This strategy is described as the party presenting a “small target”. While Hipkins is currently flying a kite about the electoral acceptability of a capital gains tax and has promised to reinstate pay equity legislation and the ban on oil and gas exploration, the public has virtually no idea of what Labour intends in a raft of policy areas, including co-governance.
So far, the “small target” approach has worked. Recent polling has consistently put the two major parties neck and neck. And Labour’s share of the vote has been reliably higher than its disastrous election-night tally of 26.9 per cent in 2023, even though the party is still led by the same man who led it to defeat.
However, as the battle for the Tāmaki Makaurau seat in the by-election on September 6 heats up, serious fissures are appearing in the party’s hide-and-seek approach to announcing what it intends to do if it regains power at the head of a coalition that would undoubtedly include the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.
Last week, at candidates meetings for the by-election, Peeni Henare — an influential member of Labour’s Māori caucus — made several arresting comments.
He assured the audience, for instance, that the gang-patch ban would be repealed. When asked by journalists, Carmel Sepuloni, Hipkins’ deputy, was quick to deny that claim — although she admitted that Labour’s fierce opposition to the bill in Parliament might have given Henare that impression.
And it would certainly be no wonder if Henare was confused about Labour Party policy. In the parliamentary debate over the bill, senior Labour MPs emphasised that gangs are “whānau” and are victims themselves, much like the victims who have endured their violence. In short, Duncan Webb, Willie Jackson, Ginny Andersen and others were basically repeating Jacinda Ardern’s view that “gangs are us”.
Now that Labour has seen how popular the gang-patch ban is — and anxious to avoid accusations of being soft on crime — the gangs appear to no longer be us.
After Sepuloni had gently slapped him down, Henare stood by his initial claim. He did, however, acknowledge he was expressing a personal opinion which was not party policy. But it was clear at the candidates meeting that he was making a campaign pledge his audience will expect to be honoured if he wins the seat.
He also committed Labour to spending $1 billion a year in new money for Māori initiatives if Labour is successful at 2026’s election. When asked if he thought he would be able to secure a billion dollars, Henare replied “most definitely”.
Although that sum might seem outlandish, especially at a time of pressure on the state’s finances, Labour’s Māori caucus achieved a similar result in 2021’s Budget, citing the government’s obligations as a Treaty “partner”.
In May that year, former MP Tau Henare made it clear on TVNZ’s Q&A panel exactly who was calling the shots. Asked by host Jack Tame what he thought about Willie Jackson securing more than a billion dollars for Māori causes, Tau Henare replied: “At the end of the day, what this says is about [Māori] being around the table — in numbers — so that you can say to your mates: ‘Hey, take it or leave it. We can always leave.’”
Interviewed by Mihi Forbes alongside Te Pāti Māori’s candidate Oriini Kaipara, Henare has also confirmed that Labour would relaunch the Māori Health Authority. He said: “I thought we did a reasonably good job at starting to grow what a construct could be to deliver for Māori and for under-served communities. This government obviously wiped those away. My leader is quite clear that we made a commitment to go back to looking towards a Māori Health Authority.”
What exactly that might mean in practice is unclear. However, it is worth remembering that in Andrew Little’s original concept, the Māori Health Authority would have had the power of veto over Health NZ’s plans for the rest of New Zealand — again as an expression of a Treaty “partnership”.
Hipkins needs to make it clear to New Zealanders how much power the Māori Health Authority would have. He also needs to explain what other co-governance policies would be resuscitated.
Peeni Henare announced Labour would reintroduce Jacinda Ardern’s compulsory “Aotearoa New Zealand Histories” programme in schools — which offered a black-armband view of the nation’s history in which Pakeha were demonised as oppressive colonisers and Māori valorised as valiant resisters.
Henare noted Ardern made sure that NZ history would be “taught locally”.
“So the history of Ngāpuhi will be taught to Ngāpuhi tamariki; the history of Tāmaki Makaurau will be taught to our whanau who live here in Tāmaki Makaurau. It is a policy we introduced; this government took it away and we’re committed to doing that again.”
In practice, it meant sometimes unqualified iwi representatives, often relying on oral history, would determine the curriculum for students in their area. Or, in other words, co-governance in education policy.
What does seem quite clear from Henare’s pledges is that Labour’s Māori caucus fully intends to regain the dominant influence it had during the Ardern-Hipkins government of 2017-23.
Unless Hipkins pushes back strongly against that scenario, his chances of becoming Prime Minister will be diminished. But whether such pushback is even possible for him remains moot given it has been observed that Hipkins can only hang onto the leadership as long as he has the support of his Māori MPs.
When Hipkins became Prime Minister after Ardern stepped down in January 2023, Labour was rewarded with a bump in the polls — not least because Hipkins promised a “bonfire” of unpopular policies. Hopes were high that he would jettison co-governance in policy and law, but when it became obvious he had no intention of doing that, the party’s polling plummeted.
