Labour keeps door open for Te Pāti Māori, but urges focus on 'core areas'
Chris Hipkins.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Chris Hipkins says Te Pāti Māori needs to focus on important issues such as jobs, health and homes, like Labour is, keeping the door open to working with them despite three of their MPs being suspended from Parliament.
Labour Māori development spokesperson Willie Jackson told Te Pāti Māori not every Māori supported them after three of its MPs disrupted a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill last year with a haka.
The party could have responded differently after the three representatives - co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, and first-term MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke - were referred to the Privileges Committee, and
suspended
, Jackson said last week.
"They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well,"
Jackson said
.
Labour Party said last month while it agreed the actions met the criteria of contempt, it was concerned that the penalties were "unduly severe". Labour's own Peeni Henare took part in the haka,
but was not suspended after apologising
.
Hipkins told
Morning Report
on Monday the feedback he was getting from around the country was that Māori wanted to see Labour focused on the issues that bring New Zealanders together and lead the country forward.
"That includes focusing on things like jobs, health, homes, the sorts of things that New Zealanders all want to see their government focused on."
He said while his party worked in co-operation with Te Pāti Māori, they were also in competition for votes.
"We have previously held all the Māori electorates, we'd like to do so again. We're gonna, you know, we're gonna go out there and contest those vigorously at the next election, but we can also work together on areas where we have common ground."
The
most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll
found Labour could lead the next government, but it would need both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.
Hipkins said Labour would look to have a similar relationship with Te Pāti Māori as it had with the Green Party and "set out clear parameters for a working relationship".
"I think that's one of the things that Christopher Luxon hasn't done with ACT and with New Zealand First to say, 'Look, these are the areas where we think we can work together. These are the areas where we're not willing to compromise.'
"And, you know, I think that includes setting clear standards of expectation around ministerial behaviour - so anyone who's going to be a minister in any government that I lead will be expected to behave like a minister, and that doesn't vary by party.
"So unlike Christopher Luxon who seems to think that Winston Peters and David Seymour are subject to different rules to everybody else; I think all ministers should be subjected to the same rules."
Hipkins rejected a suggestion that Jackson was appeasing pākeha with his comments.
"Ultimately, if you want to be part of the government, then you need to follow the rules of the government."
Asked how Labour could work with a party whose MPs broke those rules, Hipkins said it was "ultimately" down to voters.
"We're going to be going out there competing vigorously for every vote we can get for Labour. If people believe in the sorts of things that the Labour Party believes in, they want to see a government that's focused on core areas like jobs, health, and homes, then they need to vote for Labour in order to achieve that."
Willie Jackson.
Photo:
VNP / Phil Smith
Hipkins said he would prefer to have an "environment where the government of the day, whomever that was, always had a majority".
"That would be great, but that's not the reality. That's not what New Zealand voters have chosen for our electoral system. They've chosen a system in which we have to work with other political parties.
"I think unlike the current government though, I'll be clear that, you know, there are some areas where, we, we will have standards and everybody will have to follow them."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Government celebrates record increase in teacher numbers
Education Minister Erica Stanford. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The government is celebrating a record increase in teacher numbers. Education Minister Erica Stanford said a 2.5 percent rise last year included 1128 new primary teachers and 736 in secondary schools - the biggest increase since records began in 2009, while first-time domestic enrolments in Initial Teacher Education rose 6.3 percent from 3400 to 3615. She said the increase has affected every region. "Every region has more teachers than it did a year ago, with particularly strong increases in South and West Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Wellington and Canterbury. That's a clear sign our reform of the education system is giving people the confidence to choose teaching as a career." She pointed to teacher pay rates and the $53 million in government funding set aside in this year's Budget to cover registration fees as ways the government has encouraged the profession to grow. The registration fee change would not have affected teachers last year, though expectations of it could have encouraged more enrolments. "From scholarships and onsite training pathways to removing financial barriers like registration fees, we've made it easier for people to take that first step into the classroom, and it's working," Stanford said. "We're backing our education workforce - from training to registration to the classroom - because when we support teachers, we support better outcomes for every learner," she said. She noted average total pay was now over $94,000 a year for primary school teachers, and about $101,000 for secondary For principals, the pay increased to $150,000 for primary and $200,000 for secondary, she said. RNZ in April reported the overseas enrolments boosted student teacher numbers after years of low enrolment created a workforce crisis . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Christchurch councillor says fighting government on housing was a 'balls-up'
Photo: RNZ / Niva Chittock Christchurch City Council has wasted years and millions of dollars while being distracted from more pressing priorities in its protracted fight with central government over housing intensification, Halswell Ward councillor Andrei Moore says. He characterised the whole affair as a costly "balls-up" which had held up the business of council and resulted in a confused policy allowing multi-storey apartment blocks in parts of suburban Christchurch, but not in areas neighbouring the city centre. However, Tony Simons - chair of a coalition of residents associations which campaigned against many of the measures - embraced being labelled a 'NIMBY' and warned the government's decision gave developers free rein. Three years ago the council rejected the policy introduced by the then-Labour government with support from the National Party to enforce sweeping intensification rules on swathes of Christchurch and other major cities in an effort to supercharge housing supply. Instead the following year, it notified a proposed change to the district plan - plan change 14 . More than 1000 submissions, government-appointed investigators , ombudsman complaints , multiple extensions and an independent hearing panel later, the council accepted many of the panels recommendations last year . However, the council rejected 20 of the hearing panel's recommendations, leaving the final decision in the hands of Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop. Last week, Bishop declined the vast majority of the council's wishes . The decision meant parts of the city - around larger suburban shopping centres - would be zoned for higher-density housing, predominantly apartments. Mayor Phil Mauger described the decision as a "kick in the guts" . The minister's decision cannot be appealed. The council's last potential recourse was to request a judicial review. Chris Bishop. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins But Moore said it was time to move on. "We've spent millions of dollars and four years, only to end up making a complete balls-up of the plan," he said. The council had been "trying its luck" with the ministerial referrals, "as opposed to basing them on meaningful evidence". It was difficult to estimate how much could have been saved if the council accepted the government's decision in 2022, but Moore said the extra spend would be substantial. "Our council ended up trying to oppose intensification basically everywhere it could - it wasn't very strategic," he said. The fight had also created a backlog of other work. "We've got this great big pile up of plan changes we need to be doing. The central city noise plan change , for example, ideally that would have got underway years ago," Moore said. The haphazard process had also resulted in anomalies. "We've ended up where you can build up to 10 storeys in an outer suburbs like Hornby, but in some areas surrounding the central city you can't build up at all, and frankly that's just stupid, and bad planning. "We knew what we were going to be made to do - to enable housing in the centre areas and on the transit routes - so we should have been enabling housing where we thought it made sense." It was unlikely high-rise apartment blocks would spring up in suburban Linwood, Hornby or Riccarton any time soon, Moore said. But he looked forward to some of the barriers to building apartment blocks being removed. "Apartments are often so much better designed than townhouses are, but because it's so hard to build them in Christchurch, they're not getting built." The bulk of new residential building in the city centre had been two- or three-storey townhouses, which he said were a "waste of space - that's exactly where you need to build up". Many opponents of the changes had "never had to take out an emergency loan to pay their rent", and others who wanted to develop semi-rural land were ignoring the cost of the infrastructure needed, Moore said. He said he was not concerned with the inevitable backlash from the residents' associations. "I struggle a lot more when people have nowhere to live." Combined Residents' Association chair and council candidate in this year's local elections, Tony Simons, agreed much of the multimillion-dollar exercise had been unnecessary, but for very different reasons. The city did not have a problem with housing supply, but rather an issue with housing affordability, he said. "Unfortunately, I don't believe plan change 14 is going to address housing affordability much at all. What it is really going to do - what Chris Bishop has decided - is to let developers build what they want, pretty much where they want, and that's a shame." He was disappointed the minister did not accept the council's proposed changes, which were "good for Christchurch". He had no problem with increasing density in the CBD, but said the type of intensification the changes allowed - smaller studio, one- and possibly two-bedroom units - were already oversupplied. "We're not building housing for families - if there is a housing supply shortage, it's probably in those sorts of properties in the inner city, which are slowly disappearing," he said. Simons did not resile from the 'NIMBY' ('not in my backyard') label. "When I talk about my backyard, I'm talking about Christchurch, not my own backyard. I'm talking about protecting the city, the fabric of Christchurch." Bill McKay Photo: Alexia Russell University of Auckland senior lecturer in architecture and planning Bill McKay said there would not be a flood of apartments built overnight. "When we make planning changes, it's like turning the tap on to fill the bath. It doesn't mean that… these changes will happen immediately everywhere," he said. "In this case we're turning the tap on for more density, meaning more apartment buildings, and that offers different lifestyles for people - I think that's a good thing because we've got a tonne of suburban housing in this country." Apartment developments had been more successful in boosting affordable, quality housing in Auckland, he said. "We've got some very good five-, six-storey apartment buildings going up in Auckland at the moment and they are a decent quality… you notice that once people buy into those apartment buildings because of the quality, because of the community, because of their location, they don't come up for sale much again, whereas the townhouses are more of a worry." The focus needed to be on the quality of development, McKay said. "It's not whether the apartment building or townhouse is good or bad, it's whether it's in the right place and crucially, whether it's built to a decent quality - otherwise we're just building slums for ourselves in the future." Sara Templeton Photo: Supplied / Christchurch City Council Heathcote Ward councillor and mayoral candidate Sara Templeton said the minister's decisions were not unexpected. It was important to plan properly for the future while listening to the community, and the process had been "really time consuming", she said. But it was "time that we get on with it". "We are due to grow by over 30,000 within Christchurch city in the next 10 years and these people need homes to live in, so the developers need certainty as to where they can provide those homes," she said. The council had until December to make a decision on Medium Density Residential Standards - which could allow three three-storey townhouses to be built without a consent. However, legislation to allow councils to opt out of the standards was working its way through Parliament. The law change was included in the government's second tranche of changes to the Resource Management Act, the Resource Management (Consenting and other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which was introduced under urgency and passed its first reading in December . The bill is with the Environment Select Committee, which is due to report back this month. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it, what does it propose and what's next?
The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced by ACT Party leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ Graphic / Nik Dirga Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward , Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said . "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025 . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles ". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Similar bills have been introduced by ACT before and failed. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. The full Regulatory Standards Bill is available online. Photo: Screenshot / Parliament The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions . Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots' . Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act , the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement , the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner . A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. Bryce Wilkinson. Photo: RNZ / Kate Gudsell Writing for the New Zealand Institute , Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written . "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom . "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. Winston Peters and New Zealand First may hold the fate to the bill's passage. Photo: Facebook / Winston Peters Here's what happens next . The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September , Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill , also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
