# Question 101: I'm a Māori parent in a working household. I want to compare household costs and local services, and I also care about Te Tiriti and Māori participation in decisions. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. What are parties proposing about Māori health outcomes and access to care, and how do their approaches differ?

Collected 31 October 2026

[NZ Election 2026 · Edition 7 study](https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/7)

## ChatGPT

Answer ID: e8253998-d77b-4967-ba25-e5a3a3420ac4

# Māori health policy: comparing the parties ahead of New Zealand's 2026 election

For a Māori whānau in a working household, this question goes beyond how much healthcare costs. It is also about whether whānau can get timely care, whether services are culturally safe, whether Māori providers have the resources to deliver care, and whether Māori have meaningful authority in decisions affecting Māori health.

There are several distinct policy questions worth separating:

1. Health outcomes: What will parties do about inequities in life expectancy, preventable illness, maternal health, cancer, diabetes and mental health?
2. Access and affordability: What will they do about GP fees, prescriptions, waiting lists, rural access and transport?
3. Māori-led healthcare: Will they fund kaupapa Māori services and Māori health providers, and on what terms?
4. Te Tiriti and decision-making: What role will Māori have in setting priorities, governing services and evaluating outcomes?

One important distinction: a party can support improving Māori health outcomes without supporting Māori-specific institutions or shared decision-making. Those are different policy positions.

## 1. What the main parties are proposing

The following comparison reflects policies and public positions available as at 31 October 2026. It distinguishes new election commitments from the current government's existing policies and legislative record.

| Party | Approach to Māori health and services |
| --- | --- |
| National | A unified national health system, improved service capacity, more medicines, screening and measurable health targets. Māori health improvements are pursued through the wider system rather than a separate Māori Health Authority. |
| Labour | Direct funding for Māori health providers and greater involvement of Iwi Māori Partnership Boards. It does not propose restoring Te Aka Whai Ora. |
| Green Party | Kaupapa Māori services, better funding for Māori providers, simpler contracts and collaboration with Iwi Māori Partnership Boards. Emphasis on prevention and equitable access. |
| Te Pāti Māori | Re-establish Te Aka Whai Ora, create a Māori Health Commissioning Agency, transfer 25% of health and ACC funding to Māori-led systems, and make Te Tiriti obligations binding in health legislation. |
| ACT | One health system, with care allocated according to individual clinical need rather than ethnicity-based structures. Greater use of pharmacists and other providers, and increased medicines funding. |
| NZ First | General-system improvements, prevention, more professional autonomy for GPs and health coaches in primary care. It supported abolishing Te Aka Whai Ora and favours clinical-need-based provision rather than separate ethnicity-based structures. |
| Opportunity | A 10-year cross-party health plan, increased primary-care investment and stable multi-year funding for kaupapa Māori and iwi-led providers. |

Sources: [2026 election health policy comparison](https://undecided.nz/issues/health-system-changes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [New Zealand Medical Journal](https://nzmj.org.nz/journal/vol-139-no-1643/election-2026-and-health-promises-priorities-and-delivery?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

### The key differences explained

National: improving the overall system

National's approach emphasises increasing the capacity of the existing health system.

Its announced measures include:

- An additional $604 million for Pharmac.
- Expanded cancer screening.
- Earlier access to some diagnostic and treatment services.
- Increased clinical-trial participation.
- A greater focus on prevention.

For Māori, the important question is whether these improvements will reduce the actual differences in access, diagnosis and health outcomes, rather than simply improve national averages.

National's approach does not involve restoring the Māori Health Authority.

Labour: funding Māori providers directly

Labour supports directing resources to Māori health providers rather than rebuilding Te Aka Whai Ora.

It proposes working more closely with Iwi Māori Partnership Boards and putting resources into frontline Māori healthcare.

This is an important distinction: Labour supports Māori-led service delivery, but does not propose restoring the separate Māori health commissioning authority.

Its wider access policies include:

- Three free GP visits annually for every New Zealander.
- Removing the $5 prescription charge for eligible people from July 2027.
- Free cervical screening for eligible women.
- More support for GP practices and nurse employment.

These policies could reduce some of the financial barriers faced by working whānau.

