National Party leader Christopher Luxon says he would not be willing to form a coalition with the Māori Party after the October election.
In a press statement on Wednesday, he said the distance between the two parties' policy positions was too wide to bridge.
“Te Pāti Māori of 2023 is a very different party to the one National signed a confidence and supply agreement with three times from 2008”.
Te Pāti Māori reinvented itself after it was tossed out of Parliament in the 2017 election, when Māori voters became fed up with its support of the National government.
When led by John Tamihere and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer in the 2020 election, the party said it was still happy to work with National. But this was never tested, as Labour won an outright majority that year. The Māori Party’s Rawiri Waititi managed a narrow win in the Waiariki electorate and brought his co-leader Ngarewa-Packer into Parliament with him.
In 2021, the party announced its Mana Motuhake Policy which would give Māori more self-determination rights as they understand to have been enshrined in Te Tiri o Waitangi.
This policy included an aspirational goal of forming a Māori Parliament that could govern Māori issues, similar to how the Scottish parliament sits under the United Kingdom’s government.
Other policies are less transformative and more pragmatic. For example, the party supports removing GST from food and paying for the difference with a wealth tax.
Luxon said National was “deeply committed to improving outcomes for Māori, but doesn’t believe separate systems is the best way to do this”.
Snowball’s chance
National ruling out a coalition with the Māori Party could be seen as an attempt to shore up its voter base, which has been leaking into the Act Party.
This week Federated Farmers chairman Andrew Hoggard announced he would stand for Act, despite National being the party which has traditionally represented the farming community.
Current polling shows his party is highly unlikely to be in a position to form a government without support of Act, making a three-way coalition with Māori an improbable outcome.
Te Pāti Māori has previously said it would not be willing to enter a coalition with the libertarian-esque party, which has proposed a referendum to radically redefine the Treaty of Waitangi.
Politik has reported that National Party figures had discussed the possibility of helping New Zealand First back into Parliament to be a coalition partner.
On previous polling, the Labour-Green-Māori coalition would win a majority unless NZ First—which is polling under 5%—was able to win an electoral seat, in which case the outcome would flip to the centre right.
However, a new Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll released Wednesday showed a National and Act coalition in a position to form a government.
The poll had National down 0.9 points at 35.6% but ahead of Labour, which dropped 3.1 points to 33.8%. The Act Party picked up 3.2 points to poll at 12.7%, while the Greens were unchanged.
This result would give the centre-right coalition a slim majority with 62 seats in Parliament, against the left-bloc’s 58 seats. This assumes no other parties won new electorate seats.
Despite improving their share of the party vote, the centre-right party leaders’ favorability scores fell.
Christopher Luxon had his worst favorability rating at -7% and David Seymour fell to -11%.
Chris Hipkins's net favorability score also fell but remained well ahead of the opposition at 22%, although down from a peak of 33%.
Even among National Party voters, Hipkins had a positive rating of 7% compared to Luxon who has a score of -56% with Labour voters.
102 Comments
Logical. No point in trying to catch thistle seeds in a high wind is there. Let the electorate work out for itself what a caterwauling house of chaotic enmity, a civil war at the ready, a Labour/GreensTPM government would present. Hell they can’t even keep it together in their own parties, let alone cooperate with each other.
Ah yes, many remembering the Ardern years and Hipkins months will have already unwaveringly decided and it is reflected in the latest Taxpayer Poll. Luxon’s straightforward unwillingness to powershare with TPM didn’t go down well with the subsidised media either. $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund reaching it’s sell by?
Comrade X as with all of your sometimes non mainstream posts I would never suggest that your post here today to be racist but regrettably, there will soon be, I would predict, many supporters of TPM and similar who will now accuse you of being exactly that. But soldier on, if it’s not true if it doesn’t hurt.
Don't confuse a MHP with Te Pati Māori. One is a healthcare provider providing manaakitanga to anyone who needs it, the other is an incendiary left political party with a bent for provocation that serves it members, not all Māori (just like LAbour, ACT or National couldn't possibly cater for all the needs of Pākehā)
I'm not confusing them , I'm just saying Pakeha use the Maori health services , and I would presume a % would vote TPM .In the same way Maori might vote National or ACT. I was just giving an example of why Pakeha might vote TPM, even if it is for their own benefit(more health service).The original post seem to imply there would be no reason why Pakeha would vote TPM.
