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.

Spaniard: Yellow-eyed penguins on Ngāi Tahu’s menu

Ngāi Tahu killing and consuming endangered yellow-eyed penguins is now okay in the eyes of the Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust. It’s also okay, apparently, with the Department of Conservation. Treaty religiosity drives the organisations’ extraordinary loss of compass.

In a DOC-published recovery plan, Te KawekaTakohaka mõ te Hoiho 2019-2029, created by ‘partners’ including Ngāi Tahu, the Trust, and DOC, the tribe cites its former consumption of yellow-eyed penguins and its interest in returning to the practices it says are “responsibilities as kaitiaki”, with no demur from those partners.

Gary Judd KC: Mumbo-jumbo and all that

The Mullahs of Mumbo-jumbo advance the cause of racist superiority

The New Zealand Law Society (NZLS), in partnership with its provider of continuing education is advertising “Tikanga and the law”. Interestingly enough, in a Freudian slip, the advertisement betrays the reality, that tikanga is not law. It says, “hear firsthand perspectives from those working at the intersection of tikanga and the law.”

The advertisement treats tikanga as something distinct from law while promoting its use in lawyers’ professional and ethical decision-making. It forms part of a wider NZLS programme that risks turning ideological precepts into professional obligations.

Graham Adams: Māori gods rule the CRL underworld

Anyone reading the headlines last month announcing that Auckland’s underground City Rail Link had been “blessed” would not have needed to read the accompanying article to guess that it wasn’t Catholic or Anglican bishops conducting the ritual.

It was, of course, mana whenua, who performed a formal dawn mahi ōkawa (blessing) of the new CRL stations.

The purpose of the blessing — led by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and supported by seven other local clans — was allegedly to “provide important tikanga and cultural safety ahead of upcoming ‘First Look’ public open day events and the commencement of passenger services”.

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.

Roger Partridge: Hiding in Plain Sight - Chief Justice Winkelmann’s revolutionary vision

This column was first published in LawNews on 1 August 2026. It continues a series examining the Supreme Court’s departure from the constitutional limits of judicial power.

Suppose a public official holds an office with limited powers. The limits are not in doubt. They are written down, and the official has never denied them. Yet the office acts, case by case, in ways that are hard to square with the limits. Then, in a series of measured public addresses, the official sets out an account of the office under which its powers exceed those limits. The account is careful and scholarly, delivered to expert audiences. No one objects, because it is offered as observation, a reflection on how things have come to work.

Peter Williams: The BSA's digging its own grave

Two decisions highlight the need for its rapid disestablishment

If more evidence was needed about the relevance or irrelevance of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) then a couple of judgements they made this week have rammed home the point.

The decision about Sean Plunket on The Platform has been widely reported and commented on.

My take is simple.

Geoff Parker: Culture Is Not Democracy - Equal Citizenship Is

Professor Dominic O'Sullivan argues that abolishing Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements "undermines democracy". In reality, the opposite is true.

No one is arguing that Māori culture should be excluded from public life. Every New Zealander is free to express their culture, advocate for their interests, and participate in democratic processes.

The issue is whether one ethnic group should enjoy statutory rights that no other citizens possess.

John McLean: Jagose Stays Close

The frightful former Solicitor-General who refuses to go way

The New Zealand Law Association is doing an admirable job enabling subversive, activist lawyers to expose themselves. The Association is a divine reincarnation of the former Auckland District Law Society. Unlike the New Zealand Law Society, the NZ Law Assn has no statutory authority and doesn’t try to hound un-Woke lawyers out of the legal profession. I’ve previously covered the Law Society’s brutal, unlawful hounding of heterodox lawyers:

Spaniard: Tikanga plays third rail in public land changes

Tikanga is creeping into much of our nation’s life, with control passed to iwi underhandedly. One mostly unnoticed area is conservation. When Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka recently redesignated 513,042.2 hectares of West Coast public conservation land, he did it on the basis on tikanga.

His decision-making legitimised Ngai Tahu’s leveraging of lore and law in interpreting the Conservation Act and other legislation, serious conflicts of interest, and dominance of Ngai Tahu tribal rhetoric.

Graeme Spencer: The CCO That Put Culture Before Consumers

Timaru District Council after a suspect consultation process have finally formed a CCO (Council Controlled Organisation) with MacKenzie District Council.

The result - a subscale entity, too small to deliver real efficiencies but big enough to add cost and distance from accountability. The worst of both worlds.

David Harvey: The Courts and Climate Change

The Smith v Fonterra case was brought by climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs Forum Michael Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu) against several major emitters. Smith was attempting to use tort law to address the diffuse, cumulative harms of climate change to his property, culture, and iwi.

Hugh Perrett: Tikanga is NOT law , is not a legal system and has no role to play or place in our legal system

Final Consolidated Legal Submission

TO:  Hon. Chris Bishop, Prime Minister Luxon, and Ministers,

Further to my earlier submission , I wish to restate the constitutional position with clarity and precision.

When Māori chiefs willingly, voluntarily, and without coercion signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, they “ceded FOREVER the ENTIRE SOVEREIGNTY of their country” to the British Crown. In return, they were granted “the rights and privileges of British subjects”, which necessarily placed all inhabitants of New Zealand under British law, which became the law of New Zealand.