Hone Harawira in 2011 and Rawiri Waititi in 2020, Te Pati Māori is refusing.
So, no fireworks tomorrow in the House - all will be seated, I suspect.
TPM is right to remind us all their treatment hasn't been good.
But that was then. This is now.
TPM will slowly pick up more sympathy from the left and middle.
And in the same way National employs ACT to roundup the rightwing fringe, TPM will get to do the same for the left. Doubt me? Look at TPM's economic & tax policies. That Labour would be so bold. While the Greens get to look more reasoned and sensible, and even more mainstream.
The left needs TPM to be the rabble rouser and get people talking about what a fairer NZ looks like. The racists will focus on race and will do damage to the right. Middle NZ will listen and wonder whether TPM maybe has some good ideas.
But they are actively measuring people by whether they are 'Maori' or not. Like or not that is racism.
There are apparently no Maori who do not have some form of non-Maori heritage. But that heritage is conveniently put aside when it suits them.
I'm not disputing Maori have been treated poorly, but anyone from the middle and lower classes can claim the same. But all their rhetoric is about Maori and for Maori, and that too is racist.
They are not "measuring people by whether they are Māori or not". What do you mean by "measuring". They welcomed non-Māori to the action call today, and even thanked them, referring to those participants tangata Tiriti. TPM are a pro-Māori political party, just like the Greens are a pro-environmental party. And there is nothing to prevent someone who does not whakapapa Māori from running in any of the Māori electorate seats.
And, no, Māori do not put aside the other non-Māori ancestors they whakapapa to - even my grandchildren in primary school required the children to write a mihi covering all of their ancestral ties.
I just don't understand where you are coming from, murray. I can understand some envy of Māori in NZ society, as being active in te ao Māori does bring with it such a sense of belonging and community - a bit like being active in a church. or having a very large family around you..
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.