I suspect 99.9% of Māori party supporters and members have some level of mixed blood.
Ethnicity: "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent". Even those with 100% descent from Māori will share some cultural background with other ethnicities - cultural aspects such as language, diet, musical instruments and chosen sports. Māori and Pakeha are closer together than either are with many immigrants for example choice of religion or first language.
Incidentally I have a South African friend who always puts down Māori as ethnicity just to screw the system; maybe he votes for them.
This comment may wrongly seem anti-Maori. If I had Māori ancestry, I can easily imagine joining the Māori party and pushing for benefits for all New Zealanders. The other parties aren't.
I applied to become a member of an Iwi singautim. They are stonewalling me as they expect me to provide some written evidence that I have Maori bloodlines. I have explained that my blood lines come from oral history. The Iwi explained that they wouldn't accept oral history as it could be manipulated. Who would have thought?
This story sounds very made up.
They would have asked for that oral history to be communicated, and since you used email that was the medium used.
They also have records of whakapapa, so one can't just fabricate link to tipuna because of 'oral history'
Please, save us watching someone embarrass themselves
The common number quoted is that only around 2% of "Maori" have more than 50% Maori ethnicity. The last 100% Maori is usually said to have gone around 1900 (someone more recently claimed 100% from their DNA test). Therefore the vast majority self identify.
Not dissimilar from myself claiming around 40% Scandinavian 40% UK (Scots), according to my DNA test, presumably from some historical Viking rape & pillage. Despite the fact that my family has been in NZ for around 160 years.
I actually checked that just a couple of days ago - since I was taught in school journals that the last full-blooded Maori had died circa the 1960s.
Apparently, it's not true. However, Ministry of Culture and Heritage denied an OIA request for the information in 2022 (not mine).
I've worked with Maori who had no knowledge of Pakeha in their ancestry - whether that was because there was none, or they simply didn't know, or refused to acknowledge, I couldn't tell you.
My wife is a Melanesian Papuan where her tribe and family have very strong oral traditions and ancestry is considered very important. However there is no memory of any mixed blood but her DNA result said she was two thirds Melanesian and one third unspecified Asian. Probably the oral records were disrupted by epidemics. I've read of an epidemic in the 1890s that killed about 90% of the people speaking her language - that was in a old history book that must have been based on records made by European missionaries or colonial officials in the 1890s. My wife's family have no memory of this epidemic. When an epidemic kills that many people in a short period the survivors may be a mainly mixed-blood children and all the most respected keepers of the oral record might be dead. From my little knowledge of Māori history I suspect much the same would have occurred in NZ.
about 15 years ago I used to work in a government job where a lot of birth certificates came across my desk. A notable number of them were from the era when Māori heritage was measured, and the owner had two parents who were "full blooded Maori". The thing is, the government stopped measuring "blood" in the 1960s so there's every chance there are plenty of "full blooded Māori" out there still. Thy'll know
I dont know about evils, but completely uninspiring, offering no real vision of the future.
They are all partisans with too many advisers looking at sales channels and biggest bang for their buck. No real belief in the sputum that exudes from their facial orifices. Populism at its finest.
I don't think the National Party is much of an improvement on Labour (in some respects, a step backwards) but the recent behaviour of TPM - which would presumably only become worse if they wielded any actual power - and their clear disdain for non-Maori means this Pakeha turkey needs to avoid voting for Kirihimete ... Luxon has just made that choice easy, as either ACT or National will do. Lesser of two evils, and all that.
If I were Chippy, I'd be on the phone tout de suite to Raf Manji to see if they can cook up something in Ilam that might give an alternative and more amenable coalition partner and afford Labour the opportunity to kick TPM to the curb. Sarah Pallet (the Labour electorate MP) seems to have vanished since the election according to some family I have in the area, so it's not like she would be a great loss.
ACT literally had a policy to prevent apartment dwellers in Epsom from the local schools as that may cause rich single house owners to become out of zone. Why would such government intervention be needed?
Not sure what their housing policy is now, but it used to be sprawl only. A true libertarian party would remove the RMA and let anyone build anything anywhere.
Yes, I recall that - the Grammar Zone boundaries were changed as a new apartment block saw a re-drawing of the boundary line in accordance with the amended demographic numbers. ACT got onto the case and the schools put the line back where it was previously - although I think the apartment block also remained within the boundary (as the land had always been within the boundary). ACT's reason for protest was that folks had paid a premium for the houses that had previously been in-zone, so they couldn't have that "property right" taken away. Quite laughable really as being in-zone for a particular school is not a property right. A perfect example of neoliberal, as opposed to classic liberal application of property rights. ACT are the party of 'Freedom to Build' (but not in my backyard).
It's not just 50 story appartments. Act is totally against 5 story houses too, if the developer is Housing New Zealand that is.
>Epsom residents are backing their MP David Seymour after he wrote a letter warning social housing could bring tenants with "mental health issues" into their suburb.
> "These people do need somewhere to live but we have to protect ourselves."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/104131029/epsom-residents-back-david-s…
Honestly, I've never really perceived ACT to be a proper 'Libertarian' party ... it's just a packaging around what is a "more free market than the others and relatively smaller government" party which is most Libertarian in terms of some of its social policy e.g. hate speech legislation and end of life choice.
With a branding/marketing hat on, I'd actually say that any attempts ACT has made to position itself as Libertarian have been detrimental, because it leads to situations where ACT is then called out for doing non-Libertarian things (and I don't think the same is necessarily standard is necessarily applied to other parties or political allegiances) Same as if you claim to lead a life of religious righteousness and purity and then get caught with a vice den in your garden shed, it looks worse than if you never claimed to be perfect in the first place.
The faux-Libertarian aspect doesn't bother me, because I have no interest in voting for a purely Libertarian party anyway. Ideological purity is of no value from my perspective.
Take ram raiding youths. Surely a true Libertarian approach would be to allow dairy owners and vape store clerks to shoot on sight any ram raider, as they've 'violated the NAP' (or whatever the kooky American Libertarians go on about). Spending $500 million on 21st Century borstals is clearly not libertarian and a lot more expensive than allowing the Bottle-O attendant to let 'er rip with an AK47, but as a potential ACT voter I don't actually care - the current government's approach of simply letting wayward youth do whatever they want with zero meaningful consequences (because these kids are typically disadvantaged and inherently young, and therefore cannot be responsible for their own behaviour - but paradoxically can be mature enough to vote) isn't working and at some point I guess you've got to say it's "Libertarian enough" for my neighbour's right not to have his store ram raided again to trump some little thug's right to be given his tenth second chance.
What about planet destroying Epsom residents driving gas guzzling SUVs? Surely a true Libertarian approach would be to allow cyclists to shoot on sight any polluter, as they've 'violated the NAP' (or whatever the kooky American Libertarians go on about). The current government's approach of simply letting wayward polluters do whatever they want with zero meaningful consequences (because these adults are typically advantaged and inherently entitled, and therefore cannot be responsible for their own behaviour - but paradoxically can be mature enough to vote) isn't working and at some point I guess you've got to say it's "Libertarian enough" for my neighbour's right not to have his planet destroyed to trump some big thug's right to drive his SUV.
I must confess I haven't spent much time in Epsom, but if it's anything like the wealthier parts of Christchurch then most of the vehicular pollution is coming from those pesky working poor people passing through in their increasingly clapped out old Nissan Tiidas and Honda Fits, because all the rich people are driving EVs and PHEVs courtesy of generous government subsidies
(I say that slightly tongue-in-cheek, but also seriously. I cycle almost everywhere and the biggest risk of cycling in Fendalton and Merivale isn't the pollution, it's not hearing some whisper-quiet Tesla approaching the intersection).
As a cyclist, your proposed AnCap Ultra-Libertarian Paradise doesn't sound too bad at all! Two ticks JimboJones.
Thanks dumbthoughts. Although I hope you took my point that ACT are really no more libertarian than any other party. ACT would say "we have to be big government on crime because crime is really important", the greens would say "we have to be big government on environment because environment is really important", etc.
ACT are simply the party for the rich who want big tax cuts and rules that suit them. Its fine to be that party, but it would be nice if they didn't pretend otherwise. I might even vote for them if they weren't so deceitful.
You know I think we both agree about what the ACT party is - as my first comment mentioned, I think the faux-Libertarian spin is actually detrimental - but we've just come from different directions.
I personally don't care how a political party brands itself (I mean otherwise NZ First would have to be called Winston First) I think you have to peel back the wrapping and decide if there's something in there for you, your family, or whoever you choose to vote in the interests of.
Same with the older generations who received free education, affordable housing, universal family benefit etc. from their predecessors' taxes. Why do they need to be funded with a universal basic income in their old age? Perhaps getting a job would solve all the old people's problems.
My daughter is in year 13 at a decile 4 school. Loads of her school friends are holding down jobs and trying to get their school assignments done. It is much easier for the rich kids at private school who have mummy and daddy to pay for everything. If they get in a spot of bother, mummy and daddy just send them to another private school. It is hard for young people, particularly Maori. Most of them are law abiding and doing the right thing. Investment in Youth services, clubs and sporting opportunities would be better than a boot camp. Do you thing master Uffindell would have ended up in a boot camp? I doubt it. Most politicians went to private or grammar schools. They have no idea.
That is encouraging to hear. Even Chloe swarbrick was an Epsom Grammar girl. Not many of them went to mainstream lower decile schools and fully understand the challenges that poorer kids face. It is hard to do your homework if you are living in a garage or four in a room. We are quick to judge young people, especially Maori, but it is hardly a level playing field.
"Libertarians" are the only group in politics that gets held strictly to the definition of their descriptor.
It wasn't very Libertarian of them to support vaccine mandates either. Act is a party that holds some Libertarian values, but isnt strictly Libertarian.
Have no idea why this is challenging for people to understand.
There may be a few libertarian policies in the mix, but most policy propositions sit more in the generic right-leaning category.
- ACT is calling for less centralisation and more localism, as opposed to less government altogether
- ACT wants less bureaucracy and more spending on frontline services
- ACT wants government to incentivise better urban planning and less welfare dependency
Lots of noise from TPM right now, with bits falling off the mainstream parties in all directions, with both Labour & the Greens haemorraging. The Greens (groans) are a toxic lot & who knows what's really doing on inside their mushroom right now?
The 6th Labour Govt of NZ have been the worst government I can remember since Rob Muldoon's bad old days (especially towards the end of his time). Although to be fair, Bill Rawlings attempts at governing in the mid 70's was a sorry chapter as well.
There's a lot of talk about how bad all govts have been over the last 40 plus years, which is true, as none of them have understood what really needs to be done to succeed globally as a nation. They have blindly gone about doing what they (idealogically) want to do, which is the epitome of selfishness, sadly.
So here we are 50 years later with huge sections of our people unable to read, write or even listen properly, a million Kiwis born here not currently calling NZ home & with a bunch of muppet politicians that wouldn't know which way was up if they tried. They've got down sorted, however.
God help us.
For access to medicines which have special authority criteria and race based inclusion, PHARMAC state Maori is how you self identify. For nearly 2 years I have been recorded as Maori in my patient notes. This means I would have access to 2 diabetes medicines and the statin of choice which currently I would be denied. Note I require none of the above.
Hi TK. Not sure what you mean by anything more? But, I believe the same goes for filling out the census - no proof necessary, again just a self-identification thing, I think. Same goes for school registrations. We have grandchildren with tribal affiliations and when their Pākehā dad fills out various forms as their care-giver (including medical forms) he's never been asked for proof of their Māori ancestry to my knowledge.
But, if by 'anything more' you mean being placed on a Māori land title - sure, the tribal affiliation I assume would need to be verified by the iwi/hāpu. As it would most likely need to be for the exercise of customary fishing rights.
