Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis – Once a liberal darling and champion of progressive policing, former police commissioner Andrew Coster has gone to ground, his reputation and legacy in tatters.

Coster is on leave from his role as chief executive of the government’s Social Investment Agency after a damning Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report identified “serious misconduct” among the upper echelons of police.

An employment process is now underway with the Public Service Commission.

Speaking at Parliament on Tuesday evening, Attorney General Judith Collins said the IPCA report identified a massive failure of leadership: “If this was me being named in this report, I would be ashamed of myself.”

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said Coster should “be held to account”, and the minister who appointed Coster to his current position, Nicola Willis, said she was “shocked and appalled” by the IPCA’s findings.

Coster has declined to speak to media. A spokesperson provided a brief statement to RNZ: “this is now an employment conversation”.

Coster’s fall …

The IPCA report paints a picture of a group of police executives seemingly blinded by loyalty to one of their own.

Coster and others dismissed repeated complaints from a young woman about former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming over many years, going back as far as 2018, but particularly in 2023 and early 2024.

Neither Coster, nor McSkimming, disclosed the allegations to the Public Service Commission when McSkimming was going through the appointment process for that deputy role in early 2023.

An investigation into the woman’s claims was finally launched in mid-2024, but only after police had already charged the woman with causing harm through the deluge of emails she had sent to McSkimming’s work email.

But the IPCA report said that investigation was not properly conducted and that it was was only notified of the allegations in October 2024.

That same month, Coster wrote to the IPCA to raise concern that its inquiries could “increase Jevon’s victimisation” and harm his chances during the appointment process for the top commissioner job.

Soon after, Coster convened a meeting with key players within police to ensure “natural justice” for McSkimming and to bring the investigation to “a rapid and premature conclusion”.

One staffer told the IPCA: “it was quite clear that [Coster] was very invested in Jevon becoming the next Commissioner.”

The IPCA report said senior decision-makers held “an entrenched view” that McSkimming was a victim rather than offender and were “unduly preoccupied” with protecting his future career prospects.

…after his rise

Coster was appointed as police commissioner in early March 2020, the youngest in the service’s history at age 44.

At the time, then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern commended Coster’s “positivity, inclusion and integrity”.

That word – “integrity” – comes up repeatedly in politicians’ descriptions of Coster.

He had not been considered a frontrunner for the top job, but boasted an impressive resume with considerable leadership experience within the police, as well as in law and with the Ministry of Justice.

Coster quickly got offside with the National Party – then in opposition – clashing with leader Simon Bridges and police spokesperson Mark Mitchell.

Bridges publicly declared Coster to be a “wokester” and suggested he was soft on gangs. Mitchell was openly critical of Coster’s advocacy for a “policing by consent” model.

But after National’s success in the 2023 election, new-prime minister Christopher Luxon took a different position, telling RNZ: “I’m not Simon Bridges, if you haven’t noticed.”

Coster continued with his five-year term as police commissioner, but finished up about six months early to take up a new role as Secretary for Social Investment.

It was seen as a win-win, with Mitchell keen to appoint a replacement more in line with his tough-on-crime rhetoric. In a social media, Mitchell said Coster had “served with integrity” and would be outstanding in the new role.

Social Investment Minister Nicola Willis said she was delighted by the appointment, having seen his “passion” for improving the lives of New Zealanders.

Luxon told reporters Coster had done an “exceptionally good job” as commissioner: “He has delivered big time for us.”

Then-Acting Public Service Commissioner Heather Baggott said Coster was a “proven leader with a pragmatic, realistic and delivery-focused approach to achieving change”.

“He is a highly respected and impressive public service leader who has considerable experience delivering initiatives to address complex social issues.”

Labour was also in favour of the appointment, with Carmel Sepuloni also noting his “integrity” and work ethic.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Chris Hipkins is comfortable being labelled a socialist, saying there is a more active role for the state to play.

It comes after democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the New York mayoralty in Donald Trump’s America.

Hipkins, the leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, told Guyon Espiner on 30 with Guyon Espiner Mamdani’s win showed there was a “big backlash” against the system in the United States.

“At the moment, people feel like the economic system isn’t working for them, and they’re looking for alternatives. We’ve had four or five decades, around the world, now of an economic system that says, ‘Don’t worry about concentration of wealth, eventually that will flow down, everyone will be better off’. And a lot of people are looking at that going, that’s not us. That’s not what we’re experiencing.

“The cost of living is getting more, we’re feeling more marginalised. Economically, our jobs are less secure, and they want something different.”

Despite saying New Zealand was in a “very different” position to the US, Hipkins said Mamdani had identified the modern economy had trended towards far too many monopolies – and New Zealand was seeing the same pressure.

