The High Court reinstated Mariameno Kapa-Kingi as a member of Te Pāti Māori (“TPM”), finding she had been unlawfully expelled from TPM. The Court found that the meetings used to suspend, then expel, Kapa-Kingi from TPM were not properly held under TPM’s Constitution (“Constitution”) and breached TPM’s tikanga.
The judgment was later recalled and reissued, after a request of the Speaker of the House.
The Constitution provided that TPM’s National Council (“Council”) could cancel a person’s membership if they did not meet the criteria for Party membership, such as loyalty to the Party, and that a person found to have misused Party funds would be immediately expelled from the Party. The Constitution also provided for a lengthy procedure that the Party would have to follow to expel a person on these grounds, which included having a relevant Electorate Council attempt to resolve a dispute before having the issue heard by a Disciplinary and Disputes Committee.
On 9 November 2025 the Council voted to expel Member of Parliament Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. This followed a relationship breakdown between Kapa-Kingi and TPM leadership, and a purported suspension of her membership on 23 October 2025, which also included a resolution to “reset” the Te Tai Tokerau Electorate Executive by way of a Special General Meeting. The expulsion arose following allegations that Kapa-Kingi had misused her Parliamentary budget and that media interviews where she was critical of TPM had brought TPM into disrepute.
On 4 December Kapa-Kingi, alongside her Te Tai Tokerau Electorate Council ( “Applicants”) applied for a judicial review and interim injunction in the Wellington High Court challenging her expulsion from TPM. The Applicants alleged the expulsion violated the Constitution and that TPM’s President John Tamihere had not been properly elected. The following day the High Court granted the interim injunction, reinstating Kapa-Kingi’s membership to TPM pending a substantive hearing.
Were TPM’s decisions amenable to judicial review?
The Court first determined whether internal party decisions could be judicially reviewed and held to public law standards. TPM submitted that as a private organisation judicial review was not available for matters of internal Party discipline, but the Court found that a Member of Parliament’s membership in a political party and the valid appointment of a party president impacted public affairs and could not simply be a private matter. It noted that political parties are how the public engage in Parliamentary politics and so their internal processes have a public nature, related to government, that allows the court to conduct a review
First cause of action: purported suspension of Kapa-Kingi
The Applicant’s first challenge was to the purported decision of TPM’s Council to suspend Kapa-Kingi and “reset” the Te Tai Tokerau Electorate Executive. The Council comprised the TPM President, co-vice-presidents, co-leaders, Members of Parliament and members selected by each Māori electorate. Party MPs (excluding the co-leaders)and the council members from Te Tai Tokerau were not notified of the meeting to suspend Kapa-Kingi.
The Applicants argued that the Constitution did not provide any power to suspend a member and that TPM had failed to comply with the Constitution’s dispute resolution and complaints processes. TPM claimed that the power to suspend membership was inherent to the power to expel and/or cancel memberships.
The Court held there was no power to suspend a membership in the Constitution, implied or otherwise. It found that even if a power existed, TPM ignored relevant provisions of the Constitution such that the suspension could not stand. The Court cited the various procedural failings of the meeting, such as TPM’s MPs and the Te Tai Tokerau electorate not being invited or present, and that no notice of the specific resolution to suspend Kapa Kingi was given to attendees. The Court also noted the importance of tikanga, woven through the Constitution, which TPM did not follow when it suspended Kapa-Kingi.
Second cause of action: Kapa-Kingi’s purported expulsion from TPM
The Applicants challenged the legal and factual basis for Kapa-Kingi’s expulsion from TPM, claiming that the expulsion did not comply with the Constitution and that the factual basis for the expulsion was incorrect. They argued that TPM had not followed the correct procedure for expelling Kapa-Kingi from TPM and that she had not in fact misused Party funds, nor brought TPM into disrepute.
TPM argued that Kapa-Kingi had misspent Party funds by exceeding her Parliamentary Services budget, including through contracts with her son which they claimed was improper. They said her loyalty was also at the judgement of the Council, for which they relied on the media interviews Kapa-Kingi participated in where she was critical of Party leadership.
The Court found that TPM had not followed the Constitution’s requirement that it send a dispute to the relevant Electoral Council and instead had proceeded directly to action at the National Council level. A Discipline and Disputes Committee had also neither been formed nor used. As with the decision to suspend Kapa-Kingi, the decision to expel her was made at a meeting without Party MPs or Te Tai Tokerau electorate representatives. The Court found that the process used to expel Kapa-Kingi did not comply with the Constitution and the expulsion was therefore unlawful. The Court noted this was also contrary to the Constitution’s principles of tikanga, which included acknowledging the authority of individual electorate and the necessity of working towards unity.
The Applicants also argued that TPM had made a mistake of fact, submitting that the factual basis for Kapa-Kingi’s expulsion was incorrect. They claimed that there was no actual misuse of Party funds and that Kapa-Kingi had not brought the party into disrepute, such that the grounds for her to be expelled under the Constitution had not been made out.
Kapa-Kingi’s Parliamentary Services budget was independent of TPM, and Kapa-Kingi had otherwise been able to correct her forecasted overspend. The Applicants also noted that employing whanau was common in TPM and that Kapa-Kingi had not set out to bring TPM into disrepute through her media interviews. Nonetheless, the Court noted that a judicial review for a mistake of fact required TPM’s conclusions to be entirely untenable. It considered that whether Kapa-Kingi had in fact misused Party funds or brought the Party into disrepute were tenable value judgements open to TPM, provided it complied with the Constitution’s processes.
Third cause of action: John Tamihere’s presidency of TPM
The Applicants claimed John Tamihere had not been validly re-elected as President of TPM. The Constitution provided that elections for TPM’s President and two co-Vice Presidents would occur “on a rotational, triennial basis”. John Tamihere had first been elected as Party President in June 2022. At an Annual General Meeting in July 2024 TPM “affirmed” Tamihere’s position as President without opposition. The Applicants claimed that the affirmation of Tamihere’s position did not meet the Constitution’s requirements for nominating and voting on a Party President.
Aside from the minutes of the July 2024 meeting which recorded the affirmation of Tamihere as President, there was no evidence available on the procedure adopted for that meeting. The Court accepted that the minutes evidenced a sufficiently democratic process, particularly as the affirmation of Tamihere’s presidency was without opposition. The Court also noted that no other challenges had arisen to Tamihere’s presidency for the year and a half prior to the Applicants bringing this case. This cause of action did not succeed.
The High Court ordered that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi be reinstated as a member of TPM. This case highlights the importance of following internal processes correctly in a dispute, and also sets a precedent that political parties, despite being private organisations, do have a public nature that brings them within the jurisdiction of judicial review.
Update: following an application from the Speaker of the NewZealand House of Representatives (“Speaker”) seeking to adjust the wording ofthe High Court’s order, the High Court recalled and reissued this judgment. TheSpeaker was concerned that the High Court’s decision breached the principles ofcomity and Parliamentary privilege, by purporting to interpret Parliament’sStanding Orders in making an order that Kapa-Kingi be reinstated to the TPM ParliamentaryParty.
The High Court amended the orders given in its judgment. Itretained the declaration that the decisions to expel Kapa-Kingi from TPM wereunlawful and were set aside. Instead of ordering TPM to inform the Speaker thatKapa-Kingi was reinstated to TPM, the reissued judgment stated that the Court“would expect” that TPM “would consider whether it would be appropriate tonotify the Speaker that Ms Kapa-Kingi is now a member of the parliamentary pāti”.
For further information on this case or similar issues, please contact Director Brigitte Morten
