In brief

The question isn’t just whether Te Pāti Māori (TPM) is chaotic, but whether the media have failed to hold it to account.
Some reporters appear wary of criticising TPM, fearing accusations of racism.
Conflicts around Toitū Te Tiriti, undeclared properties, and public outbursts drew little scrutiny.
Critics say restraint born of cultural sensitivity has become bias, leaving TPM largely unchecked.

Media indifference or protection?

Is the media generally turning a blind eye to Te Pāti Māori’s (TPM) scandals, or actively shielding the party from the scrutiny others would face?

Heather du Plessis-Allan argued in the New Zealand Herald that TPM has “vaporised” its credibility because the public “mostly don’t take the party seriously enough to waste energy on them.”

Is this true, or is the media unwilling to challenge a party whose platform overlaps with progressive causes that many journalists support? Or fear being labelled racist for doing so.

For years, social media has seethed over TPM’s alleged malfeasance, racial rhetoric and nepotism, but the mainstream press has largely treated the party’s controversies as short-lived sideshows. Still, du Plessis-Allan’s point is not without merit. Public fatigue is genuine for Parliament’s smallest party. The chaos, the constant claims of racism and the grandstanding in Parliament all erode credibility.

Yet, under MMP, even a few seats can be key to forming a new government. TPM could be kingmakers in the next election. Ignoring them as a distraction seems shortsighted.

Double standards or cautious coverage?

However, far from ignoring them, publicly funded outlets such as RNZ and Māori Television have been accused of giving TPM soft coverage through sympathetic profiles and softball interviews. Mihingarangi Forbes and Moana Maniapoto have repeatedly featured TPM leaders, often in a supportive tone.

Te Pāti Māori’s associated company, Toitū Te Tiriti Limited, is often described by the media as a “movement.” Yet, it is a private business solely owned by Christina “Kiri” Tamihere, wife of co-leader Rawiri Waititi and daughter of party president John Tamihere. According to the company’s website, its business, in addition to organising public gatherings, appears to focus on selling branded merchandise and soliciting donations. Despite potential conflicts of interest, the overlap between the company and the party has gone largely unreported by mainstream media.

Supporters say this restraint reflects caution, arguing that mainstream outlets are wary of appearing to attack Māori enterprise or community initiatives. Critics see it as deference that borders on protection.

Others argue that despite the deference TPM has received, the party is imploding partly because it has been allowed to run wild. The lack of accountability has created a “power corrupts” effect – the more indulgence it has enjoyed, the more reckless it has become.

On the other hand, when scrutiny does occur, it often takes a different form. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s failure to declare two properties, one owned since 2006, was revealed only after the Herald pressed for answers. She responded by saying Māori leaders are “not allowed to stumble,” turning a transparency lapse into a claim of cultural bias. Without pushback from the media, basic reporting is recast as moral grievance, a tactic TPM uses to rally its base.

In another case, Rawiri Waititi physically pulled Ngarewa-Packer away from reporters in full view of cameras. The moment drew limited follow-up. Some editors might argue it was a brief, unremarkable incident. Others saw a clear double standard, given the uproar when National’s Andrew Bayly touched a staffer’s arm and resigned from Cabinet.

Taken together, these examples suggest the media’s approach to TPM reflects both caution and indulgence, but restraint born of cultural sensitivity can still result in bias. Whether from fear, sympathy, or fatigue, the outcome is a party spared the level of accountability applied to others.

Community Discussion

Latest News