Green Party: kaupapa Māori care and prevention

The Greens emphasise addressing the conditions that create poor health, rather than concentrating only on treating illness.

Their approach includes:

- Funding kaupapa Māori healthcare.
- Simplifying contracts for Māori health providers.
- Working with Iwi Māori Partnership Boards.
- Improving primary-care workforce pay and staffing.
- Increasing sustained funding for Pharmac.
- Investing in prevention and public health.

The difference between the Greens and Labour is partly one of emphasis: both support Māori providers, but the Greens place greater explicit emphasis on kaupapa Māori approaches, prevention and structural investment in the wider health system.

Te Pāti Māori: Māori authority over Māori health

Te Pāti Māori proposes the most substantial structural change.

Its 2026 health commitments include:

- Re-establishing Te Aka Whai Ora.
- Establishing a Māori Health Commissioning Agency.
- Transferring 25% of total health and ACC funding to Māori-led systems.
- Introducing a binding Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause in health legislation.
- Appointing a Te Tiriti Hauora Commissioner.
- Investing $1 billion annually in health workforce development.
- Increasing Pharmac funding and protecting rongoā Māori.

Its central argument is that Māori should have authority over the design, funding, delivery and evaluation of Māori health services.

An important consideration is that the 25% funding commitment and $1 billion workforce proposal need more detailed costing, implementation plans and explanations of how funding would be allocated.

ACT: individual clinical need and a unified system

ACT opposes separate ethnicity-based health structures and supports a single health system in which treatment is determined by clinical need.

Its policies include:

- Increasing the share of health spending devoted to medicines.
- Expanding pharmacists' ability to provide treatment.
- Increasing general-practice capacity.
- Supporting a national cancer centre.

For Māori, the central policy difference is the emphasis on individual access through a common system rather than Māori-specific commissioning and governance.

NZ First: prevention and general-practice autonomy

NZ First emphasises:

- Greater professional autonomy for GPs.
- Health coaches in primary care.
- Nutrition and prevention.
- Changes to medicines access and regulation.

It supported the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora. Its approach therefore differs from parties advocating a separate Māori health authority.

Opportunity: long-term stability

Opportunity proposes a 10-year health plan, increased public health spending and more investment in primary care.

For Māori providers, it supports stable, multi-year funding for kaupapa Māori and iwi-led services, rather than repeated short-term contracting arrangements.

Its approach is notable for emphasising continuity across changes of government.

Source for these party comparisons: [Undecided – Māori health services, workforce and medicines](https://undecided.nz/issues/health-system-changes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

## 2. Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori participation in decisions

This is arguably the biggest philosophical difference between the parties.

There are three different levels of Māori participation to consider:

| Level | What it means in practice |
| --- | --- |
| Consultation | Government asks Māori for feedback before making decisions. |
| Partnership | Māori representatives have an ongoing role in planning, governance and commissioning. |
| Tino rangatiratanga | Māori exercise meaningful authority over Māori health priorities, resources, services and outcomes. |

These approaches are not interchangeable.

### What is happening under the current government?

In August 2026, the Ministry of Health published the new Māori Health Strategy, Whiria Te Ora.

It identifies two important outcomes:

- A fair, safe and sustainable health system delivering equal health outcomes for Māori.
- Whānau, hapū, iwi and local communities exercising authority to improve their health and wellbeing.

Its priorities include prevention, accountability, a sustainable health workforce and Māori health leadership. [About the Māori Health Strategy – Whiria Te Ora](https://www.health.govt.nz/strategies-initiatives/health-strategies/maori-health-strategy-whiria-te-ora)

This is important because the strategy recognises Māori authority as an objective, even though the government has not restored Te Aka Whai Ora.

The distinction to investigate is whether Māori authority is supported by enforceable decision-making powers, independent funding and accountability, or primarily through advisory and partnership arrangements.

## 3. What could these policies mean for household costs and access?

For a working household, policy announcements need to translate into services that people can actually use.

Here are some practical comparisons.

| Household concern | Relevant policy differences |
| --- | --- |
| GP costs | Labour proposes three free GP visits annually. Other parties place different emphasis on increasing GP capacity and primary-care investment. |
| Prescription costs | Labour proposes removing the $5 prescription fee for eligible people. National, ACT, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have separate Pharmac funding proposals. |
| Māori health providers | Labour, Greens, Opportunity and Te Pāti Māori support Māori-led provision, with different funding and governance arrangements. |
| Rural and community access | Opportunity emphasises long-term primary-care funding; ACT supports expanded pharmacy services; National emphasises capacity and workforce. |
| Cancer treatment | National emphasises screening and medicines; ACT proposes a national cancer centre; other parties have different approaches to affordability and prevention. |
| Māori workforce | Te Pāti Māori proposes $1 billion annually for workforce development; the Greens emphasise pay parity and training support. |

Sources: [NZ Medical Journal election analysis](https://nzmj.org.nz/journal/vol-139-no-1643/election-2026-and-health-promises-priorities-and-delivery?utm_source=chatgpt.com) and [Undecided party policy comparison](https://undecided.nz/issues/health-system-changes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com). [Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery](https://nzmj.org.nz/journal/vol-139-no-1643/election-2026-and-health-promises-priorities-and-delivery)[What should change in medicines funding, the health workforce and Māori health services?](https://undecided.nz/issues/health-system-changes/)

One particularly important issue is that free services do not automatically mean accessible services.

For example:

- A free GP appointment is of limited benefit if there are no appointments available.
- A funded Māori health provider cannot expand if its contracts are too short or its workforce is insufficient.
- More cancer screening does not necessarily improve survival if diagnostic and treatment waiting times remain long.
- A new workforce training programme takes time to produce additional qualified clinicians.

The New Zealand Medical Journal makes this distinction in its 2026 election analysis. [Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery](https://nzmj.org.nz/journal/vol-139-no-1643/election-2026-and-health-promises-priorities-and-delivery)

## 4. Questions worth asking every party

I would look beyond election slogans and ask parties to explain how their commitments would work in practice.

Māori health outcomes

- What measurable improvements will you deliver in Māori life expectancy?
- How will you reduce Māori cancer mortality and improve early diagnosis?
- What will you do about Māori maternal health and mental health inequities?
- Will you publish health outcomes separately for Māori and non-Māori?

Access for whānau

- Will GP appointments become more affordable?
- How will you address long waits for specialists?
- Will Māori providers receive reliable multi-year funding?
- How will rural and smaller-community whānau access healthcare?
- What will you do about transport, childcare and time away from paid employment when attending appointments?

Te Tiriti and decision-making

- What actual decision-making powers will Māori have?
- Will iwi and Māori health providers control any health funding?
- How will Māori participate in setting health priorities?
- Will government decisions be accountable to Māori communities?
- What happens when Māori health priorities conflict with government priorities?

These questions help distinguish between parties that promise better Māori health outcomes and parties that also propose changing who holds authority over Māori healthcare.

## 5. A practical way to assess the parties

Rather than treating Māori health as one issue, I would separate your assessment into four dimensions.

A. Affordable healthcare

Can working whānau afford GPs, prescriptions, dental care, screening and specialist appointments?

B. Māori-led healthcare

Are kaupapa Māori providers properly funded, supported and able to determine how services are delivered?

C. Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga

Do Māori have consultation rights, partnership arrangements or actual authority over decisions and resources?

D. Measurable outcomes

Are there clear commitments to reducing inequities in life expectancy, cancer, diabetes, mental health and preventable illness?

A useful distinction is to look at both the promises and their practical delivery arrangements. The published comparison available on 26 October 2026 found that independent costings were not available for the parties' Māori health services, workforce and medicines proposals. [What should change in medicines funding, the health workforce and Māori health services?](https://undecided.nz/issues/health-system-changes/)

## 6. Where to examine the policies yourself

These sources provide useful starting points:

- [Policy.nz – 2026 election policies](https://policy.nz/2026/party-vote/policies/health?utm_source=chatgpt.com): Compare party commitments by health topic.
- [Ministry of Health – Whiria Te Ora](https://www.health.govt.nz/strategies-initiatives/health-strategies/maori-health-strategy-whiria-te-ora?utm_source=chatgpt.com): Read the current Māori Health Strategy.
- [Undecided – Māori health and services](https://undecided.nz/issues/health-system-changes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com): Examine funding, workforce and governance commitments.
- [New Zealand Medical Journal – Election 2026 and health](https://nzmj.org.nz/journal/vol-139-no-1643/election-2026-and-health-promises-priorities-and-delivery?utm_source=chatgpt.com): Examine the wider health-system implications.