“We have the supermarket duopoly controlling a huge proportion of our food supply. Is that something we can sustain as a small country? No, I don’t think it is.”

Hipkins said the Labour party “absolutely” had further policies coming on how to tackle that.

“We’ll have some further policy around competition, we’ve got some further policy to come on that.”

Hipkins doubled down, telling Guyon Espiner that New Zealand needed to see more competition in a range of areas and food was one of them.

“I’m not announcing any new policy today but yes, we will do more in that area because I don’t think we can sustain what we have now.”

Asked if Hipkins would be happy labelled a democratic socialist – something Mamdani called himself – Hipkins said he did not have a problem with it.

“Social democrat, democratic socialist, variance of the same thing. People who believe there is a more active role for the state? Yes, I do.

“I believe there is a more active role for the state, absolutely.”

As well as competition for supermarkets, Hipkins said Labour would have policies around competition for the four big banks, too.

“I think the profits that we are seeing from the banks, from the supermarkets, from the electricity companies, from some of the insurance companies are a sign that New Zealand doesn’t actually have what the free market is supposed to deliver us – a competitive economy.

“You’ve got some big players who are ultimately able to make very, very large profits, exclude competition from the market and New Zealand consumers and New Zealand citizens are ultimately the ones who pay the price for that.”

Espiner asked Hipkins if the four major banks should be worried if Labour was voted into government.

“I think anyone who is making a large amount of money from monopolistic behaviour should be worried about a future Labour government, because we want to see more choice for New Zealanders. We want to see a genuinely competitive economy. We want to see Kiwis getting a better deal.”

“Breaking up” such large duopolies was a big step to take, Hipkins said, but making sure there was more competition available was where Labour would be active, he said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Gun control advocates have breathed a sigh of relief after the coalition unveiled its long-awaited overhaul of the Arms Act.

The rewrite contains many changes, though most are relatively minor that either tweak or tighten existing gun regulations.

Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee fought to widen access to military-style semi-automatic (MSSAs) firearms but failed.

“The proposal that I took to Cabinet included very strict rules and regulations over who could operate large capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms under strict range conditions but it still was rejected by my Cabinet colleagues.

“I tried, I’m disappointed too, but I wasn’t prepared to hold up the entire Arms Act, to fight over it, when there’s a good win for everybody in it.”

Police Minster Mark Mitchell said National did not want to widen access to semi-automatic guns, even for competitive shooting.

“It is a public safety issue and we don’t see that there needs to be a wider or a broader availability around military-style semi-automatic weapons.”

The ACT Party has invoked the ‘agree to disagree’ clause over the stand off, [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/560619/act-invokes-agree-to-disagree-clause-over-firearms-registry-review

as it did over the firearms registry in May.]

Gun Control co-founder Philippa Yasbek said news the effective ban on military-style semi-automatic firearms had survived the overhaul was a relief.

“McKee has built her entire political career on wanting to get rid of the registry and bring back semi automatic firearms and she’s basically failed on both of those goals.

“So this is quite a big relief and I don’t think there’s any chance of her ever managing to change it again. Souffle’s don’t rise twice.”

Federation of Islamic Association chairperson Abdur Razzaq welcomed the rewrite and said he hoped gun law reform would not be revisited for several decades.

“It seems the trajectory is right. The government has balanced the safety consideration and also the usage of the arms of the licence holders. We are particularly pleased about the MSSAs.”

“One of the key legacies of the 51 shahada was to make New Zealand safe, particularly from the menace of the semi automatic killing machines and it’s good to see that the ACT Party has finally realised, and of course the Prime Minister and Winston Peters, that this is the right way to go.

Council of Licenced Firearms Owners spokesperson Hugh Devereux-Mack said it was disappointing the effective ban on semi-automatics remained intact, though he backed the Minister’s efforts.

“When it comes to semi-automatics, we can understand that there’s no need for the wider New Zealand firearms community to have those but some exceptions for competitive sport shooters or individuals who use firearms for pest control but are not professionals…would be very helpful.”

“We can’t know what happened inside that Cabinet room to know how hard [McKee] fought for this so it’s really hard to comment on her efforts, but knowing that she is an expert in firearms, as well as a former educator, we as a community have to have faith that she did what she could and that they’ve invoked this agree to disagree clause for a reason.”

The legislation will be introduced to the House before the end of the year.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris have delivered their first votes as independent MPs from afar, using the Green Party as proxies.

Speaker Gerry Brownlee opened Parliament’s proceedings on Tuesday – the first sitting day since Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders announced Kapa-Kingi and Ferris’ expulsion.

“I’ve been advised by Te Pāti Māori that their Parliamentary membership has changed, and that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris are no longer members of Te Pāti Māori for Parliamentary purposes,” Brownlee said.

