All the inquiries into the Te Pāti Māori allegations

Four official investigations are now underway about the use of government resources by Te Pati Māori and other Māori organisations in the electorate of Tamaki Makaurau. The Government has asked the Public Service Commission to initiate its own inquiry, specifically about the involvement of government departments in the scandal.

The Public Service Commission joins the Police, the Privacy Commissioner and Stats NZ, all of whom have launched their own formal investigations. Ideally, the Police will be investigating the electoral law allegations, the Privacy Commissioner will explore how the private data of individuals was allegedly abused across different agencies, Statistics NZ will investigate the Census operations in Tamaki Makaurau, and the Public Service Commission will investigate the alleged failings of a multitude of other government departments in their contracts with various Māori social services providers.

But will these be enough, or is there still a need for a broader and more independent inquiry? There are good reasons to be sceptical about whether these state agencies will deliver robust and credible reports. Hence, the services of the Auditor General, the Serious Fraud Office, or a King’s Counsel may still be required.

The Public Service Commission inquiry

The government's decision to involve the Public Service Commission in resolving the current allegations is smart. After all, the public needs to know whether the various government agencies involved have acted properly and whether they have sufficient safeguards against the misuse of private data.

Reporting for RNZ, Lillian Hanly says that the investigation will look at “StatsNZ, the Ministry of Health, Health NZ, Te Puni Kokiri, Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development” – see: Te Pāti Māori inquiry: Six government agencies in the spotlight

As to why this particular investigation has been ordered by the Government, Prime Minister Christoper Luxon has said that the existing inquiries weren’t sufficient or broad enough in scope. He commented yesterday on the existing government agency inquiries: “I don't think that's enough… I don't think an individual agency looking at and reviewing its own activity is sufficient and therefore that's why I put in place yesterday a Public Service Commission” – see Perry Wilton’s Newshub report, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announces Public Service Commission inquiry into Te Pāti Māori after Census data allegations

This report also includes the response of employment advocate Allan Hulse, who is representing seven former staff who were working at the Manurewa Marae: “We know upwards of 1400 census forms were photocopied and then that data was put, as I said, into the database that we believe was owned by Waipareira Trust… The second stage involved staff assisting people to transfer from the general to the Māori roll, and they believe that information was obtained from the census form”.

Hulse has also said that the latest inquiry isn’t sufficient to clear up the issues involved, largely because it isn’t being set up to be truly independent: “You're never going to get faith in the public service by getting the public service to investigate themselves.”

He’s right in that the Public Service Commission isn’t generally regarded as a watchdog on the public service, but more as an advocate and manager of government agencies. It has an interest in ensuring that the agencies in question are exonerated.

Most commentators that have looked at the Te Pati Māori scandal have tended to recommend that a more independent government agency with real powers be brought in to investigate – such as the Office of the Auditor General or the Serious Fraud Office. One such commentator is broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan, who argued on Sunday that the public should be sceptical of government agencies investigating themselves, especially since many of them have failed to act on tipoffs about the alleged problems because they are more interested in “butt covering” – see: Public inquiry needed over Te Pāti Māori allegations (paywalled)

She argues that a genuinely independent inquiry is required: “If these agencies are as cynical as anyone else who tries to butt cover, they’ll launch an inquiry designed to find absolutely nothing. An inquiry has to be taken out of their hands and given to someone competent with no skin in the game. The Auditor-General is a good place to start.”

More focus is required on Whanau Ora

Whatever inquiries are carried out, there will be a need to delve into the sensitive issue of Whanau Ora funding and how entities controlled by John Tamihere deliver government social service contracts. These operations are at the heart of most of the allegations being made about Te Pati Māori, largely with the notion that Tamihere has integrated a number of state-funded charities into the operations of his political party.

At the heart of the many allegations are the operations of Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency, which is a company run by John Tamihere and his wife, Awerangi Tamihere, the chief operating officer. This agency acts as a social services clearinghouse, funding welfare and health providers in Auckland. And because Tamihere is also the President of Te Pati Māori and the Chief Executive of Waipareira Trust, there have been questions about his control of different funds and potential conflicts of interest.

Tamihere’s company gets funded directly from the government. Last month’s Budget allocated $182m for the next financial year. The Herald reported on this, saying that although other government agencies have had budget cuts, Tamihere’s company got an increased budget this year, and Tamihere says that this shows that the company’s relationship with the Government is strong – see: Whānau Ora happy to work alongside Government after slight budget boost

Rightwing political commentator David Farrar has also looked at the annual accounts of the Waipareira Trust, which is closely connected with the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency, and also run by Tamihere, and highlights how over three years, its income has gone up 29 per cent, its assets have grown by 71 per cent, and its profits/surplus has gone up by 220 per cent. But its annual pay for the senior staff has also gone up 155 per cent to an average of $511,000 – see: The growing and profitable Tamihere Empire

