sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Labour’s first and most urgent mission is to knock Te Pāti Māori out of the race, says Chris Trotter

Public Policy / opinion
Labour’s first and most urgent mission is to knock Te Pāti Māori out of the race, says Chris Trotter
Chris Hipkins and Willie Jackson
Chris Hipkins and Willie Jackson

By Chris Trotter*

“Your mission, Mr Hipkins, should you choose to accept it, is to lead Labour to victory in 2026.” Except, as always, the drama of a Mission Impossible movie lies not in the what, but in the how.

Of course Chris Hipkins is willing to lead Labour to a win. The real question is whether or not he is prepared to do what it takes to make the election of a stable and credible centre-left government something more than an impossible mission.

What will it take? Labour’s first and most urgent mission is to knock Te Pāti Māori out of the race.

While the slightest possibility remains that Chris Hipkins and his government could end up being led by the nose by Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Labour’s vulnerability to centre-right attack will be acute. By the time the 2026 election campaign kicks off, therefore, the polls must be showing Labour ahead in most, if not all, of the Māori seats. Te Pāti Māori needs to be fighting for its political life.

In other words, Labour needs to do to Te Pāti Māori in 2026 exactly what it did to the Māori Party in 2017 – drive it out of Parliament. That’s right, in 2017 Labour retook all of the Māori seats. Moreover, by executing that clean sweep it reclaimed its historical position as the pre-eminent guardian of Māori interests.

How was Labour able to do that? An important contributing factor to Labour’s success was the Māori Party’s decision to throw in its lot with John Key’s National-led government. That decision, made first in 2008, and then reaffirmed in 2011 and 2014, was not well-received by a majority of Māori voters, even if, on a seat-by-seat basis, they’d proved willing to keep their  heroes – Tariana Turia, Pita Sharples, and Hone Harawira – in Parliament.

The success of Māori Party candidates was further assisted by the Labour Party’s internal political difficulties. While it remained preoccupied with the question of whether Labour should stick with, or abandon, its neoliberal economic and social policies, there simply wasn’t the sharp political focus required to unseat the Māori Party’s MPs.

That all changed when the then Labour Leader, Andrew Little, parachuted Willie Jackson into a winnable position on the 2017 Party List. Ably assisted by his long-time comrades Matt McCarten and John Tamihere, Jackson devised and was given command of a campaign for winning back the Māori seats.

At the heart of that campaign was a determination to focus on the economic lives of urbanised Māori – especially the material challenges of securing well-paid and secure employment, affordable housing, accessible health-care, and effective educational institutions. By homing in on the class-based, as opposed to the race-based, challenges of urban Māori life, Labour’s message contrasted sharply with the culture-driven policies of the Māori Party. It also reflected back to them what a majority of Māori voters believed Labour should stand for.

That the mainstream news media, firmly in the grip of “Jacindamania”, largely missed what was unfolding in the Māori seats, also helped. Otherwise, questions might have been asked about the profoundly traditional – i.e. socialist – tone of Labour’s message to Māori voters as opposed to its much more conventional pitch to voters on the General Roll.

Can the Jackson Plan of 2017 be repeated in 2026? It can, but only by broadening it out to encompass Labour’s pitch to the voters on both electoral rolls. In developing such a pitch, however, Labour would first have to address, head-on, the problem of “status reversal”. This is what happens when, in the words of political scientist Barbara Walter:

Dominant groups go from a situation where, one moment, they get to decide whose language is spoken, whose laws are enforced, and whose culture is revered, to a situation where they do not.”

Status reversal presents the single biggest obstacle to Labour winning in 2026. If the party is unable to move past it, then voters otherwise persuaded that a change of government would be good for them, at least economically, will continue voting for National, Act and NZ First on the grounds that any government dependent on the support of Te Pati Māori (and the Greens) will necessarily entail the reinstatement and intensification of the policies rejected by the electorate in 2023.

While this remains in prospect, any change of government will be seen by Pakeha conservatives as something much more significant than a simple political defeat for the Right. It will be interpreted as the triumph of “Aotearoa” over “New Zealand”. They will assume that the Sixth Labour Government’s cultural demotion of Non-Māori is about to recommence – and they will not be happy.

The only way to prevent those who deserted the Left in 2023 from engaging in this sort of reasoning is for Labour to promise a general “status advance” for all economically precarious New Zealanders – irrespective of their ethnic, sexual, gender, or cultural identity.

Drawing its inspiration from Jackson’s 2017 campaign in the Māori seats, Labour could reaffirm its traditional priorities of employment, housing, health, education and welfare – presenting them as the indispensable foundations of a secure and happy life.

Certainly, it is hard to take seriously the Treaty of Waitangi’s promise of tino rangatiratanga when you’re shivering in a freezing house, black mould creeping down the walls, and with insufficient funds in the kitty to both pay the power bill and put food on the table.