“Accordingly under Standing Order 35.5, those members from 10th of November 2025 are regarded as independent members for Parliamentary purposes.”

Their first vote in Parliament as independents was a procedural one, in opposition to the Leader of the House Chris Bishop calling for extended sitting hours.

With both MPs being absent from Parliament on Tuesday, Green MP Scott Willis acted as their proxy – but not without challenge from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

“I seek leave to see the Green Party whip’s authority for the last four votes that he cast,” Peters said.

“I’m aware that they have the authority,” Speaker Gerry Brownlee said. “I’ve been notified by the members that the Green Party carries their proxy.”

“Yeah, but have you seen them?” Peters pressed.

“I don’t have to see it, I’m allowed to take members at their word,” Brownlee responded.

“Well, that’s a mistake,” Peters said.

“Well, I’ve been giving the member [Peters] the benefit of the doubt for the last couple of years,” Brownlee retaliated.

Regardless, the coalition parties used their majority to push ahead with putting the House into extended hours.

‘Getting the government out’ the priority – Te Pāti Māori co-leaders

Having announced the expulsion the previous day, co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer would not initially engage with questions about the public response.

“I think the priority has always been, as we said yesterday, to focus on this government getting out, and getting into government in 2026 – we remain focused on that.”

She pushed back when asked if they were facing dissent.

“This was a big day yesterday, and our people are allowed to be hurt. They’re allowed to show their disappointment and their confusion,” she said.

“They’re allowed to karanga out to each other – so they should – but what we have to show is the leadership is focused on one thing, and that is to get this government out in 2026.

Labour had earlier linked Te Pāti Māori’s internal ructions to an increased interest in people wanting to stand for Labour in the Māori electorates.

“Well so have we,” Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said when that was put to him.

“There are many people calling now to be part of the movement … everybody knows what we have to focus on, and it’s making sure that this is a one-term government – we must continue to focus on that.”

‘Too early to tell’ if Greens gaining support

On current polling, Te Pāti Māori would need an electorate seat to be returned to Parliament because they fall below the 5 percent threshold needed to enter based on party votes alone.

It was an outcome Labour’s Willie Jackson said he would be “absolutely” comfortable with, but not one Greens co-leader Marama Davidson seemed comfortable with.

“Would we be pleased to see them leave – No! Of course not. We’ve had a really strong working relationship with them, but those choices are up to the people.”

Davidson said it was “too early to tell” if there was increased interest in people wanting to run for the Greens in Māori electorates.

“What I am really pleased about are more and more people, Māori, coming to the Green Party who can see we continue as we always have getting on with the mahi of tiriti justice, of helping people and planet. We’ll keep doing that mahi.”

Likewise, they had not seen comments on social media from Te Pāti Māori voters planning to vote for the Greens.

“Ah, we haven’t been paying a lot of attention – been doing the mahi. But I’m aware that we are here and we’ve always been doing the work, that’s just how it has always been.”

Asked if they, like Labour, would be campaigning hard for the Māori seats, she said they had “always taken those Māori seats seriously and so, you know, let’s wait and see how we go”.

She refused to be drawn on whether their MP Hūhana Lyndon would stand for Te Tai Tokerau, despite saying she was “a formidable presence” in the region and they had heard “long before now” she could win there.

Winning a Māori seat would be “historic” for the Greens, she said, but “let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves”.

“That is a party decision. We’re always going to be proud of Hūhana’s work in the north.”

Many in Te Tai Tokerau “absolutely are really concerned” about their MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s expulsion, she said, but the matter was for Te Pāti Māori to answer to.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Cabinet has signed off on an overhaul of the country’s gun laws that shifts the responsibility of the firearms regulator from the Police Minister to the Firearms Minister.

National and ACT agreed to rewrite the Arms Act – in place since the early 1980s – as part of its coalition arrangement.

The legislation has had many iterations, more recently a ban on semi-automatics and a new firearms regulator, introduced after the March 15 terror attacks.

Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee has been working on rewriting the act to “improve public safety” and make it easier for licensed firearm owners (LFOs) to comply with the law.

Firearms regulator will answer to Firearms Minister

Te Tari Pūreke the Firearms Safety Authority (FSA) was a key part of the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019.

It administers gun laws in the police department and reports to the Police Commissioner.

National and ACT agreed to transfer the FSA “to another department such as the Department of Internal Affairs”, though the FSA is staying with police.

It is being reformed into a new regulator without sworn police officers and headed up by its own chief executive, appointed by the Governor-General.

This new chief executive will report solely to the Minister responsible for firearms, currently McKee, with the Ministry of Justice providing oversight and monitoring.

Tweaks to laws regulating military-style guns

Muslim leaders expressed concern laws regulating military-style guns would be liberalised in the re-write, after both McKee and the Prime Minister refused to rule this out last year.

