
By Chris Trotter*
How should Labour approach the by-election which must now be held in Tāmaki Makaurau? Occasioned by the death of Takutai Tarsh Kemp, the election to fill her now vacant parliamentary seat poses some sensitive questions for Labour’s leaders – Māori as well as Pakeha. How Chris Hipkins and his colleagues answer those questions will not only have a major impact on their relationship with Te Pāti Māori, but also with the Greens. Is Labour to be their ally – or their competitor?
The path of least resistance for Labour would be to simply not field a candidate against whoever Te Pāti Māori nominated to carry its banner in the by-election. This could be presented as both an acknowledgement of and a tribute to Kemp’s impressive contribution to the Māori communities of South and West Auckland. By effectively handing the seat back to Te Pāti Māori, Labour would be signalling its unwillingness to devalue Kemp’s legacy by forcing an ugly political contest upon constituents still mourning her loss.
Sitting out the by-election would be made an even more attractive proposition if it became clear that Te Pāti Māori’s president (and former Labour MP for Tāmaki Makaurau) John Tamihere, was likely to be its candidate. Going up against Tamihere would involve Labour in a symbolic tussle with more than a local standard-bearer, it would pit the political vehicle of the Centre-Left against the political vehicle of the Tangata Whenua. The loser of that struggle could hardly avoid sustaining serious electoral and ideological damage. The pay-off from Labour being seen to escort Tamihere back to a seat in the House of Representatives – as opposed to humiliating him at the ballot-box – would be substantial.
But, stepping away from the contest, or, even worse, being beaten by Te Pāti Māori, would leave Labour looking weak and lacking in confidence. It would also hand a very large stick to the parties of the Right. A stick they would use to beat Labour with all the way to the 2026 general election. Christopher Luxon, David Seymour and Winston Peters could individually and severally present Labour as a party enthralled to the social-cohesion-dissolving ideas and policies of Māori separatism: a process now so far advanced that Labour is unable and/or unwilling to stand up for a New Zealand composed of equal citizens with equal rights.
This is not a prospect which those Labour MPs determined to present themselves and their party as the “adults in the room” would welcome. These folk are determined to cast Labour as the only political force capable of replacing the National-Act-NZ First Coalition Government with something other than an infantile gaggle of ultra-leftists and ethno-nationalists.
The preferred candidate for this “adult” faction is probably Peeni Henare, the Labour incumbent of 2023 who lost the Tāmaki Makaurau seat to Kemp by just 42 votes. With Henare carrying Labour’s flag, the by-election could be presented as a reclamation. With Henare eulogising Kemp as a “sister” in the Māori cause, reclaiming his old seat could even be characterised as a kind of reconciliation. Henare joining the Te Pāti Māori MPs’ haka at the conclusion of the First Reading debate of the contentious Treaty Principles Bill might also ease locals’ acceptance of Labour’s return.
It is unlikely, however, that Te Pāti Māori will co-operate in such a demonstration of Labour’s “senior partner” status in Māori electoral politics, or, at least, not in the Tāmaki Makaurau seat. In 2026, Te Pāti Māori will be looking to challenge seriously, if not eliminate completely, Labour’s dominance of the Party Vote in the seven Māori seats. In 2023, that dominance was manifested in the 26,645 votes separating the two leading recipients of Party Votes cast by electors on the Māori Roll. Certainly, Te Pati Māori will not want to lose any of the six Māori seats it currently holds. Indeed, it will be looking to claim the one seat left in Labour’s hands, Ikaroa Rawhiti, at next year’s general election. That objective will be much more difficult to attain if, in the meantime, Te Pati Māori loses Tāmaki Makaurau!
There will be activists in both parties who reject entirely the whole idea of Labour and Te Pāti Māori joining hands and singing Kumbaya in a spirit of unity and reconciliation. Labour’s hard-liners are likely to argue strenuously that Labour can only end up being hurt by any widely-shared perception that it is strategically and/or ideologically aligned with Te Pāti Māori.
In particular, Māori voters registered on the General Roll (a choice which points to these electors seeing themselves as New Zealanders first and Māori second) may construe a too-close Labour alignment with Te Pāti Māori (and the Greens) as profoundly threatening to a status quo they strongly support, and decide to cast their votes for one of the right-wing parties. Labour’s hardliners will be quick to point out that their party cannot win unless the voter shift is almost entirely out of National. That will not happen if a majority of the electorate perceives Labour as standing, arms linked, with its radical allies.
Meanwhile, Te Pāti Māori hardliners will be hoping that Labour comes after their party with all its rhetorical guns blazing. Among the young Māori voters they are looking to mobilise, Kumbaya will elicit only eye-rolling disdain. But an angry Labour Party, hell-bent on defending the “white supremacist” legacy of “colonisation”, is more-or-less guaranteed to generate TikTok and Instagram responses powerful enough to get Shane Jones’ “nephs” off the couch.
