"Michael Laws Isn't The Scandal, The Coalition That Needs Him Is" - 5 November 2026

Kia ora, whānau.

I'll start with what Michael Laws actually said and how his own side responded. Then I'll show you what Thomas Coughlan's Herald column gets right and where I think it stops short. I'll put the whole affair through a Tika, Pono and Tikanga test. After that come three examples for the western mind, each with the harm counted, a fix and the impact on tikanga. I'll deal with the best argument in the coalition's favour. And I'll finish with why I won't be voting this coalition back in, and why I'm recommending the Greens.

I'm Ivor Jones, Te Arawa, Ngāti Pikiao, with Welsh whakapapa. I'm speaking for myself, not for any iwi or hapū.

I'd love you to click on this one, read it and use it. It's built to hold information you can take into your daily life. There's a long-form audio podcast that explains the kaupapa in detail. There's a short YouTube video that explains it in about a minute. And if you like to read, there's a cited essay waiting for you right here.

I'm building a repository for our mokopuna. I want them, years from now, to look back over these 1,000-plus essays on neoliberalism, misinformation and disinformation in Aotearoa and say: the Māori Green Lantern, and a few others, were documenting this and trying to protect us.

What He Said, And What Happened Next

Michael Laws is a broadcaster and the NZ First candidate ranked number six on its list. The Herald published remarks he made on The Platform about the Opportunity Party's women, and the Herald's own column calls them sexist and "grotesque".

According to a Stuff report, he described the party's women variously as "officious", "princesses", "stern" and "authoritarian fascists". I haven't read the full piece, so check that line against the Stuff report before you publish.

I'm not going to repeat the sexual insinuation. You don't need it to see what happened. Women stood for office, and a man answered them by judging them as women.

Then came the clean-up. Laws first dug in. Stuff's live coverage says he doubled down and shrugged off Luxon's response. 1News reports that hours later he apologised, after saying the remarks were meant to be "wry and puckish", and that he wouldn't say whether Peters had asked him to. The Herald headline says he "unreservedly apologised" after Peters told him off.

Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong called for him to stand down, per RNZ. The Spinoff summed up the wider reaction with a headline I can't improve on: everyone thinks Michael Laws is sexist and gross.

What Coughlan Got Right

Credit where it's due. Coughlan doesn't pretend this is a one-off. He lists Stuart Nash dropping out after sexist remarks about National's Katie Nimon, Winston Peters' "racist tirade" at Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, and now Laws. He adds that opposition to the India trade deal has at times "veered into racist attacks on the Indian diaspora". He calls it a "thread of bigotry" and says that suggests the party is unwell.

He also makes a point I think is under-read. Nash was an outsider, disliked by Shane Jones and by Dot Jones, who sits on the party board. Laws and Peters go back decades, to when Peters was a National MP and Laws worked for that party. Coughlan thinks that history will make it hard for Peters to discipline him.

That's his reading, and it's a fair one. It's also an inference, not a fact. But think about what it implies. The party let the outsider go and is protecting the mate.

And Coughlan is honest that none of this may cost NZ First votes. He writes that there's "a constituency for grumpy politics like this". That's the most important line in his column. It means some of the party's voters may be fine with all of it.

The Deep Dive Podcast

Maori Ethics and the Michael Laws Scandal

0:00

/1363.522177

1×

Listen to a lively conversation between two hosts, unpacking and connecting topics in the sources of this essay.   I apologise in advance for the AI's very harsh pronounciation of reo.  Please dont shoot me, :). 

Youtube Video

Like video?  Here is a short video suppporting the essay.  Again, don't shoot the messenger please because of AI's pronounciation.  :)

Where The Column Stops Short

Coughlan asks whether Peters has lost control of his party. I think that's the wrong question.

Peters told Laws off. The Herald says so in its headline. A party leader who can tell a candidate off can also say: this man doesn't speak for us. He didn't say that. He chose the lightest consequence available.

I won't pretend there was an easy exit. RNZ's coverage suggests the deadline for removing a candidate had passed, though I haven't read that line in full, so check it. But a leader doesn't need a deadline to draw a line in public.

And Luxon? The Herald column says he took "mere hours" to promise Laws would never serve in a government he led. He did it on the footpath outside a Masterton record store, with wool from a sheep he'd been shearing still on his jacket. Good. It's the minimum. It's also the cheapest thing a prime minister can say, because it doesn't cost him the deal.

