Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says she thinks Te Pāti Māori, the Greens, Labour and New Zealand First could work together - forming a four-party coalition government.
“Obviously there’s some things that I could never agree with New Zealand First on; that’s around seabed mining and ruining our environment. But on certain kaupapa, you have to work together,” Ngarewa-Packer told Stuff in a report published on Friday.
Ngarewa-Packer told Stuff while there would be a lot that the four parties would disagree on, she believed they could find enough common ground to govern together.
“It’s no different to marae. You know, we don’t all agree on everything. We come from very different angles, but you do find ways to work together when you focus on who you are working for,” Ngarewa-Packer said.
Te Pāti Māori had a challenging 2025 filled with internal dissent and tensions, which led to Labour leader Chris Hipkins distancing himself from Te Pāti Māori last year. But he hasn't ruled out working with them as polls have shown Labour needs the support of Te Pāti Māori.
Early polling
The first Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll of 2026, released on Thursday, showed Labour ahead of National, and NZ First up strongly.
NZ First was at 11.9%, a jump of 3.8 points from the group’s previous survey. In terms of seats, this meant NZ First would have 15.
Labour had gone up 2.8 points, putting the party at 34.4% - translated into seats, this would give it 43.
In the 2023 general election, NZ First received 6.08% of the party votes, giving it eight seats while Labour secured 26.91% of votes and had 34 seats.
From the Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll numbers - if an election were held now, the current three-party coalition could form a government and a government could also be formed between Labour, the Greens and NZ First.
Both scenarios do not require Te Pāti Māori in a coalition but without NZ First, Labour would need the support of Te Pāti Māori.
Coalition
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said National would be aiming to maximise their party votes but were open to working with his current coalition partners again if he had to.
Luxon has ruled out partnering up with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.
NZ First has worked with Labour in the past and is currently a coalition partner with National and ACT.
But NZ First leader Winston Peters has said he would not work with Labour leader Chris Hipkins.
In an interview with Newsroom at the end of last year, he said: “I made it very clear when I found out after the 2020 election what they’d withheld from me … I looked back and thought to myself, I’m never going to deal with that sort of person again.”
“When you give people that sort of opportunity, which they would have never got, you expect that they can keep their deal and they never did.”
Peters told Newsroom to go ask other political parties whether they’d work with him and his party.
“The last election I was ruled out by everybody else, remember?"
“So I think you should go and ask them, ‘Would you work with New Zealand First?’ Because this will be a very apposite question for them come the ‘26 election.”
The 2026 general election will be held on November 7.
9 Comments
Even as speculation that’s an utter waste of space. Much of the media has spent the last two years trying to prise open supposed cracks in the current government, a coalition of chaos etc. Yet it is in current form, quite stable and exactly how MMP should work. In comparison, a four way mash up, as described here, is simply a farcical prospect. Perhaps the media just yearn for a bigger feeding ground?
I don't understand why you are blaming the media. It was Ngarewa-Packer who made the statement.
Obviously anyone can workout that it will be highly unlikely to happen.
Are you suggesting media only report certain things.
No obviously not blaming the media for making the comment, just asking why they would bother to put wind in the sails of a prospect that anyone can workout will be highly unlikely to happen.
If it helps I will clearly state for you that "the media only report certain things".
You obviously only have a very limited scope when reading the news.
Somewhat self contradictory? Surely the more you read of the news, the more likely you are then able to ascertain what is being left out or downplayed. For instance on here PDK regularly and justifiably decries that feature and nobody could suggest that his scope is limited.
Yeah it's one of those things you could argue around in circles.I just get tired of so called main stream media being accused of reporting or not reporting. Of course outlets have certain slants but if one looks most things are in the news somewhere.
Understand your drift. My beef is the bumph & balderdash that is too often put forward just for sake of space filling or an ego wanting to own a headline. Certainly modern electronic forms of publishing the news have increased the ratio of chaff to the wheat. The old me yearns for the time when columns and articles had to pass by effective editorial staff, be typeset before proceeding to print. That very process, out of necessity, entailed thought, care and accuracy as to the calibre of what was being submitted because then space in a newspaper, was of value.
I Agree
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.