It’s difficult to believe that Hipkins’ and Labour’s poll numbers won’t take a similar hit when it becomes clear that co-governance is firmly back on the political agenda. There is every reason to believe that when voters realise Labour is still dedicated to creating an ethno-state that gives inordinate power and preference to one ethnic group its polling will crater.
Hipkins may believe, of course, that many of 2023’s voters who rejected co-governance — including Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority — have had a complete change of heart in the past two years. But such a belief requires a heroic level of optimism. If anything, it has become an even more polarising topic after the fierce debate around the Treaty Principles Bill earlier this year.
Journalists don’t ask Hipkins very often about Labour’s dedication to co-governance and the Treaty as a “partnership” but it is certain to become an area of contention in the 14 months until the election no matter how much Hipkins wants to avoid it. Particularly, of course, if Peeni Henare and his fellow Māori MPs publicly advocate for it.
And given Labour wants to wrest back the Māori seats held by Te Pāti Māori, it will be hard for Hipkins to gloss over co-governance if Labour’s candidates for the seats are trying to match or exceed Te Pāti Māori’s promises. During the debate on The Hui between Henare and Kaipara, she recommended “co-governance right across the board at a local, and regional and national level”.
Henare’s pledges to electors in the Tāmaki Makaurau seat have been described by some commentators as “radical”. While that is true, it is equally true they simply represent the same radical policies Ardern and her Māori caucus foisted on an unsuspecting public after Labour gained an outright majority in 2020.
And the same policies, of course, that were a significant factor in Labour’s crushing defeat in 2023.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
So far, the “small target” approach has worked. Recent polling has consistently put the two major parties neck and neck. And Labour’s share of the vote has been reliably higher than its disastrous election-night tally of 26.9 per cent in 2023, even though the party is still led by the same man who led it to defeat.
However, as the battle for the Tāmaki Makaurau seat in the by-election on September 6 heats up, serious fissures are appearing in the party’s hide-and-seek approach to announcing what it intends to do if it regains power at the head of a coalition that would undoubtedly include the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.
Last week, at candidates meetings for the by-election, Peeni Henare — an influential member of Labour’s Māori caucus — made several arresting comments.
He assured the audience, for instance, that the gang-patch ban would be repealed. When asked by journalists, Carmel Sepuloni, Hipkins’ deputy, was quick to deny that claim — although she admitted that Labour’s fierce opposition to the bill in Parliament might have given Henare that impression.
And it would certainly be no wonder if Henare was confused about Labour Party policy. In the parliamentary debate over the bill, senior Labour MPs emphasised that gangs are “whānau” and are victims themselves, much like the victims who have endured their violence. In short, Duncan Webb, Willie Jackson, Ginny Andersen and others were basically repeating Jacinda Ardern’s view that “gangs are us”.
Now that Labour has seen how popular the gang-patch ban is — and anxious to avoid accusations of being soft on crime — the gangs appear to no longer be us.
After Sepuloni had gently slapped him down, Henare stood by his initial claim. He did, however, acknowledge he was expressing a personal opinion which was not party policy. But it was clear at the candidates meeting that he was making a campaign pledge his audience will expect to be honoured if he wins the seat.
He also committed Labour to spending $1 billion a year in new money for Māori initiatives if Labour is successful at 2026’s election. When asked if he thought he would be able to secure a billion dollars, Henare replied “most definitely”.
Although that sum might seem outlandish, especially at a time of pressure on the state’s finances, Labour’s Māori caucus achieved a similar result in 2021’s Budget, citing the government’s obligations as a Treaty “partner”.
In May that year, former MP Tau Henare made it clear on TVNZ’s Q&A panel exactly who was calling the shots. Asked by host Jack Tame what he thought about Willie Jackson securing more than a billion dollars for Māori causes, Tau Henare replied: “At the end of the day, what this says is about [Māori] being around the table — in numbers — so that you can say to your mates: ‘Hey, take it or leave it. We can always leave.’”
Interviewed by Mihi Forbes alongside Te Pāti Māori’s candidate Oriini Kaipara, Henare has also confirmed that Labour would relaunch the Māori Health Authority. He said: “I thought we did a reasonably good job at starting to grow what a construct could be to deliver for Māori and for under-served communities. This government obviously wiped those away. My leader is quite clear that we made a commitment to go back to looking towards a Māori Health Authority.”
What exactly that might mean in practice is unclear. However, it is worth remembering that in Andrew Little’s original concept, the Māori Health Authority would have had the power of veto over Health NZ’s plans for the rest of New Zealand — again as an expression of a Treaty “partnership”.
Hipkins needs to make it clear to New Zealanders how much power the Māori Health Authority would have. He also needs to explain what other co-governance policies would be resuscitated.
Peeni Henare announced Labour would reintroduce Jacinda Ardern’s compulsory “Aotearoa New Zealand Histories” programme in schools — which offered a black-armband view of the nation’s history in which Pakeha were demonised as oppressive colonisers and Māori valorised as valiant resisters.