Look at what he did and didn't do. He ruled out one man for one job. He didn't rule out the party that put that man on its list. Coughlan himself says many in National and ACT would quietly prefer a different partner, "so fatigued are they by the party's constant controversy". That's tired, not principled.

I made the same point in Do Not Give This Government A Back Door: performing a rejection isn't the same as refusing the deal.

The Tika, Pono And Tikanga Test

Here's how I judge it, and it's my opinion, not a finding.

Tika asks whether it was right. Pono asks whether it was true. Tikanga asks whether the way it was handled built mauri. I break that last one into five questions: did the process preserve their mana, recognise their whakapapa, respect their wairua, involve their whānau and return them to wellbeing?

Tika: no. Judging a woman candidate by her manner and then reaching for a sexual joke isn't scrutiny of power. It's contempt.

Pono: not at first. The first line was that it was meant to be "wry and puckish". The apology only came hours later, after the pushback.

Mana: not preserved. The women were made the subject of a joke on air, and the response has so far been a reprimand and an apology. Neither restores anything to them.

Whakapapa: the only whakapapa anyone has talked about is Laws and Peters. Coughlan says that history is why Peters may struggle to discipline him. The relationship between the two men is being weighed against the standing of the women. That's the wrong way round.

Wairua: a public figure turning women's presence in politics into a punchline tells every woman watching what's waiting if she steps up. I can't count the women who'll think twice. But the signal is there.

Whānau: nothing I've read says anyone offered the women a process, a say in how this is put right, or any support.

Wellbeing: the harm landed on women who'd done nothing but turn up to debate. The costs have been absorbed by them and by the campaign. The person who caused it is still on the list.

Three Examples For The Western Mind

Example One: The Workplace Test

Picture a senior manager who responds to a female colleague's disagreement by judging her appearance and making a sexual remark about her. In any decent workplace, that's a disciplinary matter. It doesn't matter whether he calls it "puckish".

The harm, counted: NZ First peaked at about 13% in the Taxpayers' Union–Curia poll this year. Coughlan says its support has since dropped by about 40%. That's 13 × 0.60 = 7.8%. The latest 1News-Verian poll has the party on 8, a fall of (13 − 8) ÷ 13 = 38.5%. That drop came before this week's mess, so I'm not claiming Laws caused it. I'm saying the party was already bleeding, and the response to Laws shows it hasn't changed course.

The fix: a published candidate conduct code, an independent complaints route, consequences stated before a candidate is selected, and a say for the person harmed. Don't make her stand next to him for a photo.

Impact on tikanga: mana is the standing someone carries into a room. A joke about a woman's body doesn't just embarrass her. It lowers her in front of everyone. In western terms, it's a hostile work environment. In tikanga terms, it's damage to mana, and damage to mana demands repair, not a one-line "if I offended".

Example Two: The Precedent Test

Imagine a company that sacks one executive for a sexist remark in July and promotes another who made a worse one in November. Any employment lawyer would say that's inconsistent.

The harm, counted: Coughlan names three NZ First incidents this year, not counting the rhetoric around the India trade deal: Nash, Peters and Xu-Nan, and Laws. Nash is out of the race. Laws, one of the party's top six, is not. That's a score of one gone and one kept, for the same type of conduct. The difference, on Coughlan's reading, is who the person is to the leadership.

The fix: coalition agreements and candidate agreements should state in writing what ends a candidacy or a ministry. A party that won't write down its standard doesn't have one.

Impact on tikanga: tikanga holds because people can predict it. If the same act brings a different outcome depending on who did it, trust breaks. To a western reader: it's selective enforcement. In te ao Māori, it's a breach of tika, because the rule applies to some and not others.

Example Three: The Bill Behind The Noise

Imagine a family business where the managers spend a week fighting about a scandal while nobody checks the accounts.

