Louisa Wall – Project 2025 Is Silencing Māori Dissent — and It Didn’t Even Start Here

By Louisa Wall – reprinted with permission

In a previous column, I called the proposed suspension of Te Pāti Māori MPs unprecedented, disproportionate, and democratically dangerous. Since then, the debate has been adjourned—but the threat remains, both to Māori political expression and to the democratic integrity of Aotearoa. That threat is no longer just domestic. It is global. And it has a name: Project 2025.

What many New Zealanders may not realise is that Project 2025 is not a product of our own political soil. It is an imported strategy—an authoritarian blueprint crafted by American conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation to pave the way for a second Trump presidency. It is now quietly taking root in our political landscape.

The attempt to punish Te Pāti Māori MPs for a haka protest is not just an internal matter—it reflects a broader, global effort to suppress dissent, erase cultural expression, and centralise power under the guise of order.

Project 2025 advocates for centralising executive power, dismantling institutions of accountability, and promoting a singular national identity—one that flattens diversity and silences opposition. Sound familiar? We’re seeing this logic play out in Aotearoa through an unprecedented push to suspend Māori MPs for a haka protest—a culturally grounded, political act of dissent.

The Privileges Committee’s recommendation to suspend Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 sitting days without pay, and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven, echoes Project 2025’s tactics:

• Suppress dissent that disrupts dominant narratives.
• Reframe cultural expression as disorder.
• Use procedure to punish opposition.
• Promote monocultural identity under the guise of unity and law.

This chilling overreach is not just punitive—it’s ideological.

Waiata and haka are part of our parliamentary tradition, especially during Treaty settlement debates. They are not intrusions—they are expressions of Aotearoa’s dual heritage. The haka performed by Te Pāti Māori MPs was not a breach of order but an affirmation of Indigenous political identity.

Yet, this moment of protest prompted an alarming response. ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar, a member of the Privileges Committee, even raised imprisonment as a possible sanction. That such a notion was entertained—for a haka—should send shockwaves through Aotearoa. It is authoritarianism cloaked in process.

Even more concerning, tikanga expert Professor Sir Pou Temara was denied the opportunity to present evidence. Requests from the MPs for legal representation and a joint hearing were also dismissed. These denials strip the process of fairness and reinforce a growing pattern: use of institutional levers to entrench ideology and silence critics.

Confidence in the process has also been undermined by Committee Chair Judith Collins, who claimed on RNZ:

This is not about haka, this is not about tikanga… After Te Pāti Māori had exercised their right to vote, they then stopped the ACT Party from exercising theirs.”

This is factually incorrect. The ACT Party had already voted. Te Pāti Māori votes last. The haka began only after all votes were cast. No MP was obstructed. Misrepresenting the sequence of events—whether by misunderstanding or bias—casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the Committee’s conclusions.

At best, this was a factual error. At worst, it reveals how political and cultural prejudice may have shaped the Committee’s process and findings.

We must ask ourselves: Why are Māori MPs being punished more harshly than any previous members found in contempt? In 1987, Sir Robert Muldoon was suspended for three days and retained his pay. Now, Māori MPs face far more severe penalties—for performing a haka.

This carries the hallmarks of racialised discipline. Research such as the Lammy Review (2017) in the UK and the Australian Law Reform Commission’s “Pathways to Justice” report (2018) has shown that systemic bias leads to disproportionately harsh penalties for racialised communities, particularly Indigenous peoples. Are we now seeing that same pattern reflected in our own Parliament?

The MPs facing sanctions represent Māori electorates. Silencing them isn’t just a matter of parliamentary order—it disenfranchises thousands of voters and sends a chilling message: Māori dissent is conditional, cultural expression is criminal, and your presence in Parliament is tolerated only if it conforms.

On 5 June, every MP will face a defining choice:

• Will they uphold democratic integrity and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
• Or will they allow Parliament to become a place where Indigenous resistance is punished and authoritarian instincts are normalised?

This is more than a disciplinary issue. It is a constitutional reckoning.

Project 2025 may be an imported ideology, but it has found willing adopters here—those who use process to control speech, who misrepresent facts to justify punishment, and who treat cultural difference as a threat rather than a strength.

We cannot let Aotearoa become a staging ground for authoritarianism.

The punishment of these three Māori MPs is not just symbolic—it’s precedent-setting. It reveals a willingness to suppress dissenting Indigenous voices under the guise of order and discipline.

We must reject both the sanctions and the political ideology enabling them. If we care about our democracy, if we believe in a genuine partnership under Te Tiriti, then we cannot stay silent.

Because if we do, the next voice silenced may not be Māori. It may be yours.