## My overall observation

The most significant divide in this election is not simply which party promises to spend more on Māori health.

It is how Māori health equity should be achieved, and who should have the authority to make decisions.

- National, ACT and NZ First emphasise a unified health system, with different approaches to clinical need, service capacity and prevention.
- Labour and the Greens support Māori-led providers and greater Māori participation, without restoring Te Aka Whai Ora.
- Te Pāti Māori proposes a substantial transfer of authority and resources to Māori-led health systems.
- Opportunity emphasises long-term stability and community-led commissioning.

These are different approaches with different implications for funding, accountability and tino rangatiratanga.

For a Māori working household, I would keep two questions at the centre of your assessment:

1. Will my whānau be able to access affordable, timely and culturally safe healthcare?
2. Will Māori have meaningful authority over the decisions and resources that determine our health outcomes?

You do not have to treat those as competing priorities. You can assess whether each party has credible commitments on both.

The ultimate decision is yours, but those two questions provide a useful foundation for examining the parties' policies before casting your two votes in November 2026.

## Gemini

Answer ID: cead249e-b8f9-495c-919b-883e9d8eb7b9

For a Māori parent balancing household costs and local service access, the 2026 general election presents a stark philosophical divide over how healthcare, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Māori participation should be managed. Parties differ significantly on whether equity is best achieved through universal, color-blind services based strictly on individual clinical need, or through targeted, by-Māori-for-Māori commissioning and structural devolution.

---

### 1. Overview of Party Approaches to Māori Health and Access

#### **Te Pāti Māori**
* **Approach to Te Tiriti & Self-Determination:** Places tino rangatiratanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi at the absolute center of its health policy. 
* **Structures & Funding:** Proposes to rebuild and strengthen a Māori-led health authority, establish a Māori Health Commissioning Agency and a Māori ACC Authority, and **transfer 25% of total health and ACC funding** to Māori-led systems. 
* **Access & Services:** Invests heavily in marae-based clinics, mobile units, free dental and primary care for all whānau, and $500 million annually into Kaupapa Māori mental health. It also advocates for lowering bowel screening ages specifically for Māori (to 35) to address early-onset inequities.

#### **The Green Party**
* **Approach to Te Tiriti & Self-Determination:** Strong emphasis on equity, the social determinants of health, and honoring Te Tiriti through structural partnership.
* **Access & Services:** Supports expanding publicly funded healthcare toward fully free provision (including dental, primary care, and mental health). Promotes funding for mobile health clinics and **by-Māori-for-Māori community clinics**, alongside fair wages and safe staffing ratios for the health workforce.

#### **The Labour Party**
* **Approach to Te Tiriti & Self-Determination:** Focuses on universal cost-reduction measures coupled with targeted primary care support, though less structurally radical on separate authorities than Te Pāti Māori.
* **Access & Services:** Proposes a **"Medicard" system providing three free GP visits a year** for everyone entitled to publicly funded healthcare, alongside restoring universally free prescriptions (by mid-2027) and free maternity scans. To tackle workforce shortages, it backs a Family Doctor Loan Scheme and guaranteed employment for New Zealand-trained graduate nurses. Funded through a proposed capital gains tax.

#### **The National Party**
* **Approach to Te Tiriti & Self-Determination:** Emphasizes mainstream service delivery, clinical targets, and universal access rather than race- or ethnicity-based structures (supporting the earlier repeal of Te Aka Whai Ora).
* **Access & Services:** Focuses on capacity-building, cutting waitlists, and increasing Pharmac’s budget (by over $600M) to expand access to cancer and life-saving medications. Other policies include funding 3-day postnatal stays for mothers and training the health workforce to better serve disabled New Zealanders.

