Flashpoints

The most controversial bills and policy debates heading into 2026. These are the issues where parties fundamentally disagree - and where your vote makes the biggest difference.

The Treaty Principles Bill The Equal Pay Amendment Act The Smokefree Repeal The Fast-Track Approvals Act GST on Food Reopening Oil and Gas Exploration The Regulatory Standards Act Cannabis Law Reform

The Treaty Principles Bill

A bill to legislatively define the Treaty of Waitangi's principles, generating nationwide debate and large-scale protests.

What happened

ACT leader David Seymour introduced the Treaty Principles Bill to legally define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and put them to a binding public referendum. The coalition agreement required National and NZ First to vote for it at first reading only, then oppose it at second reading. The bill proposed three principles: (1) the government has the right to govern for all, (2) iwi have rights as specified in legislation, (3) all New Zealanders are equal before the law.

Why it's controversial

The bill prompted strong responses from multiple quarters. Supporters argued it would bring democratic clarity to undefined Treaty principles. Opponents organised the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, one of New Zealand's largest protests, with tens of thousands marching to Parliament in November 2024. A petition with 289,000 signatures was presented against the bill. Te Pati Maori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke performed a haka in Parliament while tearing a copy of the bill, a moment widely shared internationally. 40 King's Counsel urged its abandonment. The bill was defeated 11-112 at second reading, with only ACT's MPs voting in favour.

Key facts

First reading: passed 68-54 (coalition deal required National and NZ First to vote yes)
Second reading: defeated 11-112 (only ACT's 11 MPs voted for it)
289,000 petition signatures against - 2nd largest petition in NZ history
Hikoi mo te Tiriti was one of the largest protests in NZ history
Maipi-Clarke was suspended for 24 hours, then 7 days after Privileges Committee referral
40 King's Counsel signed a letter urging abandonment of the bill

What each side says

For the bill

ACT

ACT leader David Seymour argued the bill would bring clarity: "It's actually putting in place the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that the Treaty of Waitangi Act said existed but failed to define in 1975." Seymour stated that "equal rights for all New Zealanders is a simple idea but it's also a very powerful one" and that Parliament should define the principles rather than leaving them to judicial interpretation. He said a referendum would let the public decide the matter democratically. (RNZ, November 2024)

Against the bill

National, NZ First, Labour, Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Opposition came from across the political spectrum. Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said: "Te Tiriti o Waitangi is superior to any person and any law ever created in this House. It is the constitutional document by which this House and democracy is established here in Aotearoa." Former National Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley warned the bill was "inviting civil war." National and NZ First voted for the first reading as a coalition obligation but opposed the bill's substance. National's Paul Goldsmith called it "a crude way to handle a very delicate subject." (RNZ, NZ Herald, November-December 2024)

What this means for your vote

The bill was defeated but the policy debate continues. ACT has indicated it will pursue the issue again if in a position to do so after 2026. Te Pati Maori and the Greens advocate for expanding Treaty-based governance. National and NZ First opposed this bill but have also made changes to some Treaty-based policies (such as the Maori Health Authority and Maori wards referendums). Voters' positions on how the Treaty should be interpreted in law may influence their party choice at the 2026 election.

Sources

Current status: Defeated at second reading (April 2025). ACT has indicated it may reintroduce the bill if it holds the balance of power after 2026.

The Equal Pay Amendment Act

Legislation passed under urgency that changed the pay equity claims process, ending 33 active claims.

What happened

Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden (ACT) introduced and passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act on 6 May 2025 under parliamentary urgency. The bill raised the threshold for what counts as 'predominantly female work' from 66% to 70%, ended 33 ongoing pay equity claims affecting approximately 150,000 workers (primarily in education support, social work, and health), and imposed a 10-year moratorium on relitigating those claims.

Why it's controversial

The bill was introduced and passed in a single sitting day without a select committee process or regulatory impact statement. The government said the changes were needed to make the pay equity regime financially sustainable and focused on genuine gender-based discrimination. Five unions filed a High Court challenge arguing the legislation breaches the Bill of Rights Act. A complaint was filed with the United Nations in May 2026. The fiscal implications were significant, with the government estimating it avoided up to $12.8 billion in costs, while opponents argued the process denied workers a fair hearing.

