New Zealand 2026 election: Te Tiriti, Māori–Crown relations and racial discrimination

The key difference between New Zealand's political parties is whether they see Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a foundation for Māori–Crown partnership and shared obligations, or whether they emphasise equal treatment of all citizens, parliamentary sovereignty and a common national identity.

That difference affects much more than Treaty settlements. It shapes positions on Māori representation in Parliament and local government, Māori-specific public services, te reo Māori, the Waitangi Tribunal, and how the government should respond to racism and unequal outcomes.

It helps to distinguish three related issues:

• Te Tiriti o Waitangi: How the Crown interprets its obligations under the Treaty, including tino rangatiratanga, kāwanatanga and the relationship between Māori and the Crown.
• Māori–Crown relations: Whether Māori should have distinct partnership arrangements, representation and decision-making powers, and how historical grievances should be addressed.
• Racial discrimination: Whether the best approach is universal rules for everyone, targeted measures to address disadvantage, or a combination of both.

A party can oppose racial discrimination while disagreeing strongly with another party about whether Māori-specific representation or services are fair, necessary or consistent with the Treaty.

1. Where the main parties stand

The following comparison draws on 2026 election reporting and announced policies available as of 26 October 2026. It focuses on the direction of each party's approach, rather than treating every coalition-era decision as a fresh election promise. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

National Party

Equal treatment and Crown sovereignty

National recognises Te Tiriti as New Zealand's founding document, but stresses Crown sovereignty and equal treatment under the law. It has not embraced the deeper constitutional partnership advocated by the Greens or Te Pāti Māori.

• Te Tiriti: Supports a more consistent approach to references to Treaty principles in legislation; rejected ACT's Treaty Principles Bill beyond its first reading.
• Māori–Crown relations: Favours the Crown retaining governing authority. Its government has supported local referendums on Māori wards and reversed or changed several Māori-specific institutional arrangements.
• Discrimination and inequality: Places greater emphasis on common rules and services based on need rather than ethnicity as an explicit priority.

In practice: National sits between its coalition partners' more explicit anti-co-governance agenda and parties seeking stronger Treaty-based power-sharing. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

ACT New Zealand

Strongest emphasis on one law for all

ACT argues that the Treaty does not establish an ongoing Crown–Māori partnership that justifies different rights or political arrangements based on ethnicity. It believes the chiefs who signed the Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

• Te Tiriti: Its proposed Treaty Principles Bill would have defined Treaty principles around government authority, protection of recognised iwi and hapū rights, and equal rights for everyone. The bill did not become law.
• Māori–Crown relations: Opposes co-governance as a general constitutional model and favours parliamentary sovereignty.
• Discrimination and inequality: Wants government support allocated according to need rather than race, and proposes a “one law for all” constitutional approach.

In practice: ACT is the clearest choice for voters who want to reduce the role of Treaty principles in public law and limit race-specific government policies. Conversely, this is the approach most likely to concern voters who see distinct Māori rights and partnership as essential Treaty protections. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

New Zealand First

Opposes co-governance and expanded Treaty principles

New Zealand First recognises the Treaty and existing settlements but opposes what it describes as “separatism” and the expansion of undefined Treaty principles.

• Te Tiriti: Prefers specific statutory obligations over broad, open-ended Treaty-principles clauses.
• Māori–Crown relations: Opposes co-governance and has proposed a referendum on retaining Māori parliamentary seats. Its 2026 policy proposals also include abolishing the Waitangi Tribunal and replacing it with a Treaty of Waitangi completion commission.
• Discrimination and inequality: Emphasises individual need and equal citizenship over ethnicity-specific public services. The party's wider politics also place considerable emphasis on national identity and tighter immigration settings.

In practice: New Zealand First is closer to ACT on opposition to co-governance, but its approach is rooted in nationalism and its own view of the Treaty rather than ACT's broader libertarian constitutional philosophy. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

Labour Party

Treaty partnership within the existing system

Labour regards Te Tiriti as a founding document and supports partnership, protection and participation. It generally seeks to strengthen Māori participation within existing constitutional institutions rather than transform the constitutional system as extensively as the Greens or Te Pāti Māori propose.

• Te Tiriti: Opposes efforts to redefine or diminish Treaty obligations and has campaigned to restore explicit Treaty obligations removed by the current government, including in education.
• Māori–Crown relations: Has previously established co-governance arrangements and Māori-specific institutions, including the Māori Health Authority, which was subsequently abolished.
• Discrimination and inequality: Is more open than National, ACT and New Zealand First to targeted measures addressing systemic disadvantage and improving Māori outcomes.

