Oriini Kaipara seeks TPM candidacy for Tāmaki Makaurau by-election
The seat has been vacant following the death of MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp last month.
Kaipara, who was most recently a presenter for Newshub, shared the announcement on social media. The announcement does not mean Kaipara is the candidate for the party.
'Kua eke te wā. It's time,' she wrote in an Instagram post.
Te Pāti Māori has launched a process to select its candidate to run in the Māori electorate with expressions of interest closing on Wednesday and a selection hui held this Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
A date for a by-election to fill the vacant seat has not yet been announced.
1News understands other candidates are likely to throw their hat into the ring to become Te Pāti Māori's candidate in the by-election.
Labour MP and former Tāmaki Makaurau seatholder Peeni Henare has not yet said whether he will choose to contest the seat for his party.
Kemp narrowly defeated Henare after a recount of votes at the last election.
Kaipara (Tūhoe, Ngāti Awa, Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Rangitihi) worked for over two decades as a broadcaster, including for Whakaata Māori and TVNZ. She made headlines in 2019 for becoming the first person with moko kauae to present a mainstream news bulletin.
Kemp had been on dialysis as she battled kidney disease. (Source: 1News)
After leaving the media in 2023, she became the NZ Olympic Committee's Pouwhiringa Māori culture lead and worked as a public speaker, according to her LinkedIn profile.
ADVERTISEMENT
If a Te Pāti Māori candidate wins the byelection, the party keeps its total at 6 MPs.
But if Henare — who is already a list MP — stands and wins the seat for Labour, then he becomes an electorate MP and therefore his party would be able to bring their next person on the list who is Georgie Dansey. Labour would go from 34 to 35 seats.
If another party wins the race, there would be no change to the overall number of MPs.
In all scenarios the number of MPs in Parliament remains at 123 due to the overhang.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Windbag: Metro Water to the rescue
Wellington's councils have agreed to create a new water service entity. Will it be the answer to the region's pipe crisis? Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. It's no secret that Wellington's water network is a shambles. At this point, it's one of the city's defining traits. Just last week, Johnston Street became the latest in an ever-growing list of streets to be flooded by a burst pipe. There's really no need to rehash all the ways in which the water system is failing, but here are a few stats: 45% of the Wellington region's drinking water is lost to leaks before it reaches the tap; 21% of pipe infrastructure is worn out; and for wastewater pipes, it's 33%. The region's water infrastructure needs $15-17b of investment over the next 20-25 years to maintain service and keep up with population growth. There is plenty of blame to go around. The existing water entity, Wellington Water, has been shambolic at times. Councils have underfunded water for decades. Earthquakes haven't helped the pipes either. If you want to point the finger at someone, check out my handy user's guide to working out who to blame for Wellington's water issues. 'Our three waters system has for many years been largely out of sight, out of mind,' a report by Andy Foster's mayoral taskforce on three waters concluded in 2021. Their recommendation was clear: 'Tinkering is not going to cut it. Transformational reform is required.' Then, councils and the government spent four years tinkering and arguing about the exact specifics of that transformational reform. There are no organisational restructures or legislative tweaks that can change the underlying problem – namely, that all the pipes are munted and someone has to pay for it. But it has been clear for years that Wellington Water needed to be replaced with a new, more powerful entity with different financial powers. First, this change was going to be part of Labour's Three Waters Reforms. Then, Labour's Affordable Water Reforms. And now, they're part of National's Local Water Done Well. A technical advisory group led by former mayor Kerry Prendergast (one of the people most responsible for the chronic underfunding) released a lengthy report last year on a recommended regional approach. With the final vote last week, all five of the metropolitan councils – Hutt City Council, Porirua City Council, Upper Hutt City Council, Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council – have now confirmed they are on board with the plan. Wellington's new water entity is called Metro Water. Except it won't actually be its name. It's just a working title until they think of a better one. But for now, Metro Water is the name in all the documents, so it's what I'm going to use. As of July 2026, Wellington Water will be dissolved, and Metro Water will be in charge of all water services in wider Wellington. It won't be a complete changing of the guard. Metro Water will absorb all of Wellington Water's staff below the senior management level. Like Wellington Water, it will be a council-controlled organisation owned jointly by the five councils, with an independent board featuring representatives from Ngāti Toa Rangitira and Taranaki Whānui (yes, that's right, co-governance *gasp*). However, rather than councils owning the pipe assets and paying Wellington Water to run them, councils will transfer ownership of their pipes to Metro Water's books. Importantly, Metro Water will have the ability to take out loans directly. This matters because most councils are approaching their borrowing limits. Metro Water will be able to take out larger loans and spread the costs over a longer term, which means lower annual costs. The technical advisory group estimates this could lower ongoing costs up to a third. The annual cost per connection, which currently sits at $1,711, would rise to $2,596 over 20 years under Metro Water. The business-as-usual approach is estimated to cost as much as $4,000 per year. The downside for Metro Water is that an independent entity likely won't have access to the same cheap loans that councils get. So they're essentially paying more, but spreading it over a longer period. This is essentially the same accounting trick that Auckland Council used earlier this year to separate Watercare's balance sheet from the council's, which was a large reason why Auckland had one of the lowest rate increases this year, at 5.8% for council rates and 7.2% for water rates. By comparison, Wellington City Council had an all-inclusive 12% increase. For ratepayers, there will be one obvious immediate change: water metering. Households will receive a separate bill for water usage. On the whole, this will be more equitable – suburbanites who waste bathloads of water on oversized lawns will pay more than people living in water-efficient apartments and townhouses. But the change will also sting renters, who will find themselves paying a separate water bill that was previously lumped in with their rent. The most surprising part of this new solution is how unsurprising it is. There is very little here that is different to how things would have looked under Labour. The Three Waters Reforms didn't make sense everywhere – it was messy in Auckland, which already had a combined water services operator, and it was controversial in rural areas, where there were concerns about how it could affect water access for irrigation (and of course, there was lots of scaremongering about co-governance) – but in Wellington, it was always obvious that the solution would involve councils transferring ownership of the pipe assets to a combined independent entity that would introduce water metering. National's policy gave councils the ability to choose their future, while Labour's would have dictated it. But in the end, they reached the same outcome.