Key facts

Introduced and passed on the same day under urgency - no select committee review
Terminated 33 active pay equity claims mid-process
Approximately 150,000 workers affected - mostly in care, education support, and social work
Government estimated it saved up to $12.8 billion in potential costs
Five unions filed a High Court challenge citing Bill of Rights breaches
UN complaint filed May 2026
No regulatory impact statement was prepared

What each side says

For the bill

National, ACT, NZ First

Minister Brooke van Velden said the changes would make the pay equity scheme "workable and sustainable" and "significantly reduce costs to the Crown." She argued the previous system had expanded beyond genuine gender discrimination, citing comparisons she considered inappropriate: "You have librarians who've been comparing themselves to transport engineers." Van Velden stated: "Equal pay is here to stay, and a pay equity system remains. The new law... makes the regime simpler and more robust, focused squarely on sex-based discrimination." (RNZ, May 2025)

Against the bill

Labour, Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Five unions - the Nurses Organisation, Tertiary Education Union, NZEI Te Riu Roa, PPTA, and PSA - argued the new rules breached three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said unions would "be relentlessly opposing what this Government has done to pay equity every single day between now and the election." Critics argued that passing the bill under urgency in a single day denied affected workers any opportunity to be heard. (RNZ, NZ Herald, May-June 2025)

What this means for your vote

Workers in female-dominated industries (care, education support, social work, nursing) are directly affected by this legislation. The coalition parties say the changes refocus the system on genuine discrimination while managing fiscal costs. Opposition parties have pledged to repeal the Act if elected. The outcome of the High Court challenge may also affect the legislation regardless of the election result.

Sources

Current status: Passed. High Court challenge pending. UN complaint filed.

The Smokefree Repeal

The government repealed Labour's generational smoking ban, citing enforcement concerns and individual choice.

What happened

In 2022, Labour passed the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act, which would have made it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after 1 January 2009, required denicotinisation of cigarettes, and reduced retail outlets by 90%. The incoming National-led government repealed the legislation under urgency in February 2024, with Associate Health Minister Casey Costello (NZ First) leading the repeal process.

Why it's controversial

The repeal drew debate over the balance between public health regulation and individual choice. Finance Minister Nicola Willis acknowledged the repeal had "a significant impact on the government books, with about a billion dollars there," linking it to fiscal considerations. The WHO later gave New Zealand a "Dirty Ashtray" award in November 2025. Polling indicated 60% of the public opposed the repeal. Health officials and public health experts opposed the decision. Supporters argued the original legislation was unworkable and would have created enforcement problems. Casey Costello faced scrutiny over her association with tobacco industry figures.

Key facts

The generational ban would have made NZ the first country to create a smokefree generation
Repealed under urgency - 76 days after the new government took office
60% of public opposed the repeal (February 2024 poll)
WHO gave NZ a 'Dirty Ashtray' award (November 2025)
Tobacco excise generates approximately $2 billion/year in tax revenue
Smoking causes approximately 5,000 deaths per year in New Zealand
Maori and Pacific communities have the highest smoking rates in NZ
Casey Costello (NZ First) faced scrutiny over tobacco industry connections

What each side says

For the repeal

National, ACT, NZ First

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon argued the smokefree legislation would have created enforcement problems, stating that remaining tobacco retailers would "become a massive magnet for crime" and that it would "drive more of the market into the black market." Supporters argued adults should be free to make their own choices, the 90% reduction in retail outlets would have harmed small businesses, and that harm reduction through vaping was a better approach. Casey Costello said the government was "not stopping anything currently helping drive smoking rates down." (RNZ, Stuff, February 2024)