There are no changes to the very limited number of people who can legally hold these types of guns – ‘endorsed’ pest controllers and collectors – in the overhaul.

The government is extending the duration of a pest control endorsement from 2.5 years to five years, with a mid-term check in to confirm holders’ circumstances haven’t changed.

It’s also giving collectors who own prohibited firearms the option of storing vital parts of a gun (that when removed, disables it) at the address of any licensed firearm owner, not just someone who has the same endorsement.

High-capacity pistol magazines, those with more than ten rounds, will also only be able to be purchased and held by those with a pistol endorsement, effectively closing a loophole in the current system.

Other changes

Other parts of the reforms include automatically disqualifying identified gang members (those on the National Gang List) from holding a firearms licence, preventing them from gaining legal access to guns.

The reforms will also introduce a statutory ‘red flag’ system so police and other agencies can signal to the firearms regulator when they have relevant intel that might trigger a review of whether a LFO remains a fit and proper person.

Penalties for more than 60 Arms Act offences will be increased and eight new offences created, including one that makes it illegal to own a firearm without a serial number.

The new act is also supposed to plug gaps in the law to address new and emerging technologies such as the illegal manufacture of 3D printed firearms and parts, and possession of digital files without a licence.

‘Agree to disagree’ on military-style guns for competitive shooters

A competitive shooter herself, McKee was seeking a carve out for competitors to access military-style semi-automatic firearms.

She’s now confirmed she has failed to find coalition support for this and her party will invoke the ‘agree to disagree’ clause.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday morning, McKee said she was not prepared to “die in a ditch” over it.

“When looking at the bigger picture, I think that we have a lot of really good stuff within this Arms Act and so I was prepared to do the agree to disagree,” she said.

“I tried. I did not succeed there so we had an agree to disagree.”

ACT invoked the ‘agree to disagree’ clause in May, arguing a review of the firearms registry fell short of what was promised in its coalition agreement with National.

McKee reiterated her continuing opposition to the registry today.

“I still do not agree with the firearms registry, especially in its current state. I see lots of problems with it.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

NZ First leader Winston Peters has savaged National’s suggestion of asset sales as a “tawdry silly argument”, which he says it is falling back on after having failed to fix the economy fast enough.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said on Monday he was open to the possible sale of state assets, though he has ruled it out this term.

Winston Peters told Morning Report there was a history of poor choices of asset sales by both Labour and National.

“Because they’ve failed to run the economy properly, they want to go to the assets of a time when the country was run properly, when we were number two in the world and built up by our forefathers and to start to flog those off … to so-called balance their books,” Peters said.

“This is a tawdry silly argument.”

The government had not turned the economy around as quickly as it should have, he said.

“I know it can be turned around, but not with this sort of strategy where you’re not actually fixing the economy, you’re just getting rid of assets.”

Getting rid of assets to balance the books was a mission that was doomed to fail before it even started, Peters said.

There were countries that were being smart in terms of fixing their economies such as Singapore, he said.

The coalition government is exploring the potential sale of its stake in the telecommunications lines company Chorus after investing in the rollout of ultrafast broadband.

The government had invested $1 billion in Chorus’ fibre network. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said has the book value of the debt is $643 million and the government was seeking advice on what potential return it could get.

“This is literally the debt we’re hocking off,” Willis said.

But Peters did not support the idea calling it “creative accounting of the worst sort”.

“You’re selling off a debt on the basis that you’ve got an asset? Why don’t we just make sure that Chorus pays us back.”

Selling assets off was “a tawdry repetition of history” and Treasury was not performing, he said.

“When Treasury get their forecasts so wrong, they need to upskill themselves for goodness sake,” he said.

“We’re talking about a failed economic strategy that Treasury has pushed for a long long time.”

Peters claimed Treasury did not know what it was talking about and it supported a “borrow and hope programme” during the last government which changed the country’s debt ratios.

“I do know what I’m talking about here, I have looked at countries like Croatia, others that are coming around fast who are smart in what they’re doing, Singapore’s classic, Ireland until recently was doing brilliantly, Iceland is doing brilliantly.

“They all understand that if you add value to your asset wealth in the people’s interests the jobs and the income and the wealth will come to your country.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former co-leader of Te Pāti Māori has expressed his sadness and disappointment at the expulsion of two of its MPs.

Te Pāti Māori’s National Council has decided to expel Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris, a decision both MPs said was “unconstitutional”.

The MPs have vowed to challenge the decision, which one electoral law expert said would hinge on whether the party appropriately followed its constitution, particularly its dispute resolution processes.

Representatives from Kapa-Kingi’s electorate Te Tai Tokerau were excluded from voting, following a resolution to ‘reset’ the electorate executive last month.