#### **ACT New Zealand & New Zealand First**
* **Approach to Te Tiriti & Self-Determination:** Firmly oppose ethnicity-based prioritisation or separate Māori health structures. They argue that public services and healthcare funding should be distributed strictly on individual clinical need, regardless of ethnic background.
* **Access & Services:** NZ First focuses on a universal system with a strong emphasis on long-term prevention, metabolic health, and clearing waitlists. ACT emphasizes closing the medicines funding gap with Australia and increasing the share of the health budget spent on pharmaceuticals. Both parties have raised strong objections to any race-differentiated health subventions or funding targets (such as targeted PrEP subsidies).

---

### 2. Key Contrasts for a Working Māori Household

When evaluating these options from the perspective of household costs, local services, and civic voice, the choices break down into distinct paths:

* **Direct Cost Relief vs. Systemic Devolution:** If your primary concern is the immediate cost of putting food on the table while managing GP and prescription fees, universal policies like Labour’s free GP visits and prescriptions offer direct financial relief. Conversely, if your primary concern is structural racism and the cultural safety of local services, Te Pāti Māori and the Greens offer a model of shifting power and resources directly into Māori hands (e.g., devolved funding and independent Māori authorities).
* **Clinical Need vs. Targeted Equity:** Parties on the right (National, ACT, NZ First) view race-neutral allocation ("clinical need only") as fair, whereas parties on the left and Te Pāti Māori argue that a color-blind approach fails to fix systemic inequities where Māori experience poorer health outcomes and earlier onset of chronic conditions (like bowel cancer).

---

<FollowUp label="Want to explore how different parties' cost-of-living and tax policies impact working whānau?" query="What are the major political parties proposing for income support, working families, and tax policies in the 2026 election?"/>

## Google AI Mode

Answer ID: 3a98af28-f89a-4743-ab6c-253badd0a070

For the 2026 New Zealand general election, political parties diverge significantly on how to address Māori health outcomes, access to care, and the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in public service delivery. For a working Māori parent balancing household costs with health and equity considerations, these approaches reflect fundamentally different philosophies on universal vs. targeted provisions.

1\. Parties on the Left and Centre-Left (e.g., Labour, Green, Te Pāti Māori)

 * **Approach to Access and Affordability:** These parties focus heavily on removing financial barriers at the point of care to ease working household costs. Proposals include making general practice (GP) visits free or heavily subsidized (e.g., universal or targeted free GP visits), removing prescription charges (such as the $5 co-pay), and ensuring all referred maternity scans are free.

 * **Māori Health Outcomes and Te Tiriti:** They advocate for targeted, whānau-centred care and specific investments to close persistent health equity gaps. This includes restoring or creating independent, Māori-led health entities and decision-making structures (drawing on the principles highlighted in Waitangi Tribunal findings regarding tino rangatiratanga and active protection).

 * **Participation:** Emphasize partnership and co-design, ensuring Māori have autonomous control over service design and delivery for whānau Māori.

2\. Parties in Government / Centre-Right (e.g., National, ACT, New Zealand First)

 * **Approach to Access and Affordability:** Current governing parties focus on administrative efficiency, expanding the scope of existing workforces, and broad-based subsidies rather than universal free services. Their strategies involve increasing the availability of subsidized medicines through Pharmac, investing in regional training facilities (like new medical schools), and expanding the roles of pharmacists and physician associates to drive down wait times and system bottlenecks.

 * **Māori Health Outcomes and Te Tiriti:** These parties generally oppose race- or ethnicity-based criteria in public service delivery, arguing instead for "needs-based" rather than "race-based" allocation of health funding. Following the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora (the Māori Health Authority), their framework integrates Māori health targets within mainstream health agencies (such as Health New Zealand / Te Whatu Ora) rather than maintaining a separate, autonomous Māori health authority.

 * **Participation:** Focus on localized or clinical efficiency and mainstream accountability rather than structural Treaty-based governance splits.

Summary of Core Differences

 * **Universal/Targeted Relief vs. System Efficiency:** Left-leaning parties directly target cost-of-living relief through free primary care (GP visits, prescriptions, scans) alongside race-specific or whānau-centred equity funding. Governing/Right-leaning parties focus on expanding Pharmac lists, workforce innovations, and streamlining mainstream delivery without ethnic distinctions.

 * **Te Tiriti in Decision-Making:** Left blocs view distinct Māori-led governance and self-determination (_tino rangatiratanga_) as vital to fixing health disparities. Centre-right blocs emphasize universal public service access, arguing that public services should treat all citizens identically regardless of ethnicity.

