OK, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

I think that this year's elections are more important than they have been for some time going back to when National, after a painful period of John Key and his cronies, got replaced by Labour who brought back heart into the equation.

For Labour to gain control in 2026, apart from forming a coalition partnership with National (which is not really as silly as that reads given that both Labour and National are essentially centrist parties) it will need to form a partnership with the Greens and Te Pāti Māori to govern. Things are really on a knife edge and existing Labour supporters need to be given reassurances that such a coalition is workable along with the potential new (young) voters who need to be confident that if they vote for the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, that these parties wishes will be actioned in government.

This is why the recent meeting involving Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs at a South Auckland Mongrel Mob base has become a political controversy because opponents can point to it as evidence of a gap between the political left's approach to gangs and the public's concerns about crime.

The consequences extend beyond the MPs who attended. The controversy also affects Labour leader Chris Hipkins, the prospects for cooperation among centre-left parties, and the way voters assess political judgement during an election campaign.

Green MP Hūhana Lyndon, Green candidate Michel Mulipola, and Te Pāti Māori MPs Oriini Kaipara and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke attended a whānau, health and wellbeing hui at a Mongrel Mob base. Images of the meeting were shared publicly which included gang members and leader and lifetime member Harry Tam.

Greens Co-leader Marama Davidson said the party was unapologetic about engaging with marginalised communities. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick argued that people involved in gangs also need healthcare, housing and opportunities to reintegrate into society.

National's justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith has argued that the parties were prioritising gang members and that publicly posing for photographs at a gang base creates damaging perceptions about the left's approach to crime and political judgement.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has desperately tried to distinguish Labour from the controversy, saying the parties involved would not control the police or justice portfolios in a future Labour-led government. We can only hope that voters will find that reassurance convincing given that the stupid action has given National, ACT and New Zealand First a law-and-order argument to gain attention and votes.

The photographs of the two left parties who might end up in government cosying up to patched gang members provide opponents on the right with a ready-made campaign image. Rather than having to explain complex differences in crime policy, they can point to the politicians attending the hui and ask voters what that association says about their priorities given that the gangs are involved in meth production and sale along with a lot of other crime. It shows that the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are too accommodating towards gangs, or insufficiently attentive to the experiences of crime victims.

In an attempt to mitigate the impact there is the argument that association is not endorsement. Meeting with gang members does not, by itself, establish support for their criminal activities. The Greens say the hui concerned healthcare, wellbeing and understanding marginalised communities, rather than seeking electoral support from gang members. Fair enough but public presentation carries a lot of weight. Photographs taken at a gang base creates an impression that differs from the stated purpose of a meeting and the images remain in voters minds long after the explanations are forgotten.

As mentioned it puts Chris Hipkins in a difficult position. He wants Labour to be seen as a credible, moderate governing alternative and a Labour-led government could depend on support from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. He needs to keep that line going and that those parties will not control the police or justice portfolios but will need to downplay the fact that coalition partners can influence government policy even without holding a particular ministerial portfolio. This will be key in reassuring voters that Labour would retain control over core law-and-order responsibilities.

There seems to be dissention in the ranks of all of the parties involved in this which is hardly reassuring to voters and could point to future difficulties. For example was the meeting discussed with senior leadership beforehand and did the Greens and Te Pāti Māori consider how the location and photographs might be perceived? Any sniff of rogue politics will scare off both established and potential new support.

The latest polling ( Taxpayers' Union–Curia poll · Published 8 October 2026) shows party votes as:

National
28.5%

Labour
28.2%

Greens
13.3%

NZ First
12.0%

ACT
9.2%

Te Pāti Māori
1.4%


Collectively this puts a Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori coalition at 41.9% and a National/NZ First/Act coalition at 49.7% with the Opportunity Party being an unknown wildcard.

Labour can ill afford any negative perception of a coalition especially one that is so highly emotive.

While I was flippant in suggesting a National/Labour coalition government (which sadly would never happen), this to me would be an ideal solution given the way that the 'fringe' parties on the extreme left and the extreme right are gaining traction. This is the ugly side of MMP where extreme nutters and seeming do-gooders can bugger up sensible thinking and good governance. Working together on consensus might well lead to a strong and stable government with the ability to action long-term plans without having to cater to the wild and useless initiatives that the smaller parties might bring up.

Stranger things have happened.