The electorate executive in Te Tai Tonga, Ferris’ electorate, abstained. Ferris’ social media post claimed the Hauraki-Waikato electorate also abstained.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said that still meant the decision was “without opposition”.

Former co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell said three electorates out of six voting for expulsion was “not consensus”, and he was saddened and disappointed by the outcome.

“There was an element of hope, that the parties would come together and work things out, especially since our constitution talks about decision-making being by consensus, where you work away and try to get to middle ground.”

Flavell said members would expect to see “both sides of the story” first, and for the party to follow a “fair, open, and transparent” process.

“It must have been building for some time. And the downside is it’s so complicated, involving issues of leadership, issues of who said this and who said that, issues of who did this and who did that,” he said.

“And we haven’t necessarily got both sides of the story on the table, and the whole issue investigated to at least determine ‘OK, what have we got here?’ The rhetoric has very much been from one side of the story, and that’s disappointing because you sort of think in the spirit of a fair process and transparency, that all parties get a shot to put their case. That should have, could have, happened at the AGM.”

Flavell said at a time when Māori were facing big issues and looking for someone to challenge and offer alternatives to what the government was doing, the battle had “overshadowed” things, and the negative reaction made him worry about the next election.

“Everything I’ve seen or heard, either social media or personally to myself, has been really negative about what’s going on. And people just want to say come on, come together, show some example, work together, and let’s focus on the big issues that our people face right now.”

Ngāti Kahungunu chair Bayden Barber, who as representative of the National Iwi Chairs Forum had sought to get both factions to a hui this week, said Te Pāti Māori was entitled to go down the path it did under its constitution, but maintained there was still merit in meeting face-to-face.

“What we’ve been hoping and trying to broker between the groups is that hui under our tikanga, on our marae, would be the ideal. It’s not the solution, but it’s a pathway towards reconciliation. So yeah, so this has put a different slant on the context, totally,” he told Midday Report.

What does the party’s constitution say?

Ferris and Kapa-Kingi have rejected the decision, with both saying it was “unconstitutional”.

Kapa-Kingi has vowed to appeal the decision “in all respects,” while according to The Post Ferris was engaging legal counsel.

While the co-leaders said the resolution took effect on Monday, Te Pāti Māori’s consitution allowed a member whose membership has been cancelled to appeal the decision at the next national hui.

That hui is set down for 7 December.

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said such an appeal would hinge on whether the party appropriately followed its constitution in expelling the MPs.

The constitution contains a section on dispute resolution, as well as a clause to cancel membership if the council believed that member had ceased to accept or abide by the constitution.

Geddis said a challenge could come if the MPs did not believe the disputes resolution process was properly used.

“They’ll be saying, well, if you had a dispute with us or thought we were acting improperly, you should have used the disputes resolution process to bring the dispute in front of our electorate committee, and then take it further if need be, and so on, rather than jumping straight to I guess you would call the nuclear option, just kicking us out with no process at all, using this general power to remove membership,” Geddis said.

The co-leaders have not publicly said what the breaches of the constitution were that merited Kapa-Kingi or Ferris’ expulsions, only that the constitution had standards of duty, budgetary responsibility, and behaviour, and that the breaches were “serious”.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi had “absolute confidence” the party had followed its constitution, and insisted every attempt was made to resolve the disputes before the National Council turned to expulsion.

“We have had many a conversation one-on-one, two-on-one, group MP huihuis, we have had interventions, we have had many, many hui to try and get to the bottom of this, and we have come short of a resolution and we have tried our best,” he said.

“When tikanga hasn’t been able to do that, then we turn to the kaua.”

Waiariki missed out?

Questions have also been raised about consultation in the lead up to the National Council hui.

RNZ has seen emails sent to Te Pāti Māori Waiariki electorate members on Wednesday 5 November, alerting them to a meeting on the afternoon of Sunday 9 November, ahead of the National Council that evening.

“In preparation for this National Council hui, we are wanting to meet with our Waiariki electorate to hui in person,” it read.

“We understand the short notice and apologise.

“We hope to see you there.”

Another email seen by RNZ stated it was cancelled because Rawiri Waititi was “unavailable” to attend.

On Friday 7 November, a follow-up notice was sent out cancelling the Sunday afternoon meeting.

“It has been great to have been able to connect with some of our branches this week!” it read, before stating the scheduled in-person hui was cancelled.

“We apologise for any invonvenience in cancelling this hui.”

On Monday morning, an email went out ahead of the 10am announcement, detailing the decision to remove Ferris and Kapa-Kingi from the party.

“Last night the National Council unanimously decided that Takuta Ferris and Mariameno Kapa Kingi were in breach of the Constitution and therefore decided that the appropriate action is the immediate removal of their memberships from Te Pāti Māori.”

