Lawyers acting for Te Tai Tokerau MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi say her expulsion from Te Pāti Māori was the result of a flawed process that sidelined tikanga, ignored the authority of her electorate, and mischaracterised parliamentary budget management.
However, lawyers for Te Pāti Māori and party president John Tamihere say the case is being framed too narrowly, arguing the budget issue is only one part of a broader concern about conduct, and that the Court should be cautious about intervening in internal party decision-making.
The High Court in Wellington today heard the substantive challenge, with Mike Colson KC arguing the party’s own constitution was not followed when Kapa-Kingi was suspended and later expelled last year.
It was also revealed that there was a proposed settlement during the hearing to resolve the Te Tai Tokerau MP’s expulsion.
After a preliminary hearing last year, Justice Radich temporarily reinstated Mariameno Kapa-Kingi as a member of the party until a permanent ruling following this week’s hearing.
Her lawyer raised at the start of proceedings that, despite that ruling, the party is still not recognising Ms Kapa-Kingi as a member.
“From a parliamentary perspective, she is therefore treated as an independent MP. That defeats the purpose of the interim order,” Colson said.
Justice Radich said he would follow up on the matter to ensure it is addressed by the party.
At the centre of the dispute is the party’s claim that Kapa-Kingi brought Te Pāti Māori into disrepute and misused party funds for personal gain.
Kapa-Kingi rejects both allegations and is also asking the court to examine the validity of John Tamihere’s role as party president.
Colson KC told the court the issue relied on by the party was not misuse of funds, but a forecast overspend of Kapa-Kingi’s Parliamentary Services budget, which was later reconciled.
He pointed to financial records showing that, at the same time, the party’s co-leaders were also projected to overspend their own budgets by about $42,000, compared with Kapa-Kingi’s projected $133,000.
He argued the comparison was critical, saying budget variance was being treated as misconduct in Kapa-Kingi’s case, while similar projections elsewhere were not framed in the same way.
The court also heard that senior party figures and the Speaker had previously agreed to adjustments to Kapa-Kingi’s budget to manage the forecast overspend, undermining the suggestion it amounted to personal gain.
In response, counsel for Tamihere, Davey Salmon KC, argued the issue was not whether the overspend was later reconciled, but whether the conduct at the time amounted to serious misconduct under the party’s rules.
He said accepting the applicant’s argument would lead to an “absurd result”, where misuse of parliamentary funding could never be treated as misconduct.
Salmon KC also argued the matter was not suited to a full judicial review, saying the Court was not being asked to determine the merits of internal party disputes, but only whether there had been a legal error in the process followed.
Beyond finances, Colson KC also focused on process and tikanga.
He said the exclusion of Kapa-Kingi and the Te Tai Tokerau electorate from key hui went directly against the constitution’s emphasis on the authority of electorates, and the role of whānau, hapū and iwi in party decision-making.
He argued the constitution required disputes to be addressed first at the electorate level, before escalating to a Disciplinary and Disputes Committee.
That step, he said, never occurred.
According to Kapa-Kingi’s lawyers, bypassing that process was not a technical error but a fundamental breach that meant the National Council lacked the power to expel her.
The court also heard concerns about the tone and timing of notices sent to Kapa-Kingi ahead of hui, including material circulated only hours beforehand containing serious allegations.
Those allegations were included in a dossier released to party members and later leaked to the media.
Colson KC said this contributed to the view that the process was not a safe or tikanga-consistent space for engagement, and that both Kapa-Kingi and her electorate executive did not attend as a result.
Salmon KC rejected that characterisation, saying political life often involves difficult and confronting conversations.
“The notion that people didn’t feel safe to attend a Zoom call in the world of politics is inherently unlikely,” Salmon told the court.
“These are tough political actors who are willing to stand up in front of cameras or courts.”
He also said decisions made by the party’s National Council were democratic in nature, and that courts should be slow to second-guess collective political judgments made under the party’s constitution.
Proposed settlement to avoid court was declined
Salmon referred to a settlement proposal offered by Tamihere later in the hearing, acknowledging Kapa-Kingi’s concern that the vote on her expulsion may have been different had Te Tai Tokerau representatives been present.
The proposal involved reconvening a full National Council to vote again on her membership, on the condition that she abandon her legal challenge to Tamihere’s presidency.
Kapa-Kingi declined the offer.
Kapa-Kingi attended court today alongside former Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris, who is not a party to the proceedings.
Tamihere and party secretary Lance Norman were also present.
Justice Radich has reserved his decision, saying that with the election clock ticking, he will prioritise the judgment, which is expected to be delivered in the coming days.