The harm, counted: meanwhile the Waitangi Tribunal has reported on the school boards' Te Tiriti obligations, and as my Damage Diary and the Back Door essay set out, found the Crown disestablished Te Aka Whai Ora without consulting Māori. In Five Kingmakers, No Conscience, I laid out how whānau pay for what this coalition takes credit for. In The Butcher's Thumb, I pointed at an 82 percent grocery duopoly while whānau went hungry. And in The Twenty-Eight Percent Earthquake, I reported a poll of Māori-roll voters. The Greens were on 28%, Labour 27%, Te Pāti Māori 16% and Opportunity 6%. That adds up to 77, so at most 23% were left for every other party. That's a small group, and it tells you where whānau are heading.

The fix: judge governments on outcomes, not on noise. Restore Treaty obligations, put Māori in the room before decisions are made, and stop putting grocery profits ahead of kai on the table.

Impact on tikanga: manaakitanga means looking after people first. When a government spends its energy managing a news cycle while whānau go without, the order of care is upside down. To a western reader, that's a governance failure dressed up as a news story.

The Best Argument For The Coalition

Here's the best case, as fairly as I can put it. Luxon acted within hours. Peters called the remarks wrong and told Laws off. Laws apologised. One broadcaster's words shouldn't taint a whole government. And Coughlan himself says there's "good reason to be sceptical" that Laws' comments will have a decisive effect on National. He also points out that the Greens' and Te Pāti Māori's gang-pad visit threatened to hurt Labour and didn't.

I agree with some of that. This one scandal might not change the election. It might not even dent NZ First. I'm not predicting a collapse.

My argument is narrower. A coalition that moves fast on a headline and slowly on anything else tells you what it values. It condemns the remark and keeps the arrangement. And a government that responds to Tribunal findings about its treatment of Māori with the same shrug is showing a pattern, not a slip.

On the words "white supremacist" and "neoliberal": those are my opinions about the effect of this government's policies and the way power is arranged. I'm not describing anyone's private thoughts. The facts behind them are the Tribunal findings I've cited and the policies I've covered across these essays. Read them and decide for yourself.

Why I Won't Vote This Coalition Back In

This is my opinion, built on the record above.

• It tolerates a run of offensive conduct from its own side, calls it "disgusting", and then asks for another term.
• Its strongest response to the Laws affair was to rule out one man from one job, not to question the deal.
• The Waitangi Tribunal has found Te Tiriti breaches in how this government has treated school boards and Te Aka Whai Ora.
• Whānau are being asked to carry the cost while ministers take the credit.
• On the final poll, the coalition would need more than its current parties to govern. If you want a different outcome, your party vote matters.

Why I'm Recommending The Greens

Give your party vote to the Green Party. That's my recommendation as a writer, not a claim on anyone's behalf.

The Green manifesto opens with a vision of an Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi, where power and wealth sit with communities. The party has also said it fully supports the Tribunal's findings on school boards' Te Tiriti duties. It's polling around 16% in the final 1News-Verian poll, and as I reported, it's neck and neck with Labour among Māori-roll voters.

I haven't audited every manifesto promise, and promises aren't results. If the Greens get power, hold them to the same standard I'm holding everyone else to. Polls close on Saturday 7 November.

Vote like your mokopuna are watching.

Koha Consideration

You might ask who's paying the Māori Green Lantern to read the transcripts, check the polls and tell you what one candidate's words and one coalition's response really add up to.

The answer is you do.

The Māori Green Lantern is supported through koha and that's it. There are no corporates behind this mahi. Every koha says whānau are ready to support and protect the accountability that Crown and corporate structures won't provide. It says rangatiratanga includes the power to support our own truth tellers.

Kia kaha, whānau. Stay vigilant. Stay connected. And if you're able, consider a koha to make sure this voice continues.

If you can't, no worries. Subscribe or follow the Māori Green Lantern at themaorigreenlantern.maori.nz, kōrero, and share with your whānau and friends. That's koha in itself.

Four pathways exist:

• Koha: Support And Protect The Māori Green Lantern
• Subscribe: Subscribe To The Māori Green Lantern
• Bank transfer: Ivor Jones, account number 03-1395-0099387-000
• Facebook: Subscribe On Facebook

Disclaimer

This essay is opinion and commentary based on the cited sources, as at 5 November 2026. Reported remarks are attributed to RNZ, 1News, the Herald and The Spinoff. Seat figures are poll projections, not results. "White supremacist" and "neoliberal" are my opinions about outcomes and governing architecture, with the factual bases set out above. Contact me to request a correction.