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Regulatory Standards Bill hearing, day one: Former PM says ‘no chance' of bill working
The bill dubbed the sibling to the controversial Treaty principles bill gets a whole week in parliament to have submissions heard. Read our explainer on the Regulatory Standards Bill here and our reporting on the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the bill here. A new day, a new controversial piece of legislation under scrutiny. After attracting a reported 150,000 public submissions, the Regulatory Standards Bill is having its week in the select committee, with all-day hearings from Monday to Thursday knocking out 30 hours' worth of oral submissions. Whatever the finance and expenditure committee hears could influence changes to the bill, but the passing of it is already a promise made in the National-Act coalition agreement. The inside of select committee room four was a ghost town on Monday morning, with all MPs on the committee's panel opting to join the hearing via Zoom, and most submitters doing the same. Lawyer Ani Mikaere was one of the first speakers of the day, and had some choice words about the bill and the government at large: 'National and NZ First currently face the spectre of this parliamentary term going down in history as the period when the Act Party governed – as coalition partners, you have been completely upstaged.' Adam Currie from 350 Aotearoa, who appeared via Zoom link, told the committee the bill can 'get in the compost heap' – then panned his camera over to his own compost heap for visual effect. 'Thank you Adam, very succinct,' committee deputy chair and National MP Ryan Hamilton replied. Former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who submitted against, labelled the bill the 'strangest piece of New Zealand legislation I have ever seen'. Palmer argued that regulation is necessary in many instances – like when he worked as a young lawyer on night clothes regulations, so that young children wouldn't be set alight by heaters while they slept. 'The idea that you would not allow parliament to protect the public from danger is just unreasonable,' Palmer said. Lawyer Sonja Cooper of Cooper Legal, which represents survivors of abuse in care, said she opposed the bill as it would allow abuse to continue. Cooper said she was concerned with the bill's principle that all are made equal under the law – her clients have a 'very distinct and urgent set of needs' which wouldn't be addressed if they were treated as 'equal', and with many of them being Māori, the bill's omission of the Treaty was a 'refusal to accept the needs for policies which may need to treat people differently to achieve equality'. When Act Party MP and committee member Mark Cameron questioned whether Cooper was telling the committee that laws should allow people to be treated unequally despite all people being 'created equal', Cooper replied: 'It's a nice thought that everyone is born equal, but that's not the reality.' Their back and forth made Palmer whisper 'oh, god' and at the end of it, he and Cooper just threw their hands in the air in disbelief. Human resources expert Chris Till supported the bill, but didn't support his 'undemocratic' five-minute submission time. After arguing that iwi have too much power over freshwater resources, and that the RSB would fix this 'racist, tribal and anti-democratic' system, Till continued to argue with Hamilton about his lack of time, so his submission was called off slightly early. Cameron, who had been waiting to ask a question, just gritted his teeth. Later, former Green Party MP Darleen Tana submitted against the bill, with the argument that it would 'constrain future governance, restrict public investment and sets up a narrow economic lens'. Also submitting against, Dunedin City Council's in-house lawyer Karilyn Canton said the council was concerned that the bill's omission of the Treaty would make it at odds with council obligations under the Local Government Act. She also highlighted the bill's requirement for review of secondary legislation (such as council bylaws, of which DCC administers about 40), and argued the Local Government Act already has sufficient provisions to the creation of these laws. Canton said it's also still unclear what falls into the scope of 'secondary legislation', and the likes of a district plan – which has the force and effect of a regulation under the Resource Management Act – would fall into this category. 'So the risk is that it creates disputes, creates costs and it creates uncertainty,' Canton said. Health Coalition Aotearoa's chair Boyd Swinburn opposed the bill, and told the committee the sector's already existing 'regulatory chill' – the absence of regulations which could protect young people from the likes of alcohol marketing – could turn into a 'regulatory freeze' if the bill passed. Swinburn pointed to the Australian government's years-long court case with tobacco giant Phillip Morris over plain packaging for cigarette cartons, which the company argued violated their property rights by confiscating property (their trademark) without compensation. 'It's very naive to think that the industry would not weaponise the privileging of its private property and rights,' Swinburn said. Far North district councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira began her submission against the bill by chucking on a pair of sunglasses, and letting the committee know that up in Northland, if someone speaks to you with their shades on, it's because you're telling a 'whole bunch of lies'. She said the bill amounted to 'historical amnesia', and said the uplifting of personal, economic and property liberties over collective rights was like experiencing a flood in your neighbourhood, and only having the local 'vape store' owner be saved. Raewyn Moss and Jo Mooar of Transpower, which controls the nation's energy grid, highlighted their concerns with clause eight of the bill, which highlights 12 principles of responsible regulation, including an emphasis on property rights. 