Rather than allow the Treaty to take on the character of a racially-driven zero-sum game, Labour might highlight the way in which iwi are using their Treaty settlements to foster the sort of social uplift represented by Ngati Whatua’s social insurance scheme. That scheme offers tribal members cover for doctors’ visits, private hospital care, and dental care.

Back in the 1930s, Labour took a local welfare scheme, devised for the workers on the first big hydro-electric project on the Waitaki River, and expanded it into the Social Security Act. Taking inspiration from iwi innovations, and then working out ways to apply them to the whole country, might persuade even conservative Pakeha that te Tiriti and its principles can work for all New Zealanders.

Optimistic, innovative, moderate, credible, stable, and dedicated to making Aotearoa-New Zealand a liveable proposition for more than just those Kiwis who are “sorted”. If Chris Hipkins possesses the vision and guts to revive that version of Labour, then it would soon drive down the support for Te Pati Māori. It might also win back the support of those driven away by the non-traditional policies and dangerous relationships Labour has “progressively” signed up to in lieu of vision and guts.

Certainly, New Zealand has need of imagination and courage. Because, as Tom Cruise’s alter ego, Ethan Hunt, would undoubtedly assert: without vision and guts, all missions are impossible.


*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.

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.

29 Comments

It's a lot simpler than that. If Labour were serious about rejecting TPM they could join with National, ACT  & NZF to abolish the Māori seats in the New Zealand Parliament.

Up
11

At the beginning of Mission Impossible the message on the tape self destructed. Thus does CT unwittingly provide an omen? It seemed very obvious that towards the end, the sixth Labour government was being held to ransom by its Maori caucus. For instance, the attempted entrenchment of the Three Waters legislation was in defiance of cabinet,  and a middle finger to PM Ardern which likely catalysed her departure. Arising from that came the impression that the Labour Maori caucus,  together with TPM would combine with the similar elements in the Greens,  to present a completely dominant bloc in a Labour led government post 2023. This the electorate perceived and emphatically rejected and will surely do so again in 2026. On a final note, strictly as a personal opinion, it simply amazes me that Mr Jackson is not only in parliament but a senior and highly  influential member at that. His broadcast on radio ridiculing the victims of the so called roast busters was vile. Yes, yes apologies flowed soon after like syrupy wine but the question remains as what sort of mind in the first place could not only concoct such an attitude,  but espouse it. It is surely a condemnation of Labour that in its mission to regain the Maori seats it would resort to and promote this type of personality and leadership.

Up
6

Which was meant to happen anyway under the switch to MMP. 

Up
4

and you could always honour Te Tiriti KK, yet here we are.

Up
0

the Maori Seats are nothing to do with the ToW/Te Tiriti (cf. Māori Representation Act 1867). It's well over a century since NZ had universal suffrage.

Up
5

It dos not seem most Maori are very interested in voting TPM.  Labour could take their votes if it showed any competence at ensuing our economic welfare.  It does not.  Nor does much of government.

Chris Trotter is right.  The old addage.  "It's the economy stupid."

Up
6

Correct, I don't vote for them. However, when you have ACT pushing Te Tiriti principles bills you are pushing Maori to become more politically extreme. There are no shortage of Hobsons Law, Tauranga Ratepayers types peddling hate out there.

Up
2

The hate I see coming out of parliament is entirely from the Maori Party. Not ACT.

Up
8

That really depends on your perspective Analyst. Bear in mind, I don't support TPM (except removing GST from food basics).

Up
0

re hate:  Sling off at 'perspective' TK.  But I see and hear what TheAnalyst does, from my actual observation.

Up
2

Red flag. Does not understand gst.

Up
1

I like your idea Chris, of an articulated vision, and a positive one, of a more equitable society.  For me, TPM continue to remind me of the failures in our country.  Perhaps when feeling outraged by something they say, I am reminded of the outrageous things done by the majority of our people to a minority, race, gender, class, age, whatever …Blaming has got Trump, Oban, Farage, Putin a big following. If Labour can broadly address the issues and not go down the victim / blaming path, it could be a winner.  I am reminded that most of the good political changes in NZ have originated from Labour. But that was a party representative of its base, that knew from lived experience the problems of the country.  Perhaps only TPM has those people now 😁

Up
1

I don’t disagree with the origins of the Maori seats nor their presence today. What I suggest  as being unfortunate is that when the Labour Party virtually absorbed them, the purpose and intended voice was dissipated, and ironically even more so when the number of seats was increased from four to seven. That increase guaranteed Labour those seats,  initially at least, and that count was taken for granted. Dame Turiana Turia was in my opinion one of NZ’s greatest parliamentarians. Not long before her passing she spoke of the invitation into the Key/English government and the positive reception and ability to progress her party’s agenda. This suggests to me that if the Maori seats had always been independent, and not closeted in Labour,  there could have been always a role and a voice in all the governments and such a continuation of presence would have not seen the radical and disruptive nature of TPM emerge, as it is today.