In practice: Labour offers a more conventional Treaty-partnership approach, but its 2026 position is less ambitious and detailed than those of the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. It has also declined to adopt Te Pāti Māori's proposed Treaty commissioner as a commitment. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiLabour's 2026 Election Policies

Green Party

Strong Treaty partnership and structural reform

The Greens see Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence) as foundations for an ongoing constitutional partnership. They argue that Māori should participate in government as partners, with meaningful rangatiratanga.

• Te Tiriti: Proposes giving the Māori-language text greater legal authority and embedding Treaty-based decision-making throughout government.
• Māori–Crown relations: Wants stronger hapū and iwi authority, a more powerful Waitangi Tribunal, changes to Treaty settlements and additional ways to return wrongfully alienated land.
• Discrimination and inequality: Supports structural action to address systemic disadvantage and recognises that formally identical treatment does not necessarily produce equitable outcomes.

In practice: The Greens are among the strongest advocates for making Treaty partnership affect how government decisions are actually made, rather than treating it only as a historical or symbolic commitment. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

Te Pāti Māori

Māori self-determination and constitutional transformation

Te Pāti Māori puts tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake at the centre of its political programme. It seeks a fundamental change in how political authority is shared and how Māori rights are protected.

• Te Tiriti: Wants Treaty commitments embedded more securely in New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.
• Māori–Crown relations: Proposes an independent Treaty commissioner, binding Waitangi Tribunal recommendations and Treaty impact statements for legislation. It also advocates greater Māori political authority and land return.
• Discrimination and inequality: Supports Māori-led responses to inequity and stronger recognition of the effects of colonisation and systemic discrimination.

In practice: Te Pāti Māori goes further than Labour in demanding structural change and greater Māori autonomy. Its proposed reforms would change not only how services are delivered but also the distribution of political power. Some implementation details remain to be settled. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

The Opportunities Party (TOP)

Centrist, broadly Treaty-supportive

TOP opposes ACT's Treaty Principles Bill and broadly favours strengthening the role of Te Tiriti, while offering a less fully developed constitutional programme.

• Te Tiriti: Supports Treaty education, equitable settlements and reversing changes that made customary marine title harder to establish.
• Māori–Crown relations: Proposes greater Māori autonomy and devolving some health and justice services to Māori with appropriate resources.
• Discrimination and inequality: Its approach leans towards addressing disadvantage through better-designed institutions and services, although the scope of its Treaty commitments is less clear than those of the Greens or Te Pāti Māori.

In practice: TOP is broadly closer to Labour and the Greens on Treaty questions than to ACT and New Zealand First, but the details and political priority of its commitments warrant closer scrutiny. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

2. How the parties differ on racial discrimination

The debate is not simply about whether racism is wrong. The major divide is over what counts as fair treatment, and what government should do when Māori experience persistently worse outcomes.

Question	ACT and NZ First	National	Labour	Greens and Te Pāti Māori
What does equality mean?	Equal legal rights; less reliance on ethnicity	Equal treatment and common rules	Equal rights plus measures to reduce disadvantage	Equity, Treaty obligations and recognition of distinct Māori rights
Should services target Māori?	Generally oppose ethnicity-based targeting	Favour needs-based approaches	More willing to support Māori-specific provision	Strongly support Māori-led and targeted provision
Is co-governance appropriate?	Generally oppose it	More cautious and resistant to broad arrangements	Has used it in selected areas	Support deeper and more systematic Māori participation
How should historic injustice be addressed?	Emphasise existing settlements, individual opportunity and legal equality	Accept settlements but favour Crown sovereignty	Support Treaty obligations and established redress mechanisms	Seek stronger redress, rangatiratanga and, in some cases, land return

This is a broad summary of party approaches, not a claim that every policy within each party fits neatly into one category. Sources: Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

Two competing understandings of fairness

1. Formal equality

This approach argues that the law and public services should treat people according to the same rules, regardless of ethnicity. Government assistance should generally be determined by individual circumstances and need, rather than membership of an ethnic group.

ACT is the strongest proponent of this approach, with New Zealand First also emphasising it. National shares elements of this philosophy.

Supporters argue that this protects equal citizenship, avoids ethnic division and ensures public resources are allocated fairly.