I'd be keen to learn from you of any other instances where proof or tribal affiliation is needed - as I think we need to consider this for the grandchildren.
Any further comment would be most appreciated. .
On the Maori land register or alternatively a copy of your whakapapa signed by a Kaumatua is sometimes accepted.
It's quite sad how ignorant posters are about Maori geneology, despite living here. Blood and percentages are completely foreign to Maori and you identify yourself as a) ignorant and b) non-Maori by even mentioning it.
Sensible. It’s letting everyone know that a vote for labour, greens or TPM is a vote for a labour, greens, TPM coalition.
It’s kind of why labour is moving more to the right - to snag national voters then go into a coalition with a stronger greens and TPM to drag their decisions and policy back to the left. I don’t like it but I’m worried it will be effective.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank TPM and the Interest readership for their outstanding efforts in getting the interest deductibility rules repealed.
There really hasn't been a better time to be a Maori investment property owner. Cheers to Julian Batchelor, well played son.
I think Māori authorities have always been exempted from those rules;
https://www.ird.govt.nz/property-interest-rules#Acquired%20Date%20For%2…
There are exceptions for close companies that are Māori authorities or wholly owned by a Māori authority.
TOP would restore the interest deductibility rules as well - and similarly I recommended it in my petition on rental market regulation to Parliament;
https://www.top.org.nz/affordable-housing
See heading 'A fair housing market'.
Not that I want to be associated with the Julian Batchelor types by any means :-)!
I don't expect The Maori party to represent anyone bar Maori the same as National represents farmers and business and Labour workers as in their name. How many Maori benefited from Nationals tax cuts and how many took up their allocation of electricity generations shares. My MCY shares bought at $2.30 now worth $6.50.
Yawn, this is arguably the easiest thing he could have done, in fact TPM already said as much weeks ago.
Why this is getting so much airtime is actually people genuinely surprised that Luxon made a (almost) clear decision about something. Its refreshing albeit unusual. Its crazy considering how long he has been in the LOTO position that it has taken this long, but hey here we are.
It is incredibly tight though. 3 headed monster on the left or likely 3 headed monster on the right (Nats, Act & NZF)
Luxon will need to decide soon, does he want to risk a loss or potentially want to lead the weakest National Govt in history, given they will be giving up a third to half of their policy platform and cabinet positions to other parties or does he stand down and let Erica Stanford take over? Erica is impressive and would likely all but guarantee a win for National, with Nats firmly in charge.
I guess the question is, will Chris Luxon be a potential Andrew Little, a Don Brash or a Jenny Shipley.
Whatever happens, it will be interesting times ahead!
Does anyone know (for sure) if the Maori seats are counted in the overall list seat allocation? Jack Tame was hinting on Q&A on Sunday that TPM winning the Maori seats would benefit Labour , as it would produce an overhang, presuming their party vote didn't increase by the same amount.
Maybe Luxon is aiming at Maori thinking they would vote TPM, on the basis they could do a deal with National?
Thanks, yes I know that part , what i was wondering was if the% left to be distributed amongst the parties that get list seats changes. I.e if they get 2 extra seats are the list seats a % of 120 or 122? I guess it would only matter if it was real tight , or they got all 7 Maori seats (unlikely).
But he probably was just meaning the extra seats would be to the benefit of the left block .
I think it’s time to have a talk about Pakeha sharing political power with Maori in Aotearoa in some form. The conversation should be around what form the power sharing will take and should have been agreed to 187 years ago. Using the Treaty as the founding document and where there is total alignment between the Maori and English versions.
It’s about time we acknowledged that TOW is not fit for purpose. No more Maori seats, no more Maori Health Authority, no more ‘cultural reports.’ No more scholarships based on race.
imagine a meritocracy where people were judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin.
The only version that to my mind should be legally enforceable is the Māori version as that's what the rangatira signed. Winston Peters has got that right all along - there are no principles of the Treaty (as determined by the Courts) - there is just Te Tiriti (the contract and it's literal translation into English - which is not what the 'English' version is in my reading).
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.