It mentioned meeting with all Waiariki branches, despite the in-person hui being cancelled.

“After meeting with all of the Waiariki branches, we wanted to thank you all for the courageous conversations and the unanimous decision to enable our Waiariki Executive to represent Waiariki at the National Council hui held on Sunday, 9th of November.”

RNZ understands members are frustrated at missing out on an opportunity to discuss the decisions.

A Te Pāti Māori spokesperson told RNZ all electorate matters were managed by their respective electorate executives.

“In Waiariki, all branches were consulted prior to the National Council hui.

“The proposed in-person hui was cancelled once branches confirmed they would not be attending, as their positions were already clear and formally communicated.

Will the MPs be waka-jumped out?

The next step is for Te Pāti Māori to inform the Speaker that Kapa-Kingi and Ferris are no longer Te Pāti Māori MPs.

The Speaker then tells the House that the MPs are now regarded as independent members.

That then gives the party an opportunity to use the party-hopping, or waka-jumping, legislation to remove them from Parliament entirely.

That would require the party leaders writing to the Speaker of their belief the MPs were disrupting the proportionality of Parliament.

The legislation requires a party to use all of its internal processes first, with Te Pāti Māori’s constitution allowing for an appeal at the national hui.

Rawiri Waititi said using the legislation had not been a consideration at this stage, and any consideration would be for the National Council.

Since the law was re-introduced in 2018, it has been used once, with the Green Party deciding to expel Darleen Tana in 2024.

Geddis said the Greens had used a process that went above and beyond their own constitution in ousting Tana.

“The Greens actually gave Darleen Tana more natural justice, more of a chance to be heard than the constitution actually required of them. In this case, Te Pāti Māori seems to have used the quickest, neatest, cleanest way to get rid of these MPs.”

In Tana’s case, she had already resigned from the party, while Kapa-Kingi and Ferris have been expelled strongly indicating they want to remain in Te Pāti Māori.

“Here, you’ve got a party that has kicked MPs out, and it’s the party’s action that is going to distort Parliament’s proportionality. And so one of the questions is going to be can you use the party-hopping law against an MP that you have kicked out, thereby distorting proportionality, or do you have to point to something that that MP did that caused you to kick them out and therefore cause the action?” Geddis said.

Who will Labour work with?

Rawiri Waititi said Te Pāti Māori had begun “serious and constructive” conversations with Labour and the Greens.

But Labour leader Chris Hipkins denied that was the case, saying there had been no meetings since September’s Tāmaki Makaurau by-election.

While there had been the occasional chat from time to time, including a courtesy call about the expulsion, Hipkins said there had been nothing on any future partnership or any governing arrangement, and re-iterated his stance that Te Pāti Māori needed to sort through its internal issues first.

“I’d like to see Te Pāti Māori, focused on representing the people who voted for them, showing up in Parliament, constructively participating in debates, coming up with some new ideas. I think those are all things that are opportunities available to them.”

Hipkins indicated he would not meet with Kapa-Kingi or Ferris either, especially if they were challenging the decision to expel them from the party.

“That’s something I’m not getting involved in in any way.”

The Prime Minister called Te Pāti Māori a “joke” and also ruled out working with Kapa-Kingi or Ferris.

“To me, it’s just a sheer soap opera. I don’t want to work with them, I won’t be working with the independents, I won’t be working with Te Pāti Māori, I’m pretty clear about that.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Kadambari Raghukumar produces and presents Here Now, RNZ’s weekly series on people from various global backgrounds living in Aotearoa. Her work in media has taken her from Kenya, to Sudan and across Asia.

Since April 2023, Sudan has been gripped by a brutal civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

What began as a power struggle between two generals has devolved into a horrific humanitarian crisis.

More than 40,000 people have been killed and nearly 12 million people have been displaced.

In 2019 I spent time in Khartoum just days after President Omar Al Bashir’s 30 year authoritarian regime ended, and before the transitional government was put in place.

I distinctly recall a sense of optimism on the streets during the revolution and people saying how it felt like a “freedom festival”.

How did such a hopeful time, seemingly the start of a transition to democracy, turn into the unimaginable violence we are seeing now?

In this week’s episode of RNZ’s Here Now podcast, I speak to Darfuri Aucklanders Fathima Sanussi, Izzadine Abdallah, Hassaballah Hamid and Kaltam Hassan.

Hassaballah Hamid came to New Zealand a year ago through the UN refugee pathway. He’s from Darfur, where in the past few weeks, death and destruction is everywhere.

On Oct 26, the RSF took over Al-Fasher, the last major city of Darfur held by the Sudanese army.

The RSF have killed nearly 2000 people there, while tens of thousands are still stranded the city as the militia seize more territory from the army in the south-west and center.