Against the repeal

Labour, Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Public health expert Sir Collin Tukuitonga called the repeal "immoral." Dr Nick Chamberlain, National Public Health Service national director, told colleagues he was "ethically and morally" challenged by the decision. Hapai Te Hauora chief executive Jason Alexander said repealing all three measures "vastly impacts the health of all communities, particularly Maori and Pacific." Finance Minister Nicola Willis acknowledged the repeal helped offset a fiscal shortfall, leading opponents to argue it was a revenue-driven decision. Labour and the Greens indicated they would reinstate some form of smokefree legislation. (RNZ, NZ Herald, Stuff, 2024)

What this means for your vote

The repeal reflects differing approaches to public health policy. Supporters of the repeal argue it prevents black market growth and preserves personal choice. Opponents argue it prioritised revenue over health outcomes, particularly for Maori and Pacific communities with the highest smoking rates. Labour and the Greens have indicated they would reinstate some form of smokefree legislation if elected.

Sources

Current status: Repealed. No replacement legislation introduced.

The Fast-Track Approvals Act

A permanent fast-track consenting regime for major projects, debated over its balance of development and environmental safeguards.

What happened

The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 created a permanent regime allowing ministers to refer major projects to expert panels that can grant resource consents outside normal processes under the RMA, conservation law, fisheries law, and other environmental legislation. 149 projects were initially selected, including Trans-Tasman Resources' iron sand mining off South Taranaki, a project that had previously been declined through the courts.

Why it's controversial

The legislation prompted debate about the balance between infrastructure development and environmental protection. The government argued expert panels still provide environmental oversight while removing delays. Critics raised concerns about ministerial discretion in selecting projects and the inclusion of previously court-declined projects. NZ First's Shane Jones, the Regional Development Minister, faced conflict-of-interest questions over connections to some approved projects. Environmental and legal groups raised concerns about potential impacts on NZ's UK and EU free trade agreement obligations, which contain environmental standards clauses.

Key facts

149 projects selected for fast-tracking
Includes Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining - previously declined by courts
Shane Jones (NZ First) faced conflict-of-interest questions over connections to approved projects
Potential implications for UK/EU free trade agreement environmental clauses
Passed 68-55 on party lines
Expert panels can grant consents under RMA, Conservation Act, Fisheries Act, and Heritage Act
Government later passed amendments under urgency adjusting some provisions

What each side says

For the Act

National, ACT, NZ First

Resources Minister Shane Jones argued: "Gone are the days" when environmental concerns could "deny regional New Zealand communities their right to a livelihood, their entitlement to live peacefully with their environment but derive an income to meet the costs of raising families in regional New Zealand." He said the fast-track would bring "well over $60, possibly up to $70 billion worth of capital injection" into the economy. Jones called conflict-of-interest concerns "politically motivated." The government maintained expert panels still provide environmental assessment while removing what it considers unnecessary delays. (RNZ, NZ Herald, 2024)

Against the Act

Labour, Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Green Party co-leader James Shaw called the bill "one of the most significant assaults on the environment undertaken by any government in my lifetime." Labour's Rachel Brooking said it "prioritises short-term profit over the long-term sustainable management of New Zealand's environment, and locks communities out of decision-making." Forest and Bird called its passage "a dark day for New Zealand." Critics argued that including a project previously declined by the courts showed the regime was designed to override judicial environmental decisions. (RNZ, NZ Herald, 2024)

What this means for your vote

The fast-track regime reflects a policy trade-off between accelerating infrastructure and development projects and maintaining environmental consent processes. Supporters argue it is essential for addressing NZ's infrastructure deficit and creating jobs. Opponents argue it weakens environmental protections and community input. The 2026 election will likely determine whether fast-tracking continues in its current form or is reformed.

Sources

Current status: Passed and active. Projects being processed through the fast-track regime. Amendments passed under urgency adjusting some provisions.

GST on Food

A bill to remove GST from food was defeated in Parliament despite polling showing public support for the idea.

What happened

Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi introduced a bill to remove GST (15%) from all food and non-alcoholic beverages. With grocery prices having risen significantly, polling indicated majority public support for removing GST from food. When the bill came to a vote in March 2024, no other party supported it - it was defeated with only Te Pati Maori's votes in favour.

