That is the real issue behind Te Pāti Māori’s new constitutional policy.
Constitutional Transformation
Te Pāti Māori wants to make Crown obligations arising from Te Tiriti legally enforceable and to fund the next stage of Māori-led constitutional transformation.
The policy includes:
> a $220 million Mātike Mai Fund over four years;
> an independent Te Tiriti Commission with powers to investigate serious Crown breaches, require remedial action and issue Te Tiriti Compliance Orders;
> making Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown;
> implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
> ensuring constitutional transformation by 2040.
Te Pāti Māori has a made this a bottom line in post-election negotiations.
So, this is now an election policy with the potential to become part of negotiations to form the next Government.
One element deserves particular attention:
The proposed Te Tiriti Commission would not simply advise ministers. It would be an independent body able to investigate Crown decisions, policy and executive action for compliance with statutory obligations arising from Te Tiriti.
For serious breaches, it could require remedial action and issue a Te Tiriti Compliance Order to stop or suspend the decision. Rawiri Waititi describes the status of the proposed Commission as “over and above Parliament.”
So, an independent body, whose members are not elected by the public, would have power to stop or suspend an executive decision made by an elected Government.
That is not ordinary co-governance.
This represents a fundamental shift about where political authority resides. Mātike Mai explicitly addresses constitutional transformation and explores a multi-sphere structure where hapū, iwi and other Māori representation could organise assemblies alongside the Crown in Parliament.
It also envisages a relational sphere involving constitutionally mandated relationships and decision-making between Māori and the Crown.
Mātike Mai further advocates recognising hapū and iwi’s tikanga and kawa as a valid system of law sitting alongside ( not within) the New Zealand legal system.
Constitutional transformation is to be realised by 2040.
This is a very different constitutional concept from that of NZ today.
What Happens To Parliament?
Parliament is elected by the people and the Government must retain the confidence of the elected House. Parliament makes the law, while judges interpret and apply it. Judges do not usually have the power to strike down an Act of Parliament simply because they disagree with it.
That principle of parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental feature of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.
What happens if the Te Parti Maori proposals come into force?
Notably, what is the role of:
The elected Government?
Parliament?
The courts?
The Te Tiriti Commission?
Moreover, what about a future constitutional arrangement where political authority is divided amongst different spheres?
These are NOT minor technical questions. This goes to the heart of democracy.
Canadian law professor , James Allan, has warned about this problem for years.
Regarding a possible written NZ constitution , he argued that incorporating or entrenching the Treaty would mean handing questions of enormous political importance to judges rather than leaving them to voters. His objection was not to having a constitution as such, but to replacing democratic decision-making with judicial interpretation of broad constitutional principles whose meaning could be contested.
Lawyer David Round gave a similar warning in his 2013 discussion of the Treaty . He argued that putting Treaty principles into a new constitution - without broad public agreement - could allow a minority to entrench its interests against widespread opposition.
Those warnings deserve serious consideration now.
Once constitutional principles have superior legal status, their meaning is no longer determined solely byelected governments or Parliament. Courts may be required to determine the meaning of those principles and whether legislation or government action is consistent with them.
That can fundamentally change the balance amongst Parliament, the courts and the electorate.
Once constitutional power is entrenched, getting it back is much harder than changing an ordinary Act of Parliament.
He Puapua Returns To The Discussion
Now, to discuss He Puapua - an independent report commissioned by the previous Government. It was NOT adopted as Government policy in its entirety.
It set out a roadmap for implementing UNDRIP and proposed major changes in the balance between kāwanatanga (Crown authority) and rangatiratanga (Maori autonomy).
Its Vision 2040 explicitly drew on the Mātike Mai model of different spheres of authority ( i.e. Maori, Crown and joint).
It also considered circumstances where governance functions - such as education, health and social services - could shift from the kāwanatanga sphere to the rangatiratanga sphere.
In contrast, Te Pāti Māori’s 2026 policy is more troubling — and potentially more dangerous.
The He Puapua constitutional direction could remain . But now, these ideas would be developed within the wider constitutional-transformation movement reflected in concrete political policy.
And now, a $220 million fund is attached to the process.
What Does This Mean For The Remaining 83% Of NZers ?
A fundamental question is:
What happens to the principle that every New Zealander is an equal citizen under one Parliament?
Regarding Mātike Mai’s proposed constitutional structure of multiple spheres, supporters may argue that this is a new form of partnership leading to a fairer country.
But NZers who disagree are equally entitled to ask whether such an arrangement would create different political rights and different sources of political authority according to ancestry or Treaty status.
Does this situation move us away from the principle of one political system and equal citizenship ?
This question must be answered.
What About Private Property?
This is another critical issue. Te Pāti Māori’s present constitutional policy does not propose confiscating privately owned houses, farms or businesses.
However, constitutional transformation goes far beyond the wording of TPM’s policy announcement.
Te Pāti Māori has previously supported policies giving mana whenua a first right of refusal over culturally significant private land. The party has also supported stronger Māori claims concerning natural resources and the implementation of UNDRIP.
Though private property is currently protected, legitimate questions arise:
If the constitutional balance of authority is fundamentally changed, how far could collective iwi and hapū rights ultimately extend?
This issue concerns every homeowner, farmer, business owner and landowner in New Zealand – so, another question which must be answered.
2040 is close - only 14 years away.
2040 is is the stated horizon for constitutional transformation in Mātike Mai and He Puapua.
As stated previously, Te Pāti Māori now seeks public funding for a process intended to advance Māori-led constitutional transformation, alongside legislation designed to make Crown obligations arising from Te Tiriti ‘s legally enforceable status.
Clearly this debate deserves attention now — not in 2039.
New Zealand At A Crossroads
The Election on 7 November 2026 - where the outcome is far from certain – makes this debate urgent.
Recent polls produce very different results.
The possibility of a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori Government - potentially dependent on support from another 4th party - is real. This matters enormously.
Regarding TPM’s Treaty policy: Labour has some reservations; the Greens and the Opportunities (TOP)Party have indicated broad support. TOP matters because, under MMP, a small party can have considerable political influence - if it holds votes that another party needs.
Therefore, the critical issue is what happens AFTER the election - if the numbers do not produce a straightforward majority AND since Te Pāti Māori has already declared a constitutional transformation programme as a bottom line for post-election negotiations.
If Labour and the Greens could not form the basis of a Government requiring Te Pāti Māori’s support, TPM would have considerable bargaining power. However, if the numbers needed support from yet another 4th party - such as TOP, that could also affect the direction of constitutional policy.
If more than one support party favours moving the country towards a broader constitutional role for Te Tiriti, the political pressure becomes even greater- especially for Labour to maintain traditional leadership of the Left.
The issue, therefore, is that post-election, once the votes have been counted and the numbers needed to form a Government are known, individual parties must be prepared to negotiate.
Who holds the balance of power post- election becomes as important as which party wins the most seats.
The constitutional question cannot be separated from the election arithmetic.
The Choice Facing New Zealanders
New Zealanders must think very carefully about the process that their vote could set in motion.
This election is not simply about tax, spending, health, housing or immigration – nor even about co-governance.
It could determine whether New Zealand continues as a democracy based on one Parliament, one system of law and equal citizenship - or, it begins moving towards a fundamentally different constitutional arrangement where political authority is divided amongst different spheres and increasingly defined by Treaty status and ancestry.
The choice ultimately belongs to the NZ voters. This is about who governs New Zealand – now and in the future. Once the foundations of a democracy are changed, reversal is virtually impossible.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
1 comment:
Parliament are themselves largely responsible for this situation.
First, Parliament does not have a mandate from the people to govern. The Constitution Act 1986 should have been passed by a referendum but instead Parliament empowered themselves.
Second, the present coalition have had three years to remove the Maori seats and the Waitangi Tribunal and they have not done so.
Third, Parliament do not fulfil their primary responsibility of representing We the people.
The Maori Party just are exploiting a weak and disordered Parliament, which is what they are there to do.
Our Parliament needs a fundamental review and that requires the sort of vigor shown by the Maori Party.
Should National win the election, that will not be an end to the problem. That will only get us another three years to develop a solution.
Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters have shown they will stop the sort of fundamental change required when they stopped the TPB.
It is difficult to see a way forward.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.