Up
4

The polarisation that's going on, driven by extreme views, is priming us for a reactive demagoguery. 

It says something profoundly disturbing about our society's adversarialism and inflexibility that we seem to be unable to talk and negotiate about hard things like adults.

Up
0

Yes, the hope for Labour is to return to championing the dispossessed, the poor, the strugglers: all of them, without pandering to the divisive wokery of ethnicity and gender.

Is Chris Hipkins capable of leading that fight, or is he too much part of the wealthy professional managerial class?

Up
6

Your post sums up Labours true problem, it has lost focus on who the true party followers are.  Unlike the Australian Labour party.

The underlying problem is that cis male center left voters do not like the wokey far left.

The Aussie Labour Party is not a freak show and does not hang out with far left crazies.    NZ Labour is not going to be in government until it appreciates this.   Its going to take a strong leader of principle probably a defeat first and then a win to achieve this, who does Labour have?

Maybe Kieran McAnulty ?

 

Up
2

The Labour party is not labour.  It's the party of student presidents.

Not a hint of change likely

Up
7

Unions have lost control of it.... best they sort that out

Up
3

This would be the same Keiran Macanulty who said: "There are provisions that we have in this country that wouldn’t stand up to a purely academic democratic framework. But that’s not how we work in New Zealand." - right?

https://e-tangata.co.nz/korero/kieran-mcanulty-its-the-right-thing-to-d…

That disinterest in democracy is not so much of an electoral turn-on.

Up
2

I thought it was the strategy for existing Labour Māori seat MPs not to accept list positions and stand in their Māori electorates only that was what made the difference back in 2017;

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/labours-maori-mps-to-run-only-in-their-…

"We are eliminating the two-for-one message because in order to get us into Government you need to be able to vote for our party as well.

Thus giving Willie Jackson and Willow-Jean Prime an ability to come into Parliament on the Party list.

Up
1

If culture war, anti-woke BS is still being used successfully by the right in 2026 I'd be surprised and disappointed. TPM and the Greens - one or both will be needed by Labour to form a government in 2026 - I don't think you can get around that.

Somehow there needs to be some 'wagon circling' going on to try and blunt the attacks and provocation of TPM. Labour need to build credible and defendable coalition of the left before campaigning begins.

 

Up
0

Well the agents provocateurs seem to be led mostly in parliament by David Seymour, Winston Peters and Shane Jones, all of them of course Maori themselves. That in itself is an interesting feature as if nothing else, it precludes the alleged provocation, taunts if you like, from being labelled as racist.

Up
4

Agent provocateur implies rule breaking. You have the rights and obligations of New Zealanders on one hand, and what looks like racist separatism on the other.

Which group is ignoring the rights of the other?

Up
1

Term intended actually more in the sense of enticement. Not unusual in parliament. Responses on a scale vary from no reaction, retaliation or overreaction. From observations though the unruly behaviour by the subject party has more often than not,  been self generated. 

Up
0

"might persuade even conservative Pakeha that te Tiriti and its principles can work for all New Zealanders."

As far as I'm aware there are no principles defined by parliament, only made up ones by the judiciary and possibly the Waitangi Tribunal.

Up
4

I would probably help the Labour Party a great deal if their potential coalition partners (and what feels like a lot of Labour's leadership itself) weren't quite so visibly derisive about, dismissive of, and hostile to, much of Labour's traditional support base. 

Up
2

The real question is, should Labour manage to separate from TPM and get back to their roots:

1./ Would NZ have faith that they could follow through on their promises given their magnanimous failures when they had the majority vote, and

2./ Given Chris Hipkins failures in two portfolios prior to ascending to Prime Minister, and clear need for further skills in fronting the media, would they have a chance with him at the helm.

Many people see the issues currently faced today having stemmed from an artificially inflated society under Labours leadership, and while we all know the RBNZ had a part to play in our current circumstances, alongside supply and oil price shocks, many will never forget the societal unravelling led by the 6th labour government and will not be fooled again no matter what trinkets they dangled to the public.

Up
1

Rather a shrewd tactical thrust by Winston Peters in dismissing any prospect of a deal with Labour while Hipkins is the leader. Firstly, while Hipkins remains,  it dooms Labour to rely on a Greens/TPM combination and secondly should Hipkins depart, Winston can claim to be controlling the Labour Party and calling the shots.

Up
1

Winston recently turned 80 years old. Truly, a testament to healthy living! He will be 84 by the end of the next parliamentary term. If he doesn't make it to the next election then the political landscape will be quite different. 

Up
0