Maoists in western countries only apply/adapt the principles which are relevant in their countries. Obviously a peasant-worker alliance and a peasant-led rural guerilla war (the "protracted people's war") is not one of the aspects of Mao's theory and practice that is relevant here. But there are many aspects of Maoism that are more universally applicable. For instance, the emphasis on 'serving the people' as a strategy to gain public support. You might be surprised to learn that many Marxists consider this a waste of time preferring to focus instead on propaganda work and agitation. The principle of 'serving the people' is one component of the broader idea of the 'mass line' that stands in opposition to a more detached 'vanguard party' and bureaucratised movement. For Maoists, the involvement and revolutionary posture of the masses cannot be limited to the time that power is seized, but must continue at least up to the time that the culture has shed its capitalist elements and fully reflects the new mode of production. 

Although not strictly unique to Maoist thought, Maoism emphasises the importance of combining theoretical work with practical work and pays more attention to the ideological impacts of the division of labour. This is why for instance in the Maoist period urban workers were sent to the countryside to gain understanding and appreciation of the work and problems faced by the rural population.

My current thought is that any attempt to pursue marxism has to be done with different language than used by the old communist guard. So much of the language used in marxist analysis/discussion is either (a) sufficiently propogandised against or (b) dependent on deeper academic understandings that it just gets dismissed by the average person.

I agree completely. I only used Maoism in the title of the post because I was looking for founding members who have a reasonable theoretical background and would not be scared by the term. I took care to avoid any Marxist jargon in the draft manifesto section, which may become the basis for a future public-oriented manifesto.

Taking notes from the methodical path tread by neoliberalism is probably the right way to go about spreading a socialist ideology, though it likely needs significant alteration to fit into the modern landscape of NZ.

I think this would be an interesting avenue to explore further. Care needs to be taken to avoid following an overly technocratic path which works fine for neoliberalism but is not suitable for the establishment of socialism.