“This is now beyond tribalism, this is a proxy war on Sudan,” Hamid said.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is widely accused of providing military support to the RSF, but UAE officials deny the allegations despite evidence presented in UN reports and international media investigations.

Famine has gripped the region, a once fertile part of the country known for growing food and pasture lands. While hospitals and schools have been destroyed across the Darfur region.

Over the weekend, Fathima Sanussi, an activist and former refugee from Sudan, organised a solidarity rally in Auckland, calling for an end to the violence.

“I’m from Darfur, it’s more of a reason why this work is so important to me,” she said.

“Right now, with everything that’s happening and being away from home, it allows us to kind of understand the functionality of the way the world works.

“My parents were forcibly displaced. More than ever now, as a Sudanese person and someone that’s particularly from Darfur, I want to be able to go back home one day.”

Darfur is a complex and diverse region where the Fur people, the Masalit and Arab Sudanese have lived for centuries – some semi-nomadic, pastoral communities, others, indigenous to those lands.

Ethnic tensions between what are called Arab and non-Arab groups have simmered for decades in these parts.

Kaltam Hassan and her son Izzadine are Masalit, from Al Genina in Darfur. It’s a region that is familiar with conflict.

In 2003, the Darfur Civil War brought extensive violence to the people of Al Genina, many of whom fled.

Sudan’s vast natural reserves – gold, copper, iron ore, while not the only reason, are said to be one of the major reasons this war has been prolonged and attracted support from external players.

Sudan is Africa’s 3rd largest gold producer and has reserves of iron, uranium ad copper across the country, particularly Darfur and Kordofan.

Fathima said: “It’s not fair that our people have to bear the burden of it all, meanwhile feeding the rest of the world and giving the world luxury goods at the expense of their death.

“The violence in Darfur is a modern-day colonial project. And I think once we start reframing the language of how we start speaking about Sudan is when we’re going to see effective conflict resolution.”

Kaltam Hassan recalls a peaceful childhood and past life in the region, until ethnic tensions spilled over and the Janjaweed militia (from whom the RSF were formed) unleashed violence.

But like others, she also sees external support to the RSF amplifiying the scale of this current conflict.

“What happened in the past, it’s already happened,” Kaltam said.

“But once those people stop funding the RSF, the Janjaweed, then we can figure out how to stop the fighting. But with other people from outside us funding them, giving them more power, it doesn’t matter how much our people are fighting, the problem won’t stop because it’s not just our problem anymore.”

Sudanese across the diaspora wait and watch for the viciousness of this war to end, continuing to wish for a return to how things used to be.

“People in Darfur are agricultural people. If the war stops, all the people even in the refugee camps, they will all go back to Darfur because there’s nowhere like home and they will start growing again.

“And that’s the one thing I want to see, our people going back home and building what’s already been broken down, growing our own food and just living the life that we used to live before all this started” Kaltam said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis: As the Iwi Chairs Forum fought fruitlessly to keep Te Pāti Māori together last week, spokesperson Bayden Barber offered a warning: a split tōtara is only good for the fire.

Now Te Pāti Māori finds itself in an inferno.

The slow-burn conflagration has been smouldering for so long, it’s easy to miss the magnitude. But this is no small matter.

This is a party ousting a third of its caucus, citing “irreconcilable differences” and “serious breaches” of its constitution.

Fronting reporters on Monday morning, co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi wished their former colleagues “all the best of luck” and waved them on their way.

“We had to bring this to a close, and we must move on.”

But that seems overly hopeful. Both Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris were quick to declare the move “unconstitutional” and are threatening to challenge it “in all respects”.

The party’s National Council has also yet to consider whether to invoke the waka-jumping provision and eject the MPs from Parliament altogether.

That would require agreement of the two other remaining MPs – Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and Oriini Kaipara. It’s unclear yet where they stand in all this.

Either outcome is ugly. If the “rogue” MPs remain, they will serve as a constant reminder of division. If they’re booted, two by-elections loom, sure to be bitter and bruising.

At least a public contest might shed more clarity on what’s behind the weeks of infighting, with voters so far largely left in a cloud of smoke.

Asked to clarify on Monday exactly what the MPs had done to deserve expulsion, the co-leaders refused: “You’re not going to get that detail here in this press conference.”

From what has dripped out over the past six weeks, it seems the feud is driven more by personality than principle.

Party president John Tamihere has accused the two MPs of plotting a failed coup. Kapa-Kingi and Ferris have declared no confidence in Tamihere, with their supporters decrying toxic dictatorial leadership.

Supporters are right to feel aggrieved. A year ago, Te Pāti Māori was riding a wave of unity and purpose, as a driving force behind the historic Toitū Te Tiriti hikoi.

It boasted its largest-ever caucus, having swept six of the seven Māori electorates in a dominant 2023 result.

