Taonga Placed on Desks in Coordinated Protest at Youth Parliament
By Josephine Lilley, Youth Press Gallery, Youth Parliament 2025
Note: Articles in this newsletter edition were produced by the Youth Press Gallery at various stages of the Youth Parliament 2025 programme. Accordingly, the content presented reflects the context and timing at the date of its original writing.
Tension was running high in the debate chamber during the second round of general debate speeches, when a speech triggered a visual protest among many Māori and Pasifika Youth MPs.
The member who delivered the speech had not been secretive on what it entailed prior to entering the chamber, which was calling for an end of race-based scholarships for Māori and Pasifika students.
“We are fed up, and we are sick and tired of race-based division and treatment, of Māori scholarships, of Pasifika scholarships,” the member said.
This undeniably rubbed the Youth MPs of the Māori and Pasifika caucus the wrong way, with many showing their offense through inaudible grunts and grumbles as the speech began.
Hon Dr Megan Woods’ Youth MP, EJ Coffin, says the speech itself is discriminatory.
“We don’t see these speeches as a personal attack to us… But we see it as a personal attack to our people.”
Coffin says the protest was pre-planned due to murmurs circulating about a mass walkout, and some deciding that this wouldn’t be the best way to showcase their disapproval.
“We agreed as a caucus that we would sit in, but we will put our taonga and our whakapapa on our desks to showcase our protest.”
Almost immediately as the speech began, Māori and Pasifika members began placing cultural taonga, ula, ei katu, and other culturally symbolic items that represent their heritage onto the desks in front of them.
A member of the Youth Press Gallery draped a Tino Rangatiratanga flag over the banister, a symbol Māori identity and unity.
Youth MPs with their taonga. Photo credit: AJ Muliaga, Youth Press Gallery
Coffin says this form of protest was more significant than walking out.
“If we had walked out, that would’ve given him a massive platform, and the articles wouldn’t have been about the protest, they would have been ‘[member]’s speech causes mass walkout’.”
The idea of placing cultural items on their desks was inspired by Coffin himself. Prior to walking out of the chamber during a similar speech the day before, he had placed his ulafala, which had been passed down from his late grandfather, on his desk.
“That was the biggest inspiration for the second day’s protest, was when I put my [taonga] on there when I left the room. I thought, since I’m not going to be here, this is going to be me, this is going to be my representation, this is going to be the representation of Wigram and my family.”
Coffin with his ulafala placed on his desk. Photo credit: AJ Muliaga, Youth Press Gallery
While it is expected of members to remain seated and respectful during another member’s speech, Coffin says it was important for the wider community to be aware of their disapproval of what was said.
“I think it’s important that the disapproval is showcased to a speech, so then our delegates, our electorates as Youth MPs don’t think ‘oh, so you guys support what he is saying?’
Points of order as a form of protest
While this aspect of the protest had been planned ahead of time, the seven Points of Order that were made, causing interruptions that meant it took a total of twelve minutes to get through the three-minute speech, was not.
Coffin acknowledged this.
“This was a big surprise gift from the Green Party Youth MPs. They were just regular youth standing up for what they thought was right. They weren’t aligned, they were just standing up to state that the Points of Order were correct, and the Speaker even addressed it.”
The first Point of Order was raised twenty seconds into the speech, voicing concerns of discriminatory and offensive language.
The Speaker, while acknowledging the controversial nature of the topic, declared it to not be out of order.
“It is something that has come up in this house before, so in terms of the discussion point it would not be deemed out of order.”
However, he expressed that he would be “listening carefully to the member’s speech” to ensure it does not cross over the line into discriminatory language.
As the member continued his speech, he prefaced, “before some people get mad at me, and they are”, which was immediately followed up by a second Point of Order.
“Standing order 121 states that a member may not speak of another member in a disorderly manner.”
While this Point of Order was initially shut down by the Speaker as a personal offense must be directed at a member specifically, another Youth MP followed up with another interjection.
He claimed that while the member did not explicitly state another member’s name, “I’m noticing the use of the term ‘some people’ and looking over at [member], I think that is a personal attack.”
The speaker acknowledged this and ordered the member to “Not direct your comments to any individual in this room.”
These symbolic actions have continued to stir up debate outside of the debating chamber, prompting discussions around the limits of free speech within Parliament, and protest within democratic settings.