Newstalk ZB’s Philip Crump also delved into these finances last year, including the $6m that the Trust charges each year in “management fees” – see: John Tamihere and the Waipareira Trust

In Defence of Te Pati Māori and related entities

Te Pati Māori can be congratulated for front-footing the scandal – on Friday, the party said that they were calling on the Government to get the Police to investigate, so they could be cleared. The Herald newspaper, therefore credits Te Pati Māori today for forcing the Government to initiate the inquiry they announced yesterday – see its editorial today, Te Pāti Māori’s self-referral for police investigation forces Government’s hand on data issue (paywalled)

Although Tamihere has asked the Police to investigate, he’s also saying that the allegations are “Racism 101 in practice”. He gave an interview yesterday with Waatea News, in which he explained that it’s another case in which “Maori are guilty until proven innocent” and he says that those making the allegations are essentially saying, “You horis can’t be trusted” – see: John Tamihere – CEO Waipareira and President of Te Pāti Māori

Tamihere’s friend, Labour MP Willie Jackson, has also taken the race angle in his criticisms of the allegations. He suggested that Te Pati Māori were being held to a higher standard than parties like National, who “have got donors lined up everywhere. These guys have got lobbyists who they are looking after” – you can watch his animated defence on Newshub: Labour's Willie Jackson calls for same scrutiny of National as Te Pati Māori in fiery interview

Similarly, blogger Martyn Bradbury has also backed Tamihere, arguing that the scandal just reflects “a schism between Destiny Church and the Māori Party”, and the media’s scrutiny of the allegations amount to “naked garden variety bigotry where Māori are held to higher standards than non-Māori” – see: The double standard crucifixion of Māori Party

Of course, it needs to be remembered that the allegations have been made are actually from Māori workers who used to work at the Manurewa Marae. And today, Newsroom’s Sam Sachdeva has responded to the racism claims, saying that this does Te Pati Māori “a disservice”.

Sachdeva says that although the government inquiries should “take te ao Māori into consideration”, it’s “misguided” to suggest that the allegations can be dismissed as “racism”. He says that “a Pākehā party using census data for campaigning would attract a similarly strong response.” Furthermore, he cites a recent survey of Māori and Pakeha that shows that “the issue of trust and confidence in government is even more pronounced when it comes to Māori” – as Māori concerns about privacy breaches seem to be exceptionally high.

Those that have blown the whistle on the funding arrangements and electioneering issues are, according to Newstalk ZB’s Philip Crump, “described by sources as credible and well-respected community leaders” – see: Seven complaints of alleged treating at Manurewa Marae during the 2023 General Election reported to Electoral Commission

In this article, Crump reports further allegations, including that Takutai Tarsh Kemp, the Te Pati Māori candidate, was seen at the Manurewa Marae polling station several times on election day, allegedly in contravention of electoral laws, and party-branded clothing was worn by workers at the voting booth.

What happens next?

Pressure on MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp is likely to increase this week. So far, she has gone to ground. And today, Stuff’s Tova O’Brien outlines how other MPs in her situation have had to be stood down from Parliament while investigations have occurred – see: The strong case to stand down Te Pāti Māori MP. But every sign from Te Pati Māori suggests that nothing like that will occur.

This week, the Government and the Public Service Commission will announce the terms of reference for the new review and who is undertaking it. This will affect whether the review is regarded as sufficiently objective and robust.

There will also be continued questions about exactly what investigations the Police and the Privacy Commissioner are carrying out. So far, they have been very unwilling to answer questions.

Andrea Vance, who broke the original story about the allegations last week, has written about how much trouble she has had getting information from the various government agencies. And it’s been particularly difficult getting news from the Police, even though they’ve had the allegations referred to them about eight months ago – see: Do you want to know the full story, or the official story? (paywalled)

Vance conveys her experience with the Police: “Despite employing a large team of spokespeople, the force has an especially poor reputation for secrecy, lack of transparency and downright obstructiveness among the New Zealand media. It took two full days to get this statement: ‘Police can confirm it is making enquiries into matters relating to Te Pāti Māori. While that work is ongoing, Police is not in a position to provide any further detail.’ There is no legal reason that police can’t be more specific. It’s just their MO to be difficult in a passive voice.”

Although the Police are keeping very quiet, it won’t be a surprise if they suddenly announce an early conclusion to their investigations. Historically, the Police don’t like being involved in political issues, especially those involving elections. They will be very keen to either conclude that it’s “not in the public interest” to pursue the allegations further, or else announce they are referring the issue on to the Serious Fraud Office.

The Office of the Auditor General is the other authority to watch out for. They have proven to be a very tenacious and robust watchdog on integrity issues. They would also be well placed to announce an overarching review that no other state agency seems to be able to undertake. This is probably the only outcome that would satisfy the critics and those making the allegations. Until then, the whole scandal will continue to have a big impact on New Zealand politics, especially Te Pati Māori.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington