Haka, Hīkoi, and Rolling Eyes: The Fight for Māori Rights
Nearly two centuries after the signing of Te Tiriti O Waitangi, the Treaty Principles Bill puts Māori sovereignty under attack in Aotearoa New Zealand.
By J. Seth Bumagat
Two months ago, as Members of Parliament voted in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke of Te Pāti Māori (The Māori Party) began to perform the haka – a traditional dance of the Māori; the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa. Embodying the strength of her ancestors, she ripped a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill in half and cried, “Ka mate! Ka mate! Ka ora! Ka ora!” (translated as “Is it death! Is it death! Is it life! Is it life!”). This impassioned act of protest was met with solidarity by fellow Members of Parliament and observers in the gallery who joined the haka. But Maipi-Clarke’s protest was not supported by all, like Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, who rolled his eyes in exasperation; a stark contrast that reflects the long history of Māori resistance against British colonialism.
This moment is symbolic of a historic period in Aotearoa. Since the election of a right-wing, three-party coalition government led by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in 2023, the country has veered away from the progressive policies of former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government and towards several conservative policies which undermine Māori rights and sovereignty. Policies which reduce the use of te reo Māori (the Māori language) in public services and the dismantling of Te Aka Whai Ora (The Māori Health Authority) – which was created to improve Māori health and address inequities – are only a few examples.
At the heart of the latest attack on Māori rights is the Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT Party, a member of the governing coalition. The bill seeks to legally define the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi), a foundational document signed in 1840 between the Māori peoples and the British Empire. Two versions of the Treaty – one in English and the other in te reo Māori – were created, leading to differing interpretations. The Māori version contained specific language stating that the Rangatira (Māori Chiefs) allowed British settlers to create their own government in Aotearoa so long as they did not impede on Māori sovereignty. But the English version implies that Rangatira fully ceded sovereignty to the Crown.
Differing interpretations led to numerous Crown breaches of the Treaty which resulted in decades of Māori protests and disputes. It was not until the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act that the Government of New Zealand acknowledged their wrongdoings by creating the Waitangi Tribunal, a body with the exclusive right to investigate inquiries of Crown breaches of the principles Te Tiriti O Waitangi. It is in this Act where the concept of the “principles” of the Treaty were mentioned but never defined, resulting in flexible interpretations.
The lack of legal definitions is why the ACT Party proposed the Treaty Principles Bill. Party leader David Seymour has framed the legislation as a way of bringing true equality to New Zealand. He argues that a lack of legally defined Treaty principles have led to differing rights for the Māori peoples and for settlers, which is unjust and unreflective of the values of liberal democratic societies. It is in this vein that supporters of the bill believe that defined principles which observe all New Zealanders as equal under the law – whether you are Māori or not – are essential. This is demonstrated by one of the proposed principle definitions which states, “Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.” While the definition seems to be in good faith, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The definition uses the virtue of equality as a façade for an attack on Māori rights and ignores systemic injustices. Another proposed principle definition states, “The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws.” This definition eliminates existing co-governance mechanisms between the Māori and the Government of New Zealand, arguably removing any semblance of Māori self-determination.
Critics, including the Waitangi Tribunal, have condemned the bill for its attempt to erode progress that the country has made in reconciling the Crown’s historical wrongdoings. Nationwide demonstrations have occurred in response, including a 9-day hīkoi (march), which saw tens of thousands of Māori and allies peacefully marching in protest across the country before culminating in front of the Parliament’s doorstep. While the bill passed the first vote due to the coalition agreement the ACT Party has, the two other parties in the coalition – National and New Zealand First – are expected to vote in opposition of the bill in the following stages of the legislative process due to its unpopularity and the social movement it manifested.
History is repeating itself in Aotearoa. From Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s haka to the peaceful hīkoi, these powerful acts of protest and unity echo the historic courage of the Māori peoples. They are calls to action for all citizens to be champions of justice and hold the government accountable. The fight goes beyond protesting an unjust bill – it is about honouring the legacy of Te Tiriti O Waitangi and preserving the sovereignty of the Māori people.
At the same time, this is also a moment to reflect on the progress in reconciliation that Aotearoa has made by embracing Māori culture as a cornerstone of its national identity. By standing together now, Aotearoa New Zealand can continue to be a global example of how societies can respect and celebrate Indigenous peoples and their culture.
J. Seth Bumagat (he/him) is a Production Editor at The Bell from Edmonton, Alberta. Prior to settling in Canada, he spent his early childhood growing up in Aotearoa New Zealand where he, like any other good Kiwi, gained an appreciation for Maori culture and environmental protection. Having recently graduated as a chemical engineer, he aspires to address issues at the forefront of engineering, environment, and public policy.