The hardliners will not want “JT” to run. “Respect, bro, but you’re too old!” They will be looking for the South or West Auckland equivalent of the 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani who last week barnstormed his way to the Democratic Party’s nomination for Mayor of New York City. Someone like their very own Hana Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke whose spine-tingling pūkana from the floor of the House of Representatives went viral across the planet.
The choices which Chris Hipkins and his team will have to make in relation to the forthcoming by-election are daunting. He cannot avoid being guided by Labour’s Māori caucus, which itself cannot avoid being strongly influenced by Willie Jackson. It bears recalling that it was Jackson who masterminded Labour’s reclamation of all seven Māori seats from the Māori Party in 2017. This remarkable result was achieved by Jackson’s laser-like focus on the down-to-earth, bread-and-butter concerns of urban, working-class Māori. If he’s to do that again in Tāmaki Makaurau, he’ll first have to teach his boss how to think and talk like the radicals he has spent the best part of his career driving out of the Labour Party.
Race and class, eh? Can’t win with ‘em, can’t win without ‘em. Order your popcorn now.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
11 Comments
Labour need the Greens and Te Pati Maori in 2026 - and the 3 of them will need to sit down and figure out how to make that work - while holding the center that Chippy is slowly regaining from National.
All 3 should stay laser focused on the economy - the current government have tanked it - against voter expectations we have rising unemployment, record levels of outward migration, record job losses and business collapse in the building and construction sector, falling numbers in manufacturing and services across the entire country.
There remains still the enquiry into questionable conduct at this electorate for the 2023 election. That might have led to a by election on its own the cause of which may have provided Labour with quite a bit of ammo to exploit. But now there is going to be one anyway and for rather tragic reasons. Those reasons will undoubtedly favour a TPM candidate and Labour will struggle to campaign aggressively in the face of that. As the author here identifies Labour is thus in a bit of a quandary. What is not mentioned though is the hangover from 2023 where it was clear that the Labour government was virtually being held to ransom by its Maori caucus and that a continuance in government, requiring coalition with similar elements in the Greens and of course TPM, would resultantly produce an agenda likely laced with racial selectivity. The electorate foresaw this situation, emphatically rejected it and will continue to do so. Labour by not contesting this by-election with any conviction will simply be admitting to and endorsing that very same situation
CT briefly touches on my biggest concerns that are becoming more evident across NZ, that of racial division and the economic destruction of the middle and lower classes over at least the last 40 or so years.
That our politicians fan the flames of division while not presenting plans to undo the economic harm, or rather seek to entrench their own power, privilege and perhaps wealth at the electorates expense.
I don't believe any party is better or worse than the others. They are all in denial of the economic realities the nation faces and the world caused by politics and the limits of physics.
In the end I really don't care who gets the seat. I want to see a plan for the future that offers the children of today, irrespective of their origins, a chance at a decent future.
It would certainly be a refreshing change for one of the major parties to front up with some actual policies to set NZ up securely for the future. Such policies, however, are likely to be unpopular with the voters who refuse to believe that we need to take our medicine in the form of restructured taxation, harsh allocation of resources to needs (as opposed to wants).
But, alas, political parties like to play politics.
I agree, however even if this were to become reality at a central government level, I think a majority of us can still see the lack of core proritisation at local council level in terms of expenditure. Everyone wants low rates, but all the best infrastructure and event centres etc as well. And a core problem being, the lack of transparency in previous expenditure (get your OIA's in people) such as, for example the $563k bike rack in Wellington, the constituents aren't happy with higher rates due to lack of trust for those elected to represent them, to spend it wisely.
Another tiresome race based election looms. No wonder the younger educated are leaving.
I think your judgement of none of them being any worse or better than the others is right, but that median seems to be an awfully low bar, given the lack of competence, or even will, to be constructive with each other.
We seemed to be trapped in unresolvable adversarialism, the undoing of which no party sees as viable in the scramble for differentiation in the minds of the electorate. It's all just so like immature-corporate-branding-zero-sum-game culture and the last thing we need: a divided house cannot prosper.
"... the social-cohesion-dissolving ideas and policies of Māori separatism: a process now so far advanced that Labour is unable and/or unwilling to stand up for a New Zealand composed of equal citizens with equal rights."
Not only Labour: add for eg. academia, the justice, legal, education & health systems, local govt, mainstream media...
"The racist ethnostate that dare not speak its name"
Rational debate will always win against irrational assertion. Keep educated folks, speak calmly and factually, and if we can do so more often then we will all benefit and overcome such foolishness.
The margin in the election was 42 votes, with an "unexpected" result from Manurewa - the base for John Tamehere. It could be a chance for Labour to assert what they do stand for with the electorate, rather than what they rail against. If they don't, their differentiation from TPM will vanish in the minds of so many voters.
Exactly so!
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.