93% of Transpower's overhead lines run on statutory rights under the Electricity Act, the committee heard, and Moss said there was concern that a review of the Act will result in Transpower paying compensation to permit them to use and maintain the land their grid rests on. They were also concerned that protections for these lines under the Resource Management Act would be overruled and ignored for new housing and developments, which could 'have a big impact on public safety'. Rock the Vote NZ deputy leader Daymond Goulder-Horobin said the party largely supported the bill, but they had some suggestions. For 'better optics', regulations minister David Seymour should share appointment powers of the regulatory standards board that will be born from the bill with other parties, so that the committee is 'balanced'. 'Every party is beneath 50% of the vote, so democratic legitimacy is always vested on [the voting of a bill],' Goulder-Horobin said. 'This does not have to be a bill that antagonises the left.' The finance and expenditure committee will resume oral hearings into the bill today at 8.30am.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Regulatory Standards Bill: Unions, former MPs, lawyers and retired judge to submit
ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The second day of hearings on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will get underway at Parliament later on Tuesday morning. The first day saw a wave of opposition to the bill , but the Regulation Minister was dismissing concerns. While he had not watched all of the submissions from the first day, David Seymour said finding constructive criticism of the bill was like searching "for a needle in a haystack". Groups submitting on the second day of hearings will include Toitū te Tiriti, the Taxpayers' Union, the Council of Trade Unions, Business NZ and the Law Society. Individuals include former ACT MP Donna Awatere Huata, former Green MPs Kevin Hague and Eugenie Sage, lawyer Tania Waikato and retired judge David Harvey. Much of the criticism on the first day was on the principles in the bill, which critics said elevated ACT ideology above health or environmental concerns. The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. A new Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "This Regulatory Standards Bill does not prevent a government or a Parliament from making a law or regulation. What it does do is create transparency so that the people can actually watch and understand what their representatives are doing," Seymour said. But Sophie Bond, associate professor of geography from the University of Otago, said the principles would embed "libertarian ideology" at a constitutional level. "The bill would not withstand an evaluation under even its own narrow terms. It's ill conceived, poorly drafted and undemocratic," she said. Similarly, Kirsty Fong from Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga said it would "embed the ACT Party values and principles that are rooted in libertarian ideology that elevates individualism and profit at the expense of wellbeing". Criticism was also directed at what was not in the bill: there is no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This led Rahui Papa from Pou Tangata National Iwi Chairs Forum to compare it to the Treaty Principles Bill, which was voted down at its second reading earlier this year. "We think this is a relitigation of the Treaty Principles Bill under another korowai, under another cover. So we say the attacks keep on coming." Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill has more chance of success. National's coalition agreement with ACT contains a commitment to pass the bill through into law. Natalie Coates from the Māori Law Society said Te Tiriti could not be "unstitched" from lawmaking. "Its absence isn't, of course, a drafting oversight, but a deliberate omission that bucks a clear break from constitutional best practice and our treaty obligations." She doubted, however, whether adding a treaty clause would fix the rest of the "fundamental problems" she saw in the bill. Seymour said he was yet to hear an argument about why Te Tiriti should be included. "If you can find any person that would give me a practical example of how putting the Treaty into Regulatory Standards Bill would change the outcome in a way that's better for all New Zealanders, then I'm open minded. I have been the whole time," he said. "But so far, not a single person who's mindlessly said 'oh but it's our founding document, it should be there' can practically explain how it makes the boat go faster." He acknowledged there were existing tools like Regulatory Impact Statements and the Regulations Review Committee, but questioned whether they were effective. "What we're doing is taking things that the government already does in different ways, and we're putting them together in one black letter law that governments must follow so New Zealanders have some rights. There's nothing really new here," he said. While the majority of submitters were opposed to the legislation, Ananish Chaudhuri, professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland spoke in favour. "It puts ideas of effiency and a careful weighing of the costs and benefits of proposed regulation at the heart of the legislative process," he said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