Why it's controversial

The vote highlighted a gap between public polling and parliamentary positions. All other parties opposed the bill on different grounds. The main arguments against centred on fiscal cost ($2-3 billion per year), poor targeting (higher-income households would save more in absolute terms), and administrative complexity of defining exempt items. Supporters argued GST on food disproportionately affects low-income households and that most comparable countries exempt basic food from sales tax. NZ First pledged to investigate GST on fresh food through a select committee but voted against this particular bill.

Key facts

Polling indicated majority public support for removing GST from food
Te Pati Maori was the only party to vote for the bill
Labour, National, ACT, NZ First, and Greens all voted against
Estimated fiscal cost: $2-3 billion per year in lost revenue
GST is a flat consumption tax that takes a larger share of lower incomes
Australia, UK, and most EU countries exempt basic food from sales tax
NZ First pledged a select committee inquiry but voted against the bill

What each side says

For GST removal on food

Te Pati Maori

Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said: "Food is a right and a necessity that should never be taxed, especially during a cost of living crisis that a government is failing to address." He called on all parties to support the bill, saying: "Removing GST from kai should be a no-brainer for any party who is serious about supporting whanau during a cost of living crisis." Te Pati Maori argued the fiscal cost was manageable and that NZ is an outlier among comparable countries in taxing basic food. (NZ Herald, RNZ, 2024)

Against GST removal on food

National, ACT, NZ First, Labour, Green Party

National leader Christopher Luxon argued the approach was poorly targeted, stating: "We think the better approach is to cut out the middle man, to give people genuine tax relief straight into their bank accounts." National's Nicola Willis said removing GST would do "very little to help families" and argued supermarkets rather than consumers would capture much of the benefit. The Greens, while also voting against, preferred funding direct support for low-income households through measures such as a wealth tax. Labour said targeted assistance was more effective than a universal GST reduction. (RNZ, NZ Herald, 2023-2024)

What this means for your vote

This issue highlights a policy debate about the most effective way to address food costs. Supporters of GST removal argue it is a straightforward universal price reduction. Opponents across the spectrum argue that targeted support (benefits, tax credits, subsidies) is more efficient at helping those most in need. Voters concerned about food costs should compare each party's proposed cost-of-living measures.

Sources

Current status: Defeated. NZ First pledged a select committee inquiry into GST on fresh food.

Reopening Oil and Gas Exploration

The government reversed the 2018 ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, prompting debate over energy policy and climate commitments.

What happened

NZ First's Shane Jones, as Resources Minister, introduced the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2025 which reversed the 2018 ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration. The Act changed the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act from 'managing' mineral resources to 'promoting' their development. It also introduced provisions for small-scale gold mining permits.

Why it's controversial

The bill received 5,524 public submissions, of which 94.5% (5,219) opposed it. The government passed it regardless, arguing public submissions are one input into the legislative process, not a binding vote. Environmental groups argued the reversal contradicts NZ's net-zero 2050 target under the Climate Change Response Act. Supporters argued domestic gas production improves energy security and reduces reliance on imported fuels. The Taranaki region, historically dependent on the oil and gas sector, stood to benefit most from new exploration activity.

Key facts

94.5% of 5,524 public submissions opposed the bill
Reverses the 2018 ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration
Changed the Act's purpose from 'managing' to 'promoting' minerals
Shane Jones (NZ First) was the driving force as Resources Minister
Taranaki region stands to benefit from new exploration
NZ imports over $8 billion of fossil fuels per year
Greens have a bill in the ballot to reverse the changes

What each side says

For reopening exploration

National, ACT, NZ First

Resources Minister Shane Jones called the 2018 ban the "worst political decision" and said: "As we speak, we are dependent on Indonesian coal to keep our lights on. This, sadly, was the unintended consequence of earlier... dangerous industrial decisions made without substantial analysis." He argued domestic gas is needed as a transitional fuel, stating he hopes to "keep the availability of gas as a contingency fuel in New Zealand until 2070." Supporters argued NZ imports over $8 billion of fossil fuels annually