Critics argue that identical rules can overlook the continuing effects of land dispossession, historical exclusion, institutional discrimination and unequal access to services.

2. Substantive equality and Treaty-based obligations

This approach argues that equal rights on paper are not sufficient when historical and structural factors continue to produce unequal outcomes. It supports Māori-specific initiatives where these are justified by Treaty obligations, evidence of disadvantage or Māori self-determination.

The Greens and Te Pāti Māori take the strongest positions here, with Labour supporting a more moderate version.

Supporters argue that targeted measures can help fulfil the Crown's obligations and address persistent inequities. Critics question whether ethnicity-specific arrangements are always justified, effective or consistent with equal treatment.

These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive: a government can prohibit racial discrimination while also adopting targeted measures to address demonstrable disadvantage.

3. What does this mean for actual policy?

Three areas illustrate the differences particularly well.

Constitutional rights and the Treaty

The Greens and Te Pāti Māori want stronger legal and constitutional recognition of Te Tiriti. Labour opposes reducing existing Treaty obligations but is less committed to constitutional transformation. National recognises the Treaty while defending Crown sovereignty. ACT and New Zealand First want to constrain the role of broadly interpreted Treaty principles.

This is the most fundamental difference: whether the Treaty should actively shape the distribution of public power, or whether its role should be more narrowly defined by Parliament and specific legislation. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

Health, education and public services

The dispute is whether Māori-specific institutions and programmes are necessary to improve outcomes, or whether mainstream services should serve everyone using need-based criteria.

Labour has supported Māori-specific institutions, including the former Māori Health Authority. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori favour stronger Māori leadership and autonomy. National, ACT and New Zealand First have generally favoured mainstream or needs-based approaches and opposed some ethnicity-specific arrangements. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

Land, historical grievances and accountability

National, Labour and the other major parties recognise the importance of Treaty settlements, although they differ over the mechanisms and extent of redress.

ACT and New Zealand First favour completing or narrowing the Treaty redress framework rather than expanding it. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori want stronger accountability for Crown breaches, and broader possibilities for redress, including land return. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

4. What does the evidence say about racial discrimination?

The debate has consequences beyond constitutional theory.

In December 2025, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concerns about New Zealand's direction on Māori rights. Its review identified risks associated with changes to Treaty protections, Māori health institutions and funding for Māori services, alongside concerns about hate speech and racial discrimination. UN report sounds alarm over Māori rights in New ZealandUN sounds alarm on NZ racism and Māori rights

That is an assessment by an international monitoring body, not a court judgment that every policy criticised is unlawful.

It does, however, highlight a key distinction in the election debate:

• Parties favouring universal or needs-based policies tend to judge fairness by whether the same legal rules and eligibility criteria apply to everyone.
• Parties favouring stronger Treaty-based policies also ask whether the Crown is meeting its obligations to Māori and whether its institutions produce equitable outcomes.
• The central empirical questions are whether a particular intervention improves outcomes, whether it is proportionate to the problem, and whether it fulfils relevant legal obligations.

Neither a policy's universal application nor its Māori-specific design, on its own, proves that it is fair or discriminatory. The details and outcomes matter.

5. Which parties are closest to your priorities?

Rather than treating the parties as a simple left–right spectrum, it is useful to consider which of these priorities matters most to you.

Bottom line

• ACT and New Zealand First: strongest emphasis on equal legal treatment, Crown or parliamentary authority, and limiting ethnicity-based policies and expanded Treaty principles.
• National: recognises Te Tiriti but favours Crown sovereignty, equal treatment and a more restrained role for Māori-specific arrangements.
• Labour: supports Treaty partnership and targeted responses to Māori disadvantage within the existing constitutional framework.
• The Greens: advocate a deeper Treaty partnership, stronger Māori authority and structural redress.
• Te Pāti Māori: seeks the most fundamental shift towards Māori self-determination and a Treaty-centred constitutional order.
• TOP: broadly supports strengthening Te Tiriti but has a less developed programme for constitutional change.

The most important question to ask when comparing policies is: Does this party understand fairness primarily as treating everyone by the same rules, or also as fulfilling the Crown's distinct obligations to Māori under Te Tiriti? The answer explains much of the disagreement over racial discrimination, public services and the future relationship between Māori and the Crown.

For further reading, the most directly relevant current comparison is The Spinoff's August 2026 guide to the parties' Treaty positions, alongside The Conversation's 2026 election policy tracker.