In November 2024, New Zealand’s Parliament became the stage for a historic act of defiance when Te Pāti Māori MPs performed a haka during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. This cultural protest, met with harsh suspensions, reignited debates about the legitimacy of colonial institutions and the efficacy of Indigenous participation within them. This analysis explores the incident through dual lenses: the comparative strategy of abstentionism (as seen with Sinn Féin) and an anarcho-communist critique of state power. Both perspectives converge on a central question: Should Te Pāti Māori reject parliamentary engagement to prioritise Indigenous sovereignty and alternative governance?

The Treaty Principles Bill: Colonial Continuity and Resistance

The Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT Party, sought to redefine the foundational principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—New Zealand’s 1840 agreement between Māori chiefs and the British Crown. Critics argued the bill eroded decades of progress on Māori rights, replacing partnership and self-determination with a homogenised vision of “equal citizenship.” The proposal sparked nationwide outrage, culminating in a nine-day hīkoi (protest march) that drew over 42,000 people to Wellington, one of the largest demonstrations in New Zealand’s history.

During the bill’s first reading Te Pāti Māori MPs performed the “Ka Mate” haka, a traditional Māori dance symbolising resistance. MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a copy of the bill, calling it a betrayal of Indigenous rights. The Speaker of the House deemed the protest “grossly disorderly,” suspending co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and Maipi-Clarke for seven days—the harshest penalties ever imposed on sitting MPs.

Parliamentary Decorum vs. Tikanga Māori: Clash of Worlds

The protest underscored tensions between parliamentary rules and tikanga Māori (Māori customs). While Parliament enforces strict procedural norms, Māori political expression prioritises oral traditions, communal debate, and symbolic acts like the haka. Critics condemned the suspensions as suppression of Indigenous voice, highlighting systemic inequities in a colonial institution.

Ngāti Toa chief executive Helmut Modlik defended the haka as a legitimate expression of dissent, arguing that Parliament exists only because Māori chiefs permitted its establishment. Similarly, Waititi emphasised that haka and waiata (songs) are inseparable from Māori political discourse. Yet, the Privileges Committee framed the protest as “intimidating,” revealing the state’s unwillingness to accommodate Indigenous modes of resistance.

Abstentionism: Sinn Féin’s Legacy and Anarcho-Communist Critique

The incident raises the viability of abstentionism - a strategy historically employed by Sinn Féin, who refused to sit in the UK Parliament to reject British authority over Northern Ireland and asserting Irish sovereignty. For Te Pāti Māori, this approach could symbolise rejection of a colonial system that marginalises Māori rights.

From an anarcho-communist perspective, parliamentary systems are inherently oppressive, serving capitalist and colonial interests. Thinkers like Rudolf Rocker and François Dumartheray argued that state institutions co-opt dissent, necessitating alternative structures rooted in mutual aid and direct democracy. Te Pāti Māori’s protest exemplifies the limitations of seeking justice within a framework designed to uphold colonial hierarchies.

Critics may caution that abstentionism risks ceding hard-won political influence. Exiting Parliament would forfeit direct legislative advocacy, potentially leaving Māori rights vulnerable to further erosion under bills like the Treaty Principles proposal. Reduced visibility in national discourse could also marginalise Māori perspectives, weakening public solidarity at a time when broad alliances are critical. Additionally, abstentionism risks misinterpretation by non-Māori voters, who may perceive the strategy as divisive rather than principled, undermining efforts to build cross-cultural understanding. While the symbolic power of refusal is undeniable, the practical consequences of disengagement, particularly in a system where Māori representation remains fragile, demand careful consideration.

However, as proponents of abstentionism, we argue that refusing to engage with parliamentary systems is a radical yet necessary act of sovereignty. By rejecting participation in institutions that suppress Indigenous expression, such as the punitive silencing of Te Pāti Māori’s haka, abstentionism challenges the legitimacy of a colonial framework inherently hostile to Māori rights. This stance aligns ideologically with the broader struggle for Māori self-determination, avoiding the compromises demanded by colonial politics, which often dilute Indigenous demands into palatable reforms. Furthermore, abstentionism could galvanise grassroots mobilisation, mirroring Sinn Féin’s success in Northern Ireland, where refusal to legitimise British rule fuelled support. Anarcho-communist theory bolsters this approach, advocating for the creation of autonomous, Māori-led institutions - such as iwi-run education and healthcare systems - that bypass state control. These dual power structures not only resist assimilation but also embody Indigenous sovereignty in practice, fostering communities rooted in tikanga Māori rather than colonial hierarchies.

Building Alternatives: Dual Power and Indigenous Autonomy

Anarcho-communist thought emphasises dual power - constructing autonomous systems parallel to the state. In Aotearoa, this aligns with Māori traditions of hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe) governance, which prioritise collective well-being over individualism. By strengthening Māori-led education, healthcare, and environmental management, communities can reclaim autonomy while resisting assimilation. Such efforts mirror Sinn Féin’s strategy of building alternative institutions, demonstrating that liberation lies not in reforming oppressive systems but in transcending them.

Conclusion

Te Pāti Māori’s protest and the punitive response it provoked expose the colonial foundations of New Zealand’s parliamentary system. Abstentionism emerges as a compelling strategy, not merely as a symbolic rejection of colonial institutions but as a radical affirmation of Indigenous sovereignty. While critics rightly caution against risks like lost legislative influence and public misinterpretation, the limitations of participating in a system designed to marginalise Māori voices cannot be ignored. Parliamentary engagement, as demonstrated by the suspension of MPs over the haka protest, forces Indigenous leaders to conform to colonial norms, diluting their demands into palatable reforms that fail to address systemic inequities.

By withdrawing from Parliament, Te Pāti Māori could channel energy into building dual power structures, such as Māori-led education, healthcare, and governance systems rooted in tikanga. Prioritising autonomy over assimilation empowers Māori communities to reclaim control over their futures, fostering resilience against state co-optation.

The perceived risks of marginalisation pale in comparison to the long-term potential of cultivating Indigenous sovereignty from the ground up. True liberation lies not in seeking validation from oppressive systems but in creating alternatives that embody Māori values. Abstentionism, therefore, is not surrender, rather it is a revolutionary act of refusal, a declaration that Māori will no longer legitimise a colonial order. By embracing this path, Te Pāti Māori could ignite a transformative movement, proving that the future of Aotearoa rests not in reforming broken institutions but in building anew.

© Scoop Media