Greens defend Mongrel Mob hui as National criticises priorities
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson has defended two Green candidates who went to an election hui with the Mongrel Mob. She said the party will engage with all communities.
Mongrel Mob lifetime member Harry Tam publicised the attendance. He posted photos of Green candidates Hūhana Lyndon and Michel Mulipola with Te Pāti Māori candidates Oriini Kaipara and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. He described the gathering as a whānau, health and wellbeing election hui, according to RNZ. Hui means meeting.
Davidson said the Greens were unapologetic about engaging with marginalised communities, or groups often shut out of decision-making. She said the party had done so year after year. The position is engagement without preconditions, or talks with no strings attached.
Kaipara addressed the attendance on Instagram. She said the kaupapa, or purpose, was the health and wellbeing of the Mob community. Being present did not mean endorsing everything said or done by the hosts.
National justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith condemned the meeting. He accused the Greens and Te Pāti Māori of prioritising gangs over victims. His response was immediate.
The National Party has previously stated that Tam had told his Facebook followers the Mongrel Mob was voting strategically to keep National out by backing Labour and the Greens, according to the National Party.
Former National leader Christopher Luxon had earlier said he has "no interest" in meeting with senior Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam, and reiterated his pledge to crack down on gangs. Tam responded to National's gang policy by saying "tough is not enough", according to 1News. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori criticised that policy at the time.
The broader context here is familiar in election campaigns. Law-and-order debate often works like a wedge, forcing smaller parties to choose between community-level work and leaving themselves open to claims of endorsement. For the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, the calculation appears to be that kanohi-ki-te-kanohi, or face-to-face, presence in marginalised communities carries its own mandate, even if opponents use the images differently. For National, the calculation is that any contact can be framed as a question of priorities, victims against gangs, and put to voters in those terms.
Looking to the weeks ahead, the risk sits in different places. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori must hold the line between presence and endorsement under sustained questioning. National must hold its own line, that refusal to engage does not close off policy avenues for health, rehabilitation or local-level work. Voters will assess which approach they find more credible on community safety.
