These are the political winners and losers from a bombastic day in the House yesterday: 

Labour: loser. 

Willie Jackson did his best to take the headlines, didn't he? 

But Te Pāti Māori's choreographed stage production well and truly stole his thunder and with it, they've probably stolen any hope of Labour regaining the Māori seats they lost at the last election. 

Why would you vote for Te Pāti Māori-lite in Labour, when you can have the real deal? 

It's highly unlikely Labour will need to lead the next government for a number of reasons, which we've canvassed on this program many times, so why wouldn't you protest vote Te Pāti Māori in 2026? 

Despite Willie's protestations about the Nats supporting ACT's bill in the first reading, Casey Costello made a really interesting point in the debate about Labour's own track record on Treaty principles. 

They did a deal with New Zealand First, the Treaty Principles Deletion Bill, back in 2005 on first reading and then later voted it down. 

Does that sound familiar? 

Yes, that's because it is. It's because the same thing is happening now on the right. 

Te Pāti Māori, they are a winner. 

They have shrewdly led this debate for their base from premeditated, dramatic Instagram ops in the House, to fronting the party adjacent led protest across the Harbour bridge, to encouraging voters to sign up to the Māori roll during Waititi’s speech against the bill yesterday. 

They have outmanoeuvred and outgunned Labour on all fronts, and they won't care what Middle New Zealand's reaction is to the antics in the House. 

Therefore, politically, it's a win. 

Luxon: winner, of sorts. Flying the coop to Peru and avoiding all this chaos turned out to berpobably the best idea he's had in a little while. 

Seymour: winner, for his base who support this bill the result speaks for itself. It passed, even if only the first reading. 

The biggest loser: Parliament and decorum. 

Barry Soper, on with Heather yesterday, said this was an unholy mess, the likes of which he had not seen in the House before. It's hard to argue with that. 

The question now is whether the same antics will be used to disrupt the Justice Select Committee. 

And if so what, if anything, will and can be done about it.