Geoff Parker: The Real Constitutional Instability Is The Attempt To Rewrite New Zealand By Stealth

Writing for the University of Auckland, political theorist Stephen Winter warns of “short-sighted constitutional instability”, pointing to changes involving Treaty principles, Māori wards, electoral law and the Bill of Rights. He proposes stronger institutional safeguards, including a permanent constitutional select committee.

But this puts the cart before the horse. The far more fundamental question Winter does not adequately confront is:

Geoff Parker: Claire Charters’ Constitutional Revolution — The Case She Still Has To Prove

Professor Claire Charters is making a sweeping and consequential claim. In her new book, Sovereignty: The Case for Constitutional Transformation, she argues that New Zealand’s constitutional foundations are “unjust, illegitimate, illegal” and require fundamental transformation.

After listening to her interview with Simon Mercep, however, I am left wondering whether she has actually proved her case.

Geoff Parker: The NZ Herald's Cherry-Picked History.

The facts the Herald left out

The Weekend Herald's article (26 Sep 2026) “Horse trading: The troubling history of Māori-Pākehā land deals” presents a highly selective account of New Zealand's land history. It takes readers through disputed purchases, confiscations, the Native Land Court and Treaty settlements, while giving far less attention to the events that preceded those grievances.

That matters because history is chronology. If the beginning of an episode is removed, the events that follow can be made to look entirely different.

The Herald has published its version. Here are the facts it leaves out.

Geoff Parker: Wangarei, Wangaree Or Whangarei?

Who decided that the old spelling was wrong?

There is a fascinating question hiding in plain sight in the name of one of Northland's best-known cities:

When did Wangarei become Whangarei — and why?

The answer to the first question is reasonably clear.

The answer to the second is less straightforward.

Geoff Parker: One Law For All Does Not Ignore History — It Recognises Who Makes The Law

Deborah Coddington (NZ Herald 23/9/26) is right about one thing: New Zealand's common law has developed through judicial decisions for centuries. But that historical fact does not answer the constitutional question ACT's “One Law for All” policy is addressing.

Her Donoghue v Stevenson example illustrates the point. The courts developed the modern law of negligence because Parliament had not comprehensively legislated in that field. But that does not mean judges possess an unlimited licence to create new legal duties whenever they consider them desirable.[1]

There is a crucial distinction between developing established common-law principles and creating new obligations in areas where Parliament has legislated — or deliberately chosen not to legislate.

Geoff Parker: Who Decided New Zealand Needs A Democracy Overhaul?

Roy Murphy’s article, Overhauling Democracy, reports on a recent ‘Re:Shape’ “unconference” at Victoria University, where participants discussed whether New Zealand’s democratic system needs fundamental change.

There is nothing wrong with asking whether democracy can be improved. Better public participation, longer-term thinking and greater accountability are legitimate subjects for debate.

But there is a much bigger question that deserves to be asked:

Geoff Parker: One Law For All Is Not An Attack On Maori

A response to Sir Douglas Graham

Sir Douglas Graham warns that ACT’s “one law for all” agenda is foolish and likely to provoke protest.

But there is a rather revealing assumption behind his argument: that seeking equality before the law is somehow an attack on Māori.

It isn't.

The real question is whether New Zealand should continue developing a legal and political framework in which some rights, powers and forms of political participation depend on ancestry — or whether citizenship should ultimately mean equal rights and responsibilities under one law.

Geoff Parker: One Law For All Is Not An Attack On Maori

Noel O’Malley’s argument that ACT’s “One Law for All with One Future Together” policy is a disguised programme of assimilation rests on a remarkable inversion of the meaning of equality.

There is nothing inherently threatening about saying that every New Zealander should have the same rights, the same obligations and the same protection under the law. Indeed, that principle lies at the heart of a democratic society.

Geoff Parker: Te Reo Is Here To Stay - But That Doesn't Mean We Must Embrace It

The New Zealand Herald (Editorial 14/9/26) tells us that “te reo is here to stay” and urges New Zealanders to “embrace it.”

It sounds harmless enough. But behind that friendly appeal lies a much bigger assumption: that because te reo Māori is being promoted more extensively, New Zealanders should welcome its increasing presence throughout public life.

That assumption deserves to be challenged.

Geoff Parker: Paid To Speak Māori - Is This What Equal Treatment Looks Like?

There is a question the Government needs to answer about the practice of paying public servants an additional allowance for proficiency in te reo Māori:

If speaking te reo Māori is not required to perform the job, why does proficiency in it attract additional remuneration?

This is not an attack on the Māori language or on those who speak it. It is a question about equal treatment, remuneration policy and value for money for taxpayers.

And this is not some obscure or historical arrangement.

Geoff Parker: Fairness For All — Or A Particular Kind Of Fairness?

Chief Ombudsman John Allen's recent speech deserves careful scrutiny. Not simply because of where it was delivered, but because of who delivered it — and what he chose to say.

Koroneihana (Coronation) is a significant Māori and Tainui occasion centred on the Kīngitanga, the Māori King movement, bringing together people for cultural celebration, discussion and consideration of matters important to Māori.

There is nothing inherently improper about the Chief Ombudsman attending such an event. Public officials should be able to engage respectfully with different communities.

Geoff Parker: The Trojan Horse - Six Words Changing New Zealand

Six fashionable words — and what lies behind them

There are six Māori words appearing more and more in New Zealand government, councils, public agencies, law and political debate.

Geoff Parker: The River Is A Legal Person — But Who Makes The Law?

Hemopereki Simon's article about the Whanganui River makes one thing very clear: for him, giving the river legal personhood does not go nearly far enough.

That is because his argument is not really about the river. It is about who should have political and legal authority in New Zealand.

Geoff Parker: Kotahitanga — Unity, Or Division By Another Name?

Metiria Turei's argument (Otago Daily Times, 4/9/26) for kotahitanga (unity) begins with a proposition few New Zealanders would disagree with: that people should work together, respect one another and build a better country for everyone.

So far, so good.

But then comes the sleight of hand.

Geoff Parker: Ani O'Brien Is Right - This Isn't Co-Governance......

.....It's About Who Will Govern New Zealand.

There is a very important video doing the rounds from Ani O’Brien, and I think every New Zealander who cares about the future of our democracy should watch it.

Her message is remarkably simple.

It is about where political authority in New Zealand should ultimately reside.

Geoff Parker: Davina Smolders — When Dissent Becomes A Reason For Removal

The Far North District Council’s decision to remove Councillor Davina Smolders from its Te Kūaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships deserves considerably more scrutiny than it is likely to receive.

This is not simply a disagreement between councillors over Māori issues. It raises a much bigger question:

What happens to democracy when an elected councillor’s views become so inconvenient that the majority decides to remove her from a committee?

Geoff Parker: Were Māori A Sovereign Nation Before The Treaty?

The claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi sounds straightforward enough. But the answer depends on what is meant by “sovereign” and “nation” and, most importantly, whether Māori — the people with whom the Treaty was signed — were politically united under any common authority.

There is no doubt that Māori exercised authority before 1840. Chiefs, hapū and iwi controlled their own people and territories, and the British Government recognised that reality.

Geoff Parker: Carwyn Jones misses the point - David Seymour is right

Who Makes New Zealand’s Laws — Parliament Or The Courts?

Carwyn Jones says ACT's new “One Law for All. One Future Together” policy appears to be an attempt to “re-litigate” the failed Treaty Principles Bill.

But that criticism misses the central point of David Seymour's proposal.

Geoff Parker: Alternative Facts And New Zealand's Selective History

There is something deeply ironic about accusations that the Coalition Government wants to teach New Zealand children “alternative facts” while some of those making the accusation present an extraordinarily selective version of our history.

The latest example in a letter to the Editor of the Waikato Times 22/8/26  is the claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi and that British involvement simply destroyed an existing system of independent government.

The historical record is considerably more complicated.

Geoff Parker: Equality Is Not Racism, and Disagreement Is Not an Attack on Democracy

Metiria Turei's paywalled column in the Otago Daily Times 21/8/26, Hypocrisy and racism abounds in Parliament, is a familiar exercise in political inversion.

According to Turei, opposition to Māori electorates, criticism of Māori-specific policies, and attempts to restore the same democratic rules for all New Zealanders are evidence of hypocrisy, racism and an assault on constitutional democracy.