2026 New Zealand election: Te Tiriti and Māori participation

The main difference between the parties is what they believe Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires the Crown to do, and how much decision-making authority Māori should have in government and public institutions.

Some parties see Te Tiriti as requiring an ongoing partnership between Māori and the Crown, including shared decision-making and recognition of tino rangatiratanga.

Others emphasise equal citizenship, parliamentary sovereignty and public services based on individual need rather than ethnicity. They are generally more cautious about Māori-specific governance arrangements.

These differences have practical consequences for whānau, including:

• Whether iwi, hapū and Māori communities have a formal role in decisions affecting them.
• Whether government departments have explicit Treaty obligations.
• Whether Māori can influence health, education, housing and environmental decisions.
• Whether Māori representation in local government is protected.
• Whether Māori communities have greater control over services and resources.

I'll concentrate on the seven parties most relevant to the parliamentary debate: National, Labour, Greens, ACT, New Zealand First, Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity Party.

This comparison reflects publicly documented positions available on 30 October 2026. It distinguishes announced policies from previous government actions and proposals.

1. How the major parties differ

Party	General approach to Te Tiriti	Māori participation in decisions
National	Recognises Te Tiriti as a founding document but emphasises equal citizenship and Crown sovereignty.	Generally favours conventional government decision-making, with more limited formal co-governance arrangements.
Labour	Supports Te Tiriti partnership, protection and participation.	Supports Māori involvement in public decisions, including some co-governance arrangements.
Green Party	Treats Te Tiriti as the foundation of an ongoing constitutional partnership.	Supports iwi and hapū exercising rangatiratanga and participating as partners in government.
ACT	Emphasises equal legal rights, parliamentary sovereignty and individual needs rather than ethnicity.	Opposes ongoing Treaty-based arrangements that create different political or legal rights.
NZ First	Recognises Te Tiriti and existing settlements but opposes expanding Treaty-based governance.	Opposes co-governance and generally favours services based on individual need.
Te Pāti Māori	Supports constitutional transformation grounded in Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga.	Advocates substantially greater Māori political authority and decision-making power.
Opportunity Party	Supports strengthening Te Tiriti's role, although some details remain underdeveloped.	Supports greater Māori autonomy, including Māori-led health and justice services.

Sources: The Spinoff's August 2026 party analysis and the 2026 policy comparison. thespinoff.co.nz, partymap.co.nz

2. Individual party positions

National Party

Approach: Equal citizenship and Crown sovereignty.

National recognises Te Tiriti as a founding document but does not advocate the extensive constitutional partnership arrangements proposed by the Greens or Te Pāti Māori.

Its record in government includes:

• Disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora (Māori Health Authority).
• Removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act.
• Introducing local referendums on Māori wards.
• Supporting changes to Treaty references in legislation.
• Supporting the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill, although National did not support it beyond its first reading.

National's position places greater emphasis on consistent legal treatment and conventional government accountability than on Māori-specific decision-making structures. thespinoff.co.nz

Labour Party

Approach: Partnership, protection and participation.

Labour recognises Te Tiriti as a founding document and supports Māori participation in decisions affecting Māori communities.

Its previous government initiatives included:

• Establishing Te Aka Whai Ora.
• Developing the Three Waters reforms, which included iwi participation and co-governance arrangements.
• Supporting Māori-specific approaches to addressing health inequalities.

For 2026, Labour has campaigned on restoring explicit Treaty obligations removed by the current government, including in education.

However, Labour has rejected Te Pāti Māori's proposal for a Treaty commissioner and generally favours parliamentary decision-making over more extensive constitutional transformation. thespinoff.co.nz

Green Party

Approach: Strong constitutional partnership under Te Tiriti.

The Greens support a more substantial role for Te Tiriti across government.

Their proposals include:

• Recognising the Māori text of Te Tiriti as authoritative in law.
• Making government decision-making more explicitly Treaty-based.
• Giving iwi and hapū meaningful decision-making authority rather than simply consulting them.
• Strengthening the Waitangi Tribunal.
• Supporting the return of whenua wrongfully alienated from Māori.
• Reforming Treaty settlements to recognise hapū rangatiratanga more fully.

The Greens see Māori participation as a constitutional responsibility, rather than simply an opportunity for consultation. thespinoff.co.nz

ACT New Zealand

Approach: Equal legal rights and parliamentary sovereignty.

ACT takes a substantially different position.

It argues that:

• Everyone should have equal legal rights.
• Government assistance should be based on need rather than ethnicity.
• Parliament should remain sovereign.
• Treaty principles should not create different political rights.

ACT's Treaty Principles Bill sought to redefine the principles of Te Tiriti in legislation.

Although that bill was rejected by Parliament on 10 April 2025, ACT has continued advocating its One Law for All approach.

Its proposals would also restrict some circumstances in which courts could draw on tikanga Māori. thespinoff.co.nz, justice.govt.nz

New Zealand First

Approach: Recognition of the Treaty, but opposition to expanding Treaty-based governance.

NZ First recognises Te Tiriti and existing Treaty settlements.

However, it opposes:

• Co-governance arrangements.
• Treaty-based constitutional transformation.
• Expanding undefined Treaty principles.
• What it describes as separatism in public services.

It prefers public services organised around individual need rather than ethnicity.

NZ First has also advocated a referendum on the future of the Māori electorates, making Māori political representation an important election issue. thespinoff.co.nz, partymap.co.nz

Te Pāti Māori

Approach: Tino rangatiratanga and constitutional transformation.

Te Pāti Māori advocates the most extensive transfer of political authority towards Māori among the seven parties discussed.

Its proposals include:

• Entrenching Te Tiriti in New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.
• Making Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding.
• Establishing a Parliamentary Commissioner for Te Tiriti.
• Requiring Treaty impact statements for legislation.
• Strengthening Māori political representation.
• Returning whenua and recognising Māori authority over matters affecting Māori communities.

The party has indicated that constitutional recognition of Te Tiriti would be a bottom line in potential coalition negotiations.

An important consideration is that some of its proposed mechanisms still need further detail around implementation, costs and timelines. thespinoff.co.nz

The Opportunity Party (TOP)

Approach: Strengthening Te Tiriti and Māori autonomy.

TOP is broadly supportive of strengthening Te Tiriti's role.

Its proposals include:

• Supporting equitable Treaty settlements.
• Repealing changes that made customary marine title harder to establish.
• Improving the teaching of Te Tiriti and Aotearoa history.
• Devolving health and justice services to Māori with meaningful resources and autonomy.

However, its policies are less developed on exactly how far Māori decision-making authority should extend. thespinoff.co.nz

3. What does this mean for Māori participation in everyday decisions?

The constitutional debate can sound abstract. However, it affects practical decisions about services and resources.

Here are five areas worth examining.

Area	Questions to consider
Healthcare	Do Māori have meaningful authority over health services? Are Māori health providers adequately funded?
Education	Are schools required to recognise Te Tiriti? Is te reo Māori supported? Do whānau have influence over education decisions?
Local government	Do iwi and hapū have formal involvement in planning, infrastructure and environmental decisions?
Housing	Are Māori communities involved in decisions about whenua, papakāinga and affordable housing?
Justice and social services	Can Māori communities develop and govern services that reflect their own needs and tikanga?

Māori wards and local government

This is a particularly important issue.

Māori wards provide opportunities for Māori representation on local councils.

The parties differ over whether these arrangements should be protected or whether their continuation should depend on local democratic processes.

• National introduced local referendums on Māori wards.
• ACT emphasises equal electoral rights and opposes ethnicity-based political arrangements.
• NZ First has advocated a referendum on Māori electorate seats.
• Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori support maintaining or strengthening Māori political representation, although their approaches differ.

This matters because local councils make decisions about:

• Water infrastructure.
• Public transport.
• Libraries and community facilities.
• Housing developments.
• Environmental protection.
• Local spending priorities.

The question is not simply whether Māori are consulted, but whether Māori have meaningful influence over the final decisions.

thespinoff.co.nz, partymap.co.nz

4. Where are the biggest differences?

There are three particularly important dividing lines.

A. Consultation versus partnership

There is a meaningful difference between asking Māori communities for feedback and giving iwi, hapū and Māori representatives an ongoing role in making decisions.

• ACT and NZ First generally favour conventional democratic decision-making.
• National emphasises equal citizenship and conventional Crown authority.
• Labour supports some partnership arrangements.
• Greens and Te Pāti Māori advocate stronger Māori decision-making authority.

TOP also supports greater Māori autonomy, although its proposals are less detailed.

B. Equal treatment versus addressing unequal outcomes

Some parties argue that public services should be based on individual need rather than ethnicity.

Others argue that treating everyone identically does not necessarily produce equitable outcomes, particularly where historical disadvantage and ongoing inequalities exist.

This difference influences policies concerning:

• Māori health outcomes.
• Educational achievement.
• Māori employment.
• Access to housing.
• Funding for kaupapa Māori organisations.

It is worth examining not just what parties say about equality, but how they intend to achieve it.

C. The future constitutional role of Te Tiriti

The parties also disagree about whether Te Tiriti should have a stronger and more explicit constitutional role.

The Treaty Principles Bill is an important example.

It was introduced following an ACT policy commitment agreed with National. Parliament rejected it by 112 votes to 11 on 10 April 2025.

The debate nevertheless continues through other proposals concerning Treaty clauses in legislation, constitutional arrangements and Māori representation. justice.govt.nz

---

5. Questions worth asking parties before voting

For a working household, I would suggest looking beyond general statements about supporting Māori.

These questions can help establish whether a party's commitments would translate into practical improvements.

Issue	Question to put to parties
Household costs	How will your policies reduce the cost of living for working whānau Māori?
Healthcare	What role will Māori providers have in designing and delivering healthcare?
Education	Will schools have explicit Te Tiriti obligations?
Housing	What support will you provide for papakāinga and affordable Māori housing?
Employment	How will you improve access to secure, well-paid employment for Māori?
Local services	Will iwi and hapū have formal decision-making roles in local infrastructure and planning?
Accountability	How will Māori communities hold government accountable for its Treaty obligations?
Representation	What is your position on Māori wards and Māori electorates?

One particularly useful question is:

If your party forms the next government, what specific decisions will Māori have more authority over than they do today?

That helps distinguish a general commitment from an actual policy.

6. Where to check the parties' commitments

These resources provide useful starting points:

• The Spinoff – 2026 party positions on Te Tiriti — a detailed comparison of the seven parties.
• PartyMap – Te Tiriti and democracy comparison — compares published positions and identifies where evidence is missing.
• The Conversation – 2026 Policy Tracker — compares policies across a wider range of issues, including household economics.
• Electoral Commission – 2026 General Election — official candidate and party information.
• Ministry of Justice – Treaty Principles Bill — official legislative history.

---

7. A final way to approach your voting decision

I would separate your assessment into two broad questions:

First: What will make life more affordable for your household?

• Housing and rent.
• Food and groceries.
• Power and transport.
• Wages and employment.
• Healthcare and education costs.
• Support for working parents.

Second: What kind of relationship should Māori have with government?

• Is Te Tiriti an ongoing constitutional obligation?
• Should iwi and hapū share decision-making authority?
• Should Māori have greater control over Māori health and education services?
• Should Māori representation be protected?
• How should the Crown be held accountable for its Treaty obligations?

These questions are related, but they are not interchangeable. A party might have extensive cost-of-living policies without supporting greater Māori autonomy, or strong Treaty commitments without providing sufficiently detailed household economic policies.

My suggestion is to assess both sets of commitments independently before deciding how to cast your party vote and electorate vote.

The 2026 election is an opportunity to consider not only which policies might improve household finances, but also what kind of decision-making relationship between Māori and the Crown you want to see in the future.

Your vote is yours to make, and it is worth asking parties to explain how their promises would translate into measurable changes for whānau.