Having recently resigned from my executive positions within the National Party, I write this as someone who has seen the inner workings of the organisation up close. I joined the Party in 2023, during the election year that saw strong leadership return National to power.

To be transparent, I had never voted Blue before. For many years, I strongly opposed the policies of the National Party for a range of reasons—but this felt different. Under the leadership of Judith Collins, National introduced candidates in the Māori electorates. As a Māori person, this was a promising development. The inclusion of the Treaty of Waitangi within the Party’s values signalled a direction I felt I could support. After a conversation over a glass of wine with a then list MP, I was on board.

A month later, I had the privilege of attending the launch of the Māori electorates for National at Parliament. I witnessed more than 20 years of history in the making, and I’ve stood present for the official launches of both Te Tai Hauāuru and Tāmaki Makaurau inside the House.

However, following a recent internal disagreement with some of the Māori members of the Party, I resigned from my executive positions—and ultimately, from the Party itself. It is off this backdrop that I now write.

Recently, Te Pāti Māori members were summoned to the Privileges Committee. Exercising their democratic rights, they declined to appear. Contrary to the rhetoric from ACT, attendance is not compulsory. Members of Parliament are not obligated to appear. That crucial point has been lost in much of the commentary.

The report was presented before the House for debate. I listened carefully as Minister Collins, Chair of the Committee, spoke. Initially, her delivery was measured—clear, coherent, and seemingly factual—until it wasn’t.

The Committee, by majority (not consensus, which diverges from the usual practice), accused Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer of using “gun gestures,” pointing toward ACT Party members, and saying “e noho” following a haka performed in the House. I do not dispute that the performance disrupted proceedings. It did interrupt the business of the House and halted both sides of the vote—blocking parties on both the left and right from recording their stances.

But in the spirit of democracy and natural justice, a report of this magnitude should be entirely factual. It should not rely on circumstantial or interpreted evidence. Let’s be clear—the haka did happen. This isn’t about “haka.” It is about process. Whether you agree with the actions taken or not, due process matters.

In my view, the report contains errors. Some of the accusations are false; others are framed through subjective interpretation. Two claims in particular stand out:

In my view, the report is incorrect, accusations in the report are either false or interpretations and noted by subjective language. The accusations that are either interpreted to suit a narrative or false are:

1. “Ms Ngarewa-Packer … simulating a firing motion, said ‘e noho’ (sit down) Audio/visual evidence of the word clearly spoken was “kino,” not “e noho,” and the gesture was described as a “wiri” (a trembling expression) or even a point, not a gun simulation. This indicates a potential factual inaccuracy in transcription and cultural interpretation. There is no evidence that points directly to intent of a gun motion. The word “kino” has multiple translations and the committee relied on interpretation of their own, or did not seek assurances without consulting Māori experts to validate meaning or intent. Therefore, with this understanding, this section of the report is false.
2. “Particularly unacceptable for Ms Ngarewa-Packer to appear to simulate firing a gun…” This is a subjective interpretation of a cultural gesture. No independent verification was cited, nor was expert Māori input accepted. Te Pāti Māori refuted this interpretation and stated it was not a firearm simulation but an expressive haka gesture. There is no one way of simulating a firearm – after asking 10 kids, 2 in 10 showed the same as Ngarewa-Packer. With an understanding of the word “kino” it is more likely that Te Pāti Māori MP pointed towards the Act Party calling them “kino” and unlikely to be a “fire arm simulation”.

It is under this report that the committee has proposed a level of sanction that this country has never seen. Let’s be clear, the report is not accurate. You can clearly argue both sides of this – however, in the evidence of fact, can parliament really accept the recommendations with false evidence.

With the facts of the report being called into question, one, in the spirit of democracy, must ask the question, is the report valid to affirm the recommendations and sanction 3 of Te Pāti Māori MPs to the high level this country has ever seen? In the presence of “doubt” and natural justice, can such a harsh sentence be handed down? Can the current government of New Zealand, stand on moral ground in the future and hold another government to account on the validity of their decisions if they choose to impose the recommendations of this report? Or, does the government have the political courage to stand up, say the report is flawed, and accept that the stand down period has occurred and the house and can get back to business for the people of this beautiful country?

Home Page | Headlines | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media