Ironically, the roots of the recent crisis lie in that rapid expansion.

The co-leaders went from being a dynamic duo to overseeing a more assertive caucus and competing egos.

Tamihere, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi are all dominant personalities, used to steering their own course.

But both Kapa-Kingi and Ferris regard themselves as electorate MPs first, answerable to their own people, not to the central hierarchy.

Add in the whānau ties on either side, and the conflict shifts from political to personal.

The co-leaders admit the recent disunity has damaged the party’s brand. The enthusiasm of a year ago has turned to disillusionment, with voters now forced to pick sides or to look elsewhere.

When Hone Harawira split from the Māori Party in 2011 to form Mana, both sides eventually vanished. Harawira was sent packing by voters in 2014, and the rest of the Māori Party followed in 2017.

For the wider opposition, there is good and bad here.

The Labour Party will see an opportunity to win over those disenchanted voters and to retake the Māori electorates amidst a more divided race.

But the wider picture is riskier. Centrist voters may well look at the turmoil on the left and decide to stick with the status quo.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has yet to publicly declare whether he would welcome Te Pāti Māori as part of a future Cabinet.

Those questions will only grow louder now – expanding to include the “rogues”. Where do they stand in any coalition calculation?

The Iwi Chairs Forum had arranged “peace talks” this week, bringing together the two factions at a Wellington marae.

Bayden Barber still thinks that would be beneficial and the co-leaders agree it could still go ahead. But few expect much to come of it now.

The next moment of reckoning may come on 7 December, when members gather in Rotorua for the party’s AGM – and confront how Te Pāti Māori can piece itself together from the ashes.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Te Pāti Māori’s decision to expel two of its MPs leaves it with further decisions to be made.

The decision taken by the party’s National Council overnight means Mariameno Kapa-Kingi will remain as MP for Te Tai Tokerau, and Tākuta Ferris remains for Te Tai Tonga – both as independents with no party affiliation.

Appeals

Under the party’s constitution, the MPs can appeal the decision to end their membership.

The Constitution sets out that the National Council can cancel any membership if it no longer believes the person meets its requirements of:

• Working to support Te Pāti Māori kaupapa and tikanga
• Acting within the party’s constitution
• Abiding by decisions made under the constitution
• Completing official membership forms and paying the appropriate membership fee
• Not being a member of a competing political party or organisation determined to be incompatible with the party

The decision is officially made final at the party’s next national hui – its AGM set down for 7 December – which is also where the MPs can seek to have the decision appealed.

Kapa-Kingi on social media confirmed her intention to appeal. Ferris called the decisions “illegal” and said he rejected them “in the strongest possible terms”.

Also worth noting: co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer confirmed leaking of details to the media was being investigated.

Members found to have broken a ban on sharing information with the media relating to a party dispute process can also be found to have brought the party into disrepute.

A member found guilty off misusing party funds could also be immediately expelled.

‘Waka-jumping’

The party could also seek to invoke the so-called “waka-jumping” or “party hopping” legislation to have Kapa-Kingi and Ferris removed from Parliament entirely.

The leaders on Monday said using the provision had not yet been considered.

Doing so would require the party leaders to write to Parliament’s Speaker Gerry Brownlee to say they believed the MPs were distorting the proportionality of Parliament.

They would need to provide reasoning to justify their claim about the distortion, as well as getting at least two-thirds of the party’s MPs to agree and giving the rogue MPs 21 days to respond – as well as following any relevant party rules.

Because the party’s constitution sets out the process for members’ removal, the requirement to get two-thirds of the party’s MPs to agree to sending the letter does not include Kapa-Kingi or Ferris.

This means – presuming the MPs are ejected at the AGM – the party would be able to use the waka-jumping provisions with support from just three of its four remaining MPs.

Alternatively, Kapa-Kingi or Ferris could choose to invoke the legislation themselves, by writing to the Speaker to notify him of their resignation from the party.

The waka-jumping law was most recently used by the Green Party to eject their former MP Darleen Tana last year.

But it was not used in the case of Meka Whaitiri in 2023 after the then-Labour MP quit the party, because her email of resignation to Parliament’s Speaker was judged not to meet the threshold in the law.

Whaitiri retained her seat as an independent despite announcing her intentions to support Te Pāti Māori. She subsequently lost her Ikaroa-Rāwhiti seat to Labour’s Cushla Tangaere-Manual in the 2023 election.

Ejecting Kapa-Kingi and Ferris would trigger a by-election for the MPs’ electorates.

A by-election would not be held if the MPs are removed less than six months ahead of a general election (or of Parliament’s three-year term ending), but this also requires three quarters of all Parliament’s MPs to agree not to hold the by-election.

If the by-elections went ahead, any party could contest the MPs’ seats.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand