Te Pāti Māori pursuing two-pronged legal action
Te Pāti Māori's lawyers have clarified exactly what legal action it's taking over reports of missing enrolments from the Māori roll.
The party sent out a press release around 3pm yesterday, claiming it had filed "urgent proceedings in the High Court" over the claims.
A letter dated August 1 from lawyer Matthew Carson to Crown Law showed the party filed a statement of claim on July 18, challenging the Electoral Commission's calculation of the Māori electoral population and the corresponding number of Māori electoral seats for the next election.
It is Te Pāti Māori's position the commission's calculation is wrong and there should be eight, not seven, Māori seats up for grabs in the 2026 Election.
The party has now advised Crown Law it is also "seeking a full explanation" of reports of missing enrolments from the Māori roll, as part of this judicial review.
"This is central not only to the present proceedings and the issues they raise, but also for Māori participation in Aotearoa's democracy," the letter said.
"We intend to pursue these issues via the present proceeding, and to determine the propriety of any changes made following service of this judicial review.
"There is no second proceeding on foot. An amended pleading will be prepared to the extent necessary, given that these issues arose after the judicial review was first filed and served."
The letter asks for a formal response to the following questions:
a) Have voters enrolled on the Māori roll been removed from the Māori roll, or had their enrolment status changed, as has been publicly reported?
b) If so, who, and how many?
c) What steps or changes made by your clients have resulted in the removals or changes described in (a)?
Te Pāti Māori have been highly critical of the commission despite assurances from both the organisation and the Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith that there are no issues in the system.
Several voters, including former political journalist Taryn Utiger, report not being able to find themselves on the Māori roll despite switching to it as recently as last year.
Yesterday, Goldsmith said it was "very easy" for people to make claims and anyone with hard evidence should speak to the Electoral Commission.
The Electoral Commission was approached today asking for confirmation it is certain no-one has been taken off the Māori Roll and what work, if any, it's doing to address any impacts on public trust in the democratic system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a few seconds ago
- RNZ News
Former Attorney-General criticises marine and coastal rights law changes
Former Attorney-General and National MP Chris Finlayson. Photo: Nicola Edmonds A former Attorney-General and National MP has lashed out at the government over its decision to push on with controversial legislation that would make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Chris Finlayson is calling the move foolish and "extremely harmful" to race relations. But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it will see the law returned to its "original intention" and strike a better balance for the rights of all New Zealanders. The changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act would toughen the test for judging whether customary rights should be given. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. A 2023 Court of Appeal ruling , however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and the government put a pause on any amendments to the law. On Tuesday, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said after the discussing the ruling, Cabinet felt it still did not achieve the "balance" the government wanted and the test to win customary rights was still too low. His comment were echoed by Luxon who, speaking from Papua New Guinea, said the change would get the legislation back to its "original intention". "We obviously have looked at the Supreme Court decision pretty closely [and] think it's quite broad and able to be interpreted in quite a broad way," he said. "We think the best way to do [that] is actually to get legislation to put it back to its original intent, which struck the right balance." Chris Finlayson disputes that, and told RNZ the Supreme Court had already expressed "very well" what Parliament's intention back in 2010 was. "These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all," he said. Finlayson was Attorney-General at the time the legislation was enacted in law in 2011, which replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act . "What they are doing by these foolish amendments is destroying the settlement that the National Party and the Māori Party reached in 2010." Finlayson said there was no justification for the move, which he said was "extremely harmful" to race relations in New Zealand. "Tangata whenua have a few wins in court, and it's ripped away from them by the government, which changes goal posts 15 years later. "I am very, very saddened by what they have done, and I think it's a very bad day for race relations in New Zealand. "I just can't believe that they're as foolish as they appear to be," he said. Labour Party Māori Crown-Relations spokesperson Peeni Henare said the changes would restrict the ability of Māori to test their rights in court. "In 2011, the National Party made much of their commitment to Māori 'having their day in court' and this proposed change takes that away again." Henare said the law, as it stands today, does not give Māori ownership rights like control over public access. "This action by the government does nothing to strengthen the Māori-Crown relationship, despite them saying they value iwi Māori. "The government needs to be straight up and admit they don't care about Māori. Their actions don't match their words," he said. The amendments prompted fierce backlash from iwi last year, including Ngāpuhi who walked out of an Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the Prime Minister in protest of the legislation. It also drew the ire of Northland iwi Ngāti Wai , who said at the time they would not accept the Crown "exercising an authority we do not believe they possess". In September last year, The Waitangi Tribunal found the changes were characterised by a "blind adherence" to pre-existing political commitments at the expense of Māori. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Who wants to be the next mayor of Hamilton?
There's a wide-open race to lead the city of the future. With incumbent mayor Paula Southgate headed for the door, it's anyone's game for the Hamilton mayoralty. Nominations for the race are now closed and 12 candidates are in the running. Tim Macindoe Yes, that is Tim Macindoe as in the former parliamentarian for the National Party circa 2008 to 2020 as MP for Hamilton East, who has represented the city council's East ward since February 2024. Despite being a ward representative himself, Macindoe is keen to scrap the ward system and keep a smaller council, and in the face of $1.25b in council debt, he's campaigning on the promise of balancing the council's books by putting a halt on the 'nice-to-haves' and fostering a 'customer-focused' mindset within council to keep investors and developers keen on the Tron. Clearly, Macindoe has skin in the game, but it also can't hurt his chances to have been one of the lobbyists who held the government to its promise to open a third medical school at the University of Waikato. Maria Huata This current Hamilton Māori ward representative has worn plenty of hats in her career: educator, broadcaster, translator, consultant, iwi representative, councillor and … mayor? Her campaign is largely focused on community wellbeing, telling a public forum in late July that she would address safety concerns in the city by tackling poverty, would like to establish something akin to the city's former youth council to give rangatahi a voice, and called for social housing to be designed alongside disadvantaged communities. Her broadcasting background also shines through in her hopes to revitalise the city's arts and culture offerings. Sarah Thomson A current two-term councillor and former lawyer, who once took the minister for climate change to court over the government's emission reduction goals, and kinda won but also kinda didn't. Her current work to date with the council has seen major growth in the city's natural vegetation by growing more trees and restoring local gullies, and she chairs the strategic growth and district plan committee. If elected mayor, Thomson wants to reduce the council's costs while still funding community wellbeing via City Safe and venues such as parks and pools, secure funding for a central community hub, and pressure central government to support the city's community services. Rachel Karalus A centrist and former chief executive of K'uate Pasifika Trust, and another 'back to basics' candidate who's got a 'head for detail, heart for Hamilton' – though she reckons she could balance community and commercial needs pretty well. Much like the prime minister, Karalus is keen on going for growth, with plans to reduce debt and support infrastructure projects while also prioritising environmental and social projects, and a push for the council and city to advance its technology. Rudi Du Plooy Known in some circles as 'Bokke Bo', this colourful conservative candidate has stood in a few local elections in his time and has yet to make it onto the council table. If he did, Du Plooy would like to see the city become more seniors-friendly, and would scrap IAWAI – the council-controlled organisation looking after water services across the city and Waikato district – and the city's proposed water metres, and instead investigate chlorine-free water system options and offer rates rebates for rainfall harvesters. Du Plooy is known to be pretty anti-vax (if that appeals to you, he's got a lot of content on Facebook you should check out), and once made it into the news for celebrating South Africa's Day of the Vow. Lily Carrington The youngest in the race and a representative for the Animal Justice Party. Carrington also ran for the mayoralty in 2022, with the goals of funding desexing programmes for animals and local shelters, and supporting the call for an independent commissioner for animals. Not much intel on what she'd do for the city's transport, infrastructure or economy, but at least your pet will have a voice. Dave Taylor A 'thought-leadership consultant' and Green-adjacent candidate with a storied background in writing and publishing, hailing from Hamilton West (where he is also running as ward representative). As a mayor, he wants to uplift Kirikiriroa's cultural and creative communities to boost the city's identity and tourism, would prioritise investments in long-term infrastructure and green, blue and urban spaces, and wants to keep the city's Māori ward. He says his parents named him after a very handsome paediatrician. Jack Gielen This is not Gielen's first rodeo in the local elections, and it may not be his last, having stood in every Hamilton mayoral election since 2010. He is a longtime candidate, pastor of the Church of Zion, singer of dittys and founder of the NZ Suicide Prevention Trust, a role which got him into hot water he was caught stalking funerals and providing dodgy advice with no qualifications. In the 2022 local elections, Gielen told the Herald he'd like to be the father of the city, would support car-free days to encourage public transport, and would keep a 24-7 open-office policy to hear his constituent's woes. He also reckons he's got a good grasp on housing affordability and climate change. Roma Tupaea-Warren Founder of the single-issue New Zealand Constitution Party, which called for the creation of a written constitution for Aotearoa, and is also no longer a political party. We're not sure what Tupaea-Warren would bring to Hamilton as mayor, but hopefully he'll get it in writing soon. Roger Stratford A man who stands for the 'common sense folk', and who has already lost an election to Macindoe, having failed to become the East ward representative in the 2024 byelection. Stratford reckons he's the one candidate with enough guts to stand up to Christopher Luxon, and due to the city's high population of South Africans, would issue an executive order to make Afrikaans an official language immediately upon becoming mayor (which is not something a mayor can do). Guy Wayne Temoni-Syme Husband of Tania Temoni-Syme, who ran unsuccessfully in the East ward byelection with the promises of freezing rates and repairing potholes. Mr Temoni-Syme hasn't yet announced what he'd offer to the city, but you could assume he's doing it out of love. John McDonald Perhaps some larger journalistic failings at play here, but it is unclear who John McDonald actually is, and what he's going to do about the Tron. Let's hope it's good.
