Te Pāti Māori MP, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi speaking in the House.
Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s lawyers have claimed Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders were also projected to overspend their parliamentary budget, and there was discussion of a settlement proposal during the hearing to consider the Te Tai Tokerau MP’s expulsion.
Kapa-Kingi’s lawyers are arguing Te Pāti Māori’s constitution was not upheld during a process that resulted in her expulsion from the party, with Mike Colson KC saying a “political party which was created to fight injustice has visited a serious injustice”.
The substantive hearing is taking place at the High Court in Wellington on Monday, and follows a period of turmoil for the party that resulted in the expulsion of two of its MPs, Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris.
Kapa-Kingi challenged her expulsion late last year, resulting in a temporary reinstatement prior to the party’s AGM in December, allowing her to attend.
At the time, Justice Paul Radich said there were “serious questions to be tried” on the manner in which Kapa-Kingi was expelled from the party.
Both party president John Tamihere and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi were present in the courtroom on Monday morning.
Kapa-Kingi’s lawyer Mike Colson KC begun the hearing by saying the Speaker had not been properly notified by Te Pāti Māori about Justice Radich’s decision late last year, and she remained an independent MP, pointing out this could be in contempt of court.
Colson went on to summarise his client’s key argument: that the party’s National Council did not have the power to expel Kapa-Kingi, and that it breached the dispute process and tikanga.
“And I suppose thematically, that we are now seeing a revisionist approach to the decisions that were made, in which there seems to be an emphasis that there was not actually an expulsion, but a cancelation of the membership.”
Colson then referred to Te Pāti Māori’s constitution, outlining the importance of tikanga, arguing “tikanga should be part of the lens” through which the case is considered.
He then highlighted various clauses, pointing out relevant parts of the Constitution to the case.
In particular, Colson highlighted a clause he said did not allow the National Council to “cut across independently” a separate clause specifying a Disciplinary Disputes Committee.
Colson said Kapa-Kingi was given “no notice whatsoever” that there was going to be a hui where her expulsion would be considered.
He referred to various parts of the party’s constitution, claiming the party hadn’t adhered to it.
Colson provided documentation including a range of emails discussing the projected parliamentary overspend, a key reason for Kapa-Kingi’s expulsion.
Colson acknowledged the judge would not be able to resolve who was right or wrong on the issue of the budget, which he said didn’t “particularly matter”.
But Colson said Kapa-Kingi was entitled to “additional payments” due to the additional work she had undertaken.
In relation to the forecasted overspend, he said the party had argued Kapa-Kingi used those funds for her “personal gain”, which he rejected.
He explained “a fix” was arranged between various parties – including a parliamentary representative – in relation to her forecasted overspend of $133,000.
He then outlined Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders were also forecasted to overspend their budget.
“It’s a bit ironic that the party to say this forecast overspend was misuse when we know at the time the co-leaders office was also in a budget deficit situation,” referencing the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders who had an overspend of around $40,000.
He also mentioned a “level of unsatisfactoriness” of evidence from the respondents, referencing affidavits that “seem incorrect”.
A settlement proposal was referred to during the hearing, which is expected to be addressed later.
Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi.
Photo: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone
Responding, Te Pāti Māori’s lawyer Davey Salmon KC denied Kapa-Kingi’s claims that the constitution had been breached, or that any party funds were misused.
He said Kapa-Kingi was expelled due to “real concerns about [her] public statements and disrepute”.
Salmon said Kapa-Kingi had declined to distance herself from “scandalous” comments made by her son Eru Kapa-Kingi, even “signaling a bit of agreement”.
“We’re in the world of the old house of cards,” Salmon said. “Any reasonable decision maker could have taken this conflict extremely seriously.”
He rejected the focus on party funds, and the distinction of whether they were party or parliamentary funds, arguing the risk of bringing the party into disrepute remained.
Salmon also waved away complaints about Te Pāti Māori’s quick response: “Respectfully, politics is the world of speedy executive actions.”
He questioned why Colson sought to “make something” of the different words used in the constitution around revoking or cancelling a membership, as opposed to expulsion.
“What could the difference really be in the context in which they’re used?” he said. “You stay a member or you cease to be, simple as that.”
Salmon also criticised Kapa-King’s efforts to “attack the presidency”, stressing that Tamihere had faced no competing nominations, no vote-of-no-confidence, and no complaints.
“To interfere in a presidency is quite a remarkable thing to do.”
Salmon said Tamihere had proposed to Kapa-Kingi that a full National Council could be convened again to vote on her membership, on the condition she abandon her cause of action regarding Tamihere’s presidency.
That offer was declined.
Salmon pointed to the “loud ticking of the election clock” in requesting a prompt resolution, which Justice Radich acknowledged, saying the decision would be treated with a “real priority”.
The hearing took place on the eve of Waitangi Day celebrations. Tamihere acknowledged this could “possibly” put more scrutiny on Te Pāti Māori during this week.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.