You can explore and compare individual party manifestos and specific local candidate stances in detail using the Policy.nz 2026 Election Guide. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026 - Policy.nz

## AI Overviews

Answer ID: 14c8c0ed-baf6-4ef0-bda5-4cdf2092c611

For the **2026 New Zealand general election** , political parties have proposed starkly contrasting models for closing the gap in Māori health outcomes. Their policies diverge on two core fronts: **structural governance** (who decides and controls funding) and **delivery mechanics** (how working families access care).

Party Proposals & Governance Models

 * **Te Pāti Māori:** Focuses on **constitutional autonomy and tino rangatiratanga**. They propose to rebuild an independent, Māori-led health authority and **transfer 25% of the total health and ACC budget** directly to Māori-led systems. Their approach prioritizes Marae-based clinics, mobile health units, establishing a Māori ACC authority, and lowering the bowel screening age to 35 for Māori.

 * **National Party:** Emphasizes a **centralized, integrated national health system** and opposes separate administrative bodies based on ethnicity. National stands by its first-term decision to abolish _Te Aka Whai Ora_ (the Māori Health Authority). Their strategy focuses on lowering clinical wait times, increasing the Pharmac medicines budget by $604 million, boosting clinical trials, and relying on mainstream targets to measure equity improvements.

 * **Labour Party:** Proposes a model centered on **affordability and community infrastructure**. They pledge to deliver the _Pae Ora_ health strategies and invest $21 million annually in Māori-led training. Their flagship relief for working households is the **"Medicard" system** , which guarantees three free GP visits a year, universal free prescriptions by July 2027, and free maternity scans. labour.org.nzMEANS FOR NEW ZEALAND

 * **Green Party:** Advocates for **by-Māori, for-Māori community clinics** alongside universal public health expansions. They favor free universal dental care, mobile rural clinics, and expanding financial support for training essential health workers. dentalforall.nz

 * **ACT Party:** Rejects ethnicity-based criteria for public services entirely. They focus on **market efficiency, expanding the clinical scope for pharmacists** , shifting health funding percentages to Pharmac, and building a dedicated national cancer centre. policy.nz

Direct Comparison: Structural vs. Access Approaches

Party| Governance & Te Tiriti Approach| Core Policy Affecting Working Household Access
---|---|---
**Te Pāti Māori**| **Complete devolution** ; 25% of health/ACC funding to Māori authorities; independent Māori Health Authority.| Free primary and dental care; Marae clinics; bowel screening age down to 35 for Māori.
**Labour**| **Partnered framework** ; retention of Pae Ora strategies and targeted Māori workforce funding.| Medicard (3 free GP visits/year); fully free prescriptions; free maternity scans.
**Greens**| **Devolved funding** to support and scale by-Māori, for-Māori community providers.| Universal free dental care; universal training payments for student nurses/midwives.
**National**| **Centralized mainstreaming** ; elimination of separate Māori health structures and ethnicity criteria.| Shorter wait times; $604m Pharmac boost; bowel screening age to 56; free cervical screening.
**ACT**| **Universalist efficiency** ; complete removal of ethnicity from health funding and service delivery.| Pharmacy-led minor ailment care; 12% health budget to Pharmac; national cancer centre.

Summary of Differences

The fundamental trade-off sits between **targeted autonomy** and **universal public affordability**. Te Pāti Māori and the Greens look to solve systemic health failures by empowering Māori leadership and localizing delivery to trusted spaces like Marae. Labour targets the immediate financial squeeze on working families by directly cutting the cost of going to a local family doctor or pharmacy. National and ACT shift the focus away from structural co-governance, arguing that broad health investments, faster emergency care, and expanded medicine access are the most effective ways to lift outcomes for all New Zealander families equally. ccsdisabilityaction.org.nz

* * *

If you would like to explore these options further, please let me know:

 * Would you like a breakdown of how these parties plan to address **broader cost-of-living issues** like grocery prices or regional public transport caps for working families?

 * Are you interested in their specific stances on **local government decision-making** and the future of Māori wards or the Waitangi Tribunal? labour.org.nzPolicies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026