{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreic53w7ex63pep3eka6y4r2za5y42lshwmhhk34soohbbgvl7cmlne",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mphdexflcdx2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreiaezcoe2rsag75d7ayrz3ojtajz5cz5xwbwbm7c5kmo7z2voszlt4"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 215845
  },
  "description": "This is the sleeper issue of the 2026 election. The real test for political parties is whether they can step up to the challenge.",
  "path": "/in-deciding-the-2026-election/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-29T20:30:49.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "promise",
    "release",
    "revelations",
    "New Zealand Centre for Political Research"
  ],
  "textContent": "For decades, New Zealand has been undergoing a quiet constitutional revolution. What was once largely unnoticed is now becoming increasingly visible – so much so that the coalition government can no longer ignore it if it hopes to remain in office.\n\nRecent events highlight the growing influence of iwi leaders and the increasingly assertive – some say greedy – way in which they are exercising their new powers.\n\nExamples are numerous, but the following four provide a snapshot of what’s going on.\n\nThe first is the revelation that a small tribal group can block the expansion of essential infrastructure of national significance.\n\nBy attempting to extort almost half a billion dollars from the Port of Tauranga, Ngāti Kuku, a sub-tribe of the local Ngāi Te Rangi iwi, is obstructing New Zealand’s largest export hub from being able to expand to meet the country’s growing trade demand.\n\nThe group claims the port’s upgrade would deny them ‘authority’ over the harbour, and they say the solution to their cultural concerns is “ _structural wealth-sharing_ ”. This is Orwellian-speak for what amounts to financial coercion.\n\nThe port company previously offered the group a “cultural mitigation package” worth $6 million. That was rejected. Instead, they want $19 million _each_ year for 35 years, resulting in a total present value package of between $335 million and $475 million. Of this they claim $11 million or so would be “ _fair revenue sharing_ ” – 4.3 per cent of the projected revenue generated by the port company’s new wharves – and the balance would be “cultural compensation” to address their inability to “discharge their cultural obligations and protect the harbour”.\n\nThe reality is that this Māori group is able to demand hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation because the Fast-Track legislation has given them a culturally privileged position in the consenting process. They are using that advantage to challenge, delay, and block the project, at great cost to the port. Furthermore, because the Supreme Court has elevated _tikanga_ into the common law, cultural claims now carry greater legal weight.\n\nIt is important to remember that the coalition was elected on the explicit promise that they would _not_ introduce race-based legislation during their term in office: “The coalition government’s priorities for this term include … _ending race based policies_.”\n\nThe Fast-Track legislation was sold to the public as a means of bypassing the delays that had dogged the Resource Management Act – including iwi consultation.\n\nBut instead of Minister Chris Bishop delivering a colourblind law that treats everyone as equals, iwi leaders and public service advisors ensured race-based privilege was embedded deep within the legislation. The port company – and the country – is now paying the price through ongoing delays and escalating costs.\n\nThey are not alone. Cultural ransom is now endemic.\n\nWhat’s worse is that even after recognising the corruption of his Fast-Track legislation caused by the inclusion of special rights for Māori, instead of ruling such rights out of his RMA reforms, Minister Bishop intends carrying forward _all_ existing arrangements between councils and iwi into the replacement legislation – the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill.\n\nThis will not only guarantee that the reforms will fail, but the minister has ensured that iwi will continue to exert undue influence over _all_ planning and development within New Zealand into the future.\n\nA second example is the attempt by Minister Simon Watts to restore democratic voting within local government through an amendment to the Local Government (System Improvements) Bill that is currently in front of parliament. His proposal is based on the straightforward democratic principle that only those who are accountable to the public should exercise public power.\n\nIn practical terms, this means that only elected councillors should hold voting rights on council committees.\n\nBut the reform came with a glaring exemption: representatives appointed to councils through acts other than the Local Government Act were to be excluded from the rule.\n\nThis was seen as a major retreat by the coalition – a political concession designed to preserve many existing co‑governance arrangements, including those of the Auckland Council’s Māori Statutory Board.\n\nIn response to the public backlash that followed the statutory board’s exemption, Prime Minister Luxon suggested removing their voting rights could be considered _after_ the election.\n\nSensing a political opportunity, both coalition partners stepped up: ACT proposed an amendment to remove the Māori Statutory Board’s voting rights during the committee stages of the bill, and New Zealand First has introduced a private member’s bill to remove their voting rights.\n\nThe reality is that to uphold the democratic principle that only those who are accountable to the public should exercise public power, there can be _no_ exemptions at all. The voting ban must be universal: all voting rights must be stripped from anyone who has not been elected.\n\nThat is what the public now expects – it is up to the coalition to deliver it.\n\nA third example relates to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s attempt to uphold New Zealand First’s coalition promise to remove Treaty principles from legislation following ACT’s failed attempt to do so through the _Treaty Principles Bill_.\n\nThe key point is that there are _no_ principles in the Treaty of Waitangi: Through Article One, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Crown; Article Two protected property rights; and Article Three guaranteed Māori the same rights as British subjects.\n\nThis, however, is _not_ what modern-day activists want the Treaty to mean, so through the courts and other state institutions, Treaty principles have been created to justify co‑governance, veto powers, and a “partnership” between Māori and the Crown.\n\nIn addition, the Māori version “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is no longer interpreted as a translation of the English ‘Treaty of Waitangi’ but is regarded as a second Treaty that upholds Māori sovereignty.\n\nWhat is so worrying is that the coalition now appears to be on the cusp of introducing this radicalised construct into law.\n\nIn a press release providing an update on the Treaty principles project, Minister Goldsmith revealed, “The government has also agreed a reference to both the Treaty of Waitangi _and_ te Tiriti o Waitangi is preferable and should be used in all relevant provisions going forward.”\n\nThis is an extremely dangerous concession: once “Te Tiriti” is written into legislation, activists will use the courts’ new recognition of tikanga to push claims of parallel sovereignty and an achievable legal pathway for the He Puapua vision of tribal rule by 2040 would have been created.\n\nInstead of appeasing tribal leaders by embedding references to Māori sovereignty in legislation, Treaty Minister Paul Goldsmith should be re-iterating the statement he made last year: “The Crown’s position is clear: the Crown is sovereign. The Crown is simply the representation of the democratic will of the people of New Zealand.”\n\nIn other words, if New Zealand is to remain a democratic nation, Crown sovereignty must be defended. Instead of _introducing_ references to Te Tiriti and Māori sovereignty into legislation, they should _all_ be _removed_.\n\nOur final example reveals something alarming: tribal activism is accelerating because tikanga has been elevated into the common law. As we found in the disastrous Marine and Coastal Area Act cases, this means the courts will interpret everything through the lens of tikanga to expand iwi authority. Whether the issue is blocking development on cultural grounds or reframing Te Tiriti as a mandate for Māori sovereignty, iwi know that once a case reaches the Supreme Court, the odds are heavily stacked in their favour.\n\nThat’s why it is imperative that _tikanga_ is removed from the common law as a matter of urgency – as this week’s NZCPR guest commentator, former Judge Anthony Willy, explains:\n\n> When the chiefs signed the Treaty in 1840, they understood that they were conferring sovereignty over New Zealand on the British monarch. A crucial ingredient of the exercise of the monarch’s powers is the Common Law, as it was in 1840. From that time, it became the law of New Zealand applicable to all citizens and changeable only at the behest of parliament or in restricted cases by the courts. It is written for all to see, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.\n>\n> Māori people have availed themselves extensively of this system of dispute resolution over the years and continue to do so but more latterly they seek to change it to their advantage by the introduction of unwritten customs and social values which they assert emerge from their pre-1840 society.\n\nHe explains how the notion of incorporating _tikanga_ into the common law was first suggested by the former head of the Waitangi Tribunal, Supreme Court Justice Joe Williams – along with Justice Susan Glazebrook and Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann – in October 2022 as a postscript to a judgment that had already been decided:\n\n> From this shaky start, the notion of Māori myths and legends forming part of the common law has mushroomed to the point where a recently appointed Court of Appeal judge has proposed it be formally adopted for use in all cases. That of course spells the end of the ‘common law’, and we will have an unwritten system for those with Māori blood and another for non-Māori.\n\nAnthony Willy then points out:\n\n> In an aside three judges have knocked away a crucial pillar of our sovereignty an, clearly, we are not one people before the law. How this plays out in parliament remains to be seen, but thus far there has been _no_ move to remove _tikanga_ from the common law.\n\nThis situation whereby three Supreme Court judges have effectively created new law without any mandate from parliament, represents a profound breach of the Rule of Law. That principle requires that society be governed by clear, publicly accessible, and knowable rules, applied equally to all and enforced by independent courts. “Tikanga”, by contrast, is neither publicly accessible nor consistently knowable, nor is it applied uniformly. To elevate it into the common law through judicial innovation rather than democratic process is, as Anthony Willy argues, to remove a crucial pillar of our constitutional order.\n\nThat successive governments have allowed this to stand unchallenged is not merely disappointing – it is an indictment of their willingness to defend the foundational norms of our democracy against unmandated judicial activism.\n\nThe problem for National is that they are seen as the ones dragging their feet over the coalition’s promise of abolishing co-governance, stopping _He Puapua_ , and ending race-based laws.\n\nAnd if they are in any doubt over this, they should listen to the outrage expressed by voters in response to Conservation Minister Tamata Potaki’s announcement that five newly created South Island marine reserves will be _co-governed_ by Ngāi Tahu – especially in light of the revelations by _Platform_ host Michael Laws that this private, tribal corporation received $8 million in public funding as well as decision‑making powers normally held exclusively by the Crown under the Marine Reserves Act.\n\nLagging below 30 per cent in the polls, National voters feel betrayed that the party hasn’t done enough to stop the iwi takeover. And with the general election just months away, time is running out.\n\nBut, in politics, it’s never too late to alter course.\n\nBack in January 2004, National also languished around 28 per cent in the polls as supporters were disillusioned with the party’s failure to confront growing “Māorification.” Then everything changed.\n\nA single speech from National’s leader – asking whether New Zealanders wanted _one rule for all in a single nation state,_ or _a racially divided country with two sets of laws and two standards of citizenship_ – cut through.\n\nWithin three months, the party had surged to 45 per cent because it signalled it would tackle the issue head‑on.\n\nThat message would resonate just as powerfully today.\n\nNew Zealanders are crying out for leadership willing to confront the growing cultural corruption and rebuild our society on the principles of fairness and equality.\n\nThis is the sleeper issue of the 2026 election.\n\nThe real test for political parties is whether they can step up to the challenge.\n\nThis article was originally published by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.",
  "title": "In Deciding the 2026 Election",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-29T20:30:49.158Z"
}