Te Tiriti and Māori participation: comparing New Zealand political parties in 2026

For the 2026 general election, an important distinction is that parties differ not only in what they say about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but also in how they believe Māori should participate in governing Aotearoa.

There are two related but different questions:

1. Te Tiriti obligations: Should the Crown actively recognise and give effect to Treaty principles, including partnership, active protection, rangatiratanga and equity? Or should Treaty obligations be interpreted more narrowly and consistently across all citizens?
2. Māori participation in public decisions: Should Māori have dedicated representation, iwi and hapū consultation, Māori decision-making authority and Māori-led institutions? Or should participation primarily happen through the same democratic institutions available to all New Zealanders?

For a working household, it is also worth looking at how these positions translate into practical decisions about health, education, housing, employment, local services and household costs.

1. How the major parties differ

The following reflects published 2026 policies, public statements and governing records available as at 1 November 2026. It distinguishes election promises from actions already taken in government.

Party	Approach to Te Tiriti	Māori participation in decisions
National	Recognises Te Tiriti as a founding document but supports greater consistency and narrower wording of Treaty clauses in legislation.	Emphasises equal treatment and community-wide decision-making. Its government introduced local polls on Māori wards and made other changes to Māori-specific institutions.
ACT	Emphasises parliamentary sovereignty, equality before the law and a more restrictive interpretation of Treaty obligations.	Opposes race-based representation and supports removing Māori seats in Parliament. Proposes restricting the Waitangi Tribunal's role and eventually closing it.
New Zealand First	Recognises the Treaty and historical settlements but opposes expanding general Treaty principles and co-governance.	Supports a referendum on retaining the seven Māori parliamentary seats. Opposes what it considers ethnicity-based decision-making and proposes closing the Waitangi Tribunal after historical claims are resolved.
Labour	Supports Te Tiriti as a founding document and opposes reducing Treaty obligations.	Supports partnership, participation and some Māori-specific decision-making arrangements. Previously established Te Aka Whai Ora and co-governance arrangements.
Green Party	Supports a stronger constitutional role for Te Tiriti and recognition of the Māori text as authoritative in law.	Supports iwi and hapū exercising rangatiratanga as partners in government, stronger Māori representation and more authority for the Waitangi Tribunal.
Te Pāti Māori	Supports constitutional transformation with Te Tiriti at its centre.	Advocates stronger Māori political authority, binding Treaty accountability, a Te Tiriti commissioner and greater tino rangatiratanga.
The Opportunity Party (TOP)	Supports strengthening Te Tiriti's role and reviewing recent reductions in Treaty protections.	Supports Māori autonomy and greater Māori involvement in health and justice services, alongside a national conversation about constitutional arrangements.

Sources: The Spinoff's August 2026 party comparison and Undecided's October 2026 policy comparison. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiWhat should happen to Te Tiriti settings and Māori representation?

2. The differences that matter most

Rather than looking only at general statements about partnership, there are five practical policy areas worth examining.

A. The Waitangi Tribunal

digitalnz.org

The Tribunal investigates Crown breaches of Te Tiriti and provides an important accountability mechanism.

The parties have quite different proposals:

• ACT: Restrict the Tribunal to historical claims and close it once eligible claims are resolved.
• NZ First: Abolish the Tribunal and establish a process to complete historical claims.
• National: Has undertaken a review of the Tribunal; a specific replacement policy is not clearly set out.
• Labour: Keep the Tribunal but retain Parliament's final decision-making authority.
• Greens: Strengthen the Tribunal and give it binding powers in certain land-return recommendations.
• Te Pāti Māori: Make Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown, with court enforcement.
• TOP: Has not set out a comparable detailed Tribunal policy.

The key question is whether Māori should have an independent institution capable of holding the Crown accountable, and how much authority its recommendations should carry. What should happen to Te Tiriti settings and Māori representation?Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

B. Māori representation in Parliament

newzealand.com

New Zealand currently has seven Māori electorates.

Party	Position
ACT	Supports abolishing the Māori seats through legislation.
NZ First	Wants a referendum on whether to retain them.
Greens	Supports entrenching the Māori seats so they have stronger protection.
Labour	No specific 2026 policy commitment identified.
National	No specific 2026 policy commitment identified.
Te Pāti Māori	Supports Māori political representation and stronger Māori authority, but no specific entrenchment proposal identified in this comparison.
TOP	No specific position identified.

This is a significant distinction between representation through dedicated Māori electorates and representation exclusively through general electorates. What should happen to Te Tiriti settings and Māori representation?What should happen to Te Tiriti settings and Māori representation?

C. Māori representation in local councils

This matters because councils make decisions affecting everyday household life:

• Water infrastructure and charges.
• Public transport.
• Rubbish collection and rates.
• Housing development.
• Libraries and community facilities.
• Local environmental management.

The Greens support allowing councils to retain Māori wards without requiring local referendums.

The National-led government introduced requirements for local polls on Māori wards. NZ First has also proposed disestablishing Auckland's Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Labour, ACT, TOP and Te Pāti Māori do not have clearly identified specific 2026 commitments on the same local-government question in the comparison.

What should happen to Te Tiriti settings and Māori representation?Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

D. Co-governance and iwi/hapū decision-making

This is another major dividing line.

• ACT and NZ First: Oppose co-governance arrangements that they consider give different political rights based on ethnicity. They favour universal democratic decision-making and individual need.
• National: Emphasises equal citizenship and community decision-making. Its government has changed several existing Māori participation arrangements.
• Labour: Has previously supported co-governance, including in water reforms, and Māori-specific institutions.
• Greens: Supports iwi and hapū participating as Treaty partners, with rangatiratanga rather than simply advisory roles.
• Te Pāti Māori: Advocates substantial Māori decision-making authority and mana motuhake.
• TOP: Supports Māori autonomy and devolving some health and justice services to Māori.

The distinction is whether Māori are consulted before decisions are made, participate alongside government in making decisions, or exercise independent authority over particular matters. Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti o WaitangiWhere political parties stand on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

E. Treaty obligations in everyday government services

This is where constitutional debates can have direct consequences for families.

Consider:

Service	Questions worth asking
Healthcare	Will Māori health providers have funding, autonomy and influence over service design?
Education	Will Te Tiriti and Aotearoa history remain part of education? Will Māori have influence over Māori education?
Housing	Will iwi and Māori organisations participate in housing development and decisions about whenua?
Employment	Will Māori employment and training initiatives receive dedicated investment?
Child wellbeing	Will whānau, hapū and iwi have a meaningful role in decisions affecting tamariki?
Local services	Will Māori communities have formal representation in council decisions?

These questions help distinguish a party's constitutional position from its actual service-delivery commitments.

For example, a party may support universal access to healthcare while opposing Māori-specific institutions. Another may support Māori-led healthcare delivery as a way of addressing unequal outcomes.

Those are different approaches to achieving public wellbeing, not simply different slogans.

3. What the differences could mean for a working household

Te Tiriti policy and household affordability are not separate issues. They can affect who designs, funds and delivers services.

Here are some useful connections to examine when comparing party promises:

Household concern	Te Tiriti and participation connection
Cost of living	Whether Māori economic development, employment and whānau support receive targeted investment.
Health costs	Whether Māori health providers have resources to deliver services locally.
Children's education	Whether Māori education, te reo Māori and culturally appropriate learning are supported.
Housing costs	Whether Māori land development and papakāinga housing are supported.
Council rates and services	Whether iwi and Māori representatives have meaningful influence over infrastructure and local spending.
Family wellbeing	Whether whānau-centred services are funded and Māori have authority in their delivery.

A useful distinction when reading policies is between:

• Universal provision: Services available to everyone on the same basis.
• Targeted provision: Additional resources directed towards groups experiencing particular disadvantages.
• Māori-led provision: Services designed and governed by Māori organisations, iwi or hapū.

Parties can support one, two or all three approaches in different areas.

4. Important things to check before voting

There are some gaps between published positions and fully developed policy.

Undecided's October 2026 review notes that independent costings or official analysis have not been found for several significant proposals, including binding Waitangi Tribunal recommendations, constitutional changes and entrenching Māori seats. What should happen to Te Tiriti settings and Māori representation?

I would therefore look beyond campaign announcements and ask:

1. What will this policy cost?
2. Who will fund it?
3. What authority will Māori actually have?
4. Will iwi and hapū be decision-makers or simply consulted?
5. What happens if a future government wants to reverse it?
6. What measurable improvements will whānau experience?

Also consider coalition agreements. A party's election manifesto does not necessarily become government policy if it needs coalition partners to govern.

5. Where to compare the actual 2026 policies

These are useful resources for checking the details rather than relying on campaign speeches.

• Policy.nz – 2026 election policy comparison: Compare Te Ao Māori, housing, health, education, incomes and employment.
• Undecided – Te Tiriti and Māori representation: Detailed comparison of Treaty clauses, Māori seats, the Waitangi Tribunal and constitutional proposals.
• The Spinoff – Where political parties stand on Te Tiriti: Background on the parties' Treaty positions and records in government.

6. A useful way to approach your voting decision

You have two votes under MMP:

• Party vote: Determines each party's share of seats in Parliament.
• Electorate vote: Determines your local electorate representative.

You can assess these separately. For example, you might consider a party's national Treaty policy alongside an electorate candidate's record on Māori health, education, local government and community representation.

My suggestion is to compare three things together:

• Te Tiriti protection and Crown accountability.
• Māori authority and participation in decisions.
• Household affordability and access to essential services.

That gives you a broader picture of what a future government might mean for whānau, rather than judging parties on Treaty rhetoric alone.

A useful next step: I can put together a side-by-side comparison of National, Labour, Greens, ACT, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori covering both household costs and Māori rights, including housing, food, power, healthcare, education, wages and Te Tiriti.

Compare household costs and Māori rights across the six parties

---

Worked for 13s

Searching the web

Searching the web

Searched 13 websites