Henare noted Ardern made sure that NZ history would be “taught locally”.
“So the history of Ngāpuhi will be taught to Ngāpuhi tamariki; the history of Tāmaki Makaurau will be taught to our whanau who live here in Tāmaki Makaurau. It is a policy we introduced; this government took it away and we’re committed to doing that again.”
In practice, it meant sometimes unqualified iwi representatives, often relying on oral history, would determine the curriculum for students in their area. Or, in other words, co-governance in education policy.
What does seem quite clear from Henare’s pledges is that Labour’s Māori caucus fully intends to regain the dominant influence it had during the Ardern-Hipkins government of 2017-23.
Unless Hipkins pushes back strongly against that scenario, his chances of becoming Prime Minister will be diminished. But whether such pushback is even possible for him remains moot given it has been observed that Hipkins can only hang onto the leadership as long as he has the support of his Māori MPs.
When Hipkins became Prime Minister after Ardern stepped down in January 2023, Labour was rewarded with a bump in the polls — not least because Hipkins promised a “bonfire” of unpopular policies. Hopes were high that he would jettison co-governance in policy and law, but when it became obvious he had no intention of doing that, the party’s polling plummeted.
It’s difficult to believe that Hipkins’ and Labour’s poll numbers won’t take a similar hit when it becomes clear that co-governance is firmly back on the political agenda. There is every reason to believe that when voters realise Labour is still dedicated to creating an ethno-state that gives inordinate power and preference to one ethnic group its polling will crater.
Hipkins may believe, of course, that many of 2023’s voters who rejected co-governance — including Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority — have had a complete change of heart in the past two years. But such a belief requires a heroic level of optimism. If anything, it has become an even more polarising topic after the fierce debate around the Treaty Principles Bill earlier this year.
Journalists don’t ask Hipkins very often about Labour’s dedication to co-governance and the Treaty as a “partnership” but it is certain to become an area of contention in the 14 months until the election no matter how much Hipkins wants to avoid it. Particularly, of course, if Peeni Henare and his fellow Māori MPs publicly advocate for it.
And given Labour wants to wrest back the Māori seats held by Te Pāti Māori, it will be hard for Hipkins to gloss over co-governance if Labour’s candidates for the seats are trying to match or exceed Te Pāti Māori’s promises. During the debate on The Hui between Henare and Kaipara, she recommended “co-governance right across the board at a local, and regional and national level”.
Henare’s pledges to electors in the Tāmaki Makaurau seat have been described by some commentators as “radical”. While that is true, it is equally true they simply represent the same radical policies Ardern and her Māori caucus foisted on an unsuspecting public after Labour gained an outright majority in 2020.
And the same policies, of course, that were a significant factor in Labour’s crushing defeat in 2023.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
6 comments:
People tend to vote for a change in government because of dissatisfaction with the current one, rather than because of evidence that the alternative will be any better. Labour can just sit back and rely on the relentless criticism of the current government in the mainstream media, which many people believe. They can also rely on the propaganda in schools and public authorities that Maori are entitled co-governance under the Treaty and that the country was stolen from them. As to where one billion dollars will come from? Voters don't care.
A fine exposé thanks Graham. It's time that Hipkins and his lot are hounded for details of their intended policies. Unfortunately, most mainstream media will give them an easy ride and let them keep hiding. So how are we to achieve adequate questioning and answers?
Stocogovernance, rather than merely submitting a link to your video presentation please outline in a few sentences what your case is and why we should want to have a look at your video.
MODERATOR
Why does Labour even have a maori caucus? Surely all their MPs should be representing all New Zealanders. It’s as if they have a maori party embedded within Labour - “Malabour” perhaps? Their maori caucus is nothing if not “mal” in its intent to divide and rule. NZ and especially our politicians, public service, media and maori elites, need to grow up and help us to move forward as one nation. The adolescent squabbling, activist exhibitionism and power plays are an embarrassing impediment to our progress. Just look at Port of Tauranga - resource consent halted yet again. It’s our biggest export port. It supports the prosperity of the entire nation. Like spoiled two year olds, Iwi say “no” because they can. Our laws practically encourage them to say no. Madness! Will the new RMA be bold enough to solve problems like this? Having witnessed the TPM debacle, will parliament have the maturity to pass and support an RMA that would be in the best interests of the entire country? If the new RMA is as bold as we need, who will stand up to the misplaced howls of protest and grandstanding primitive hakas in the house? We don’t even have decent debate anymore, just childish displays of emotion.
Thanks again Graham for expressing in writing what many of us have been thinking.
Everyone reading Graham's article should also read from Breaking Views yesterday:
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/08/fiona-mackenzie-councils-hasten-to.html?m=1
"Councils Hasten To Embed Tribal Control" post reinforces Graham's article with the reality of what is already happening behind closed doors.
Soon, living in NZ will no longer be acceptable for most of us until Maori have self destroyed themselves and NZ, and we can return to rebuild after the mess.
Similar to post WW2 Germany.
MfK
Post a Comment