Hipkins rules out working with NZ First, citing racism — what it means for the election

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has ruled out working with New Zealand First in any government he leads, announcing the decision on Monday, 10 August 2026 (RNZ).

The move hardens what had been a softer position. Hipkins had previously described working with NZ First as "highly unlikely" and, on 4 August, ruled out giving Winston Peters the foreign affairs portfolio in any future Labour-led government (1News; RNZ). The full rule-out followed further internal conversations with his caucus, Hipkins said (RNZ).

Hipkins cited NZ First's "pattern of behaviour," which he said had escalated, and pointed to what he called "overt racism" from Peters and the party. "There was not a single person" in Labour who thought the party should remain open to working with NZ First, he said (RNZ).

Peters had already ruled out working with Labour before Hipkins made his announcement. The NZ First leader has been publicly hostile to Labour for months. In April, Peters posted on the party's official X account that Hipkins had "admitted the Labour Party is out of ideas and rudderless" (NZ First on X). The Post reported that when Labour MPs discussed ruling out the relationship, Peters's response was that he had beaten them (The Post).

The announcement came after a Taxpayers Union-Curia poll released the previous Friday showed Labour dropping 3.7 points to 27.8 percent. The same poll had the governing coalition parties able to form a government with 61 seats if the numbers held on election day, while the opposition bloc, including the Opportunity Party (which National has ruled out working with), would hold 59 seats (RNZ; RNZ).

Hipkins described that poll as "rogue" — meaning an outlier that didn't match other publicly available polling, which he said had Labour's numbers steadily increasing since the last election (RNZ).

The November 2026 general election is the backdrop against which all of this is playing out. NZ First has begun selecting candidates, including former Buller mayor Jamie Cleine, who will stand for the party in West Coast-Tasman (RNZ). Labour has been rolling out policy: Hipkins has promised a Future Fund backing people and businesses, three free doctor's visits a year, and a reversal of electoral enrolment changes that would disqualify votes cast by people who enrol on election day (Hipkins on X; RNZ). In his first speech of the election year, at Labour's caucus retreat in West Auckland, Hipkins said New Zealanders were looking for a "sense of hope" (RNZ).

The practical effect of the rule-out is to narrow Labour's coalition options. Under MMP, a Labour-led government without NZ First would need the Greens and Te Pāti Māori (and potentially TOP) to deliver enough seats. That arithmetic is straightforward when Labour polls in the mid-thirties or above; at 27.8 percent, as the Curia poll suggested, the numbers become considerably harder. Hipkins is betting that the poll is the outlier he says it is, and that clarity on NZ First will not come at the cost of his negotiating room.

There is also the question of whether the announcement shifts votes rather than coalitions. Voters who had been weighing Labour while assuming a NZ First deal remained possible now have that option foreclosed. Some of those voters may migrate to Labour; others may look at the coalition's 61-seat position and conclude the government is on track regardless. Peters, for his part, framed the earlier foreign affairs rule-out as a Labour capitulation, and the mutual rule-out leaves both leaders free to campaign against each other without the awkward ambiguity that has historically surrounded Peters's post-election positioning.

The broader context here is what makes this rule-out different from previous ones. Earlier Labour leaders have ruled Peters in or out on grounds of policy fit or personal compatibility. Hipkins grounded his decision in a specific moral claim about racism. That frames the rule-out not as a strategic calculation but as a values-based red line — one that is harder to reverse if political circumstances shift. Whether that framing holds through a campaign in which seat counts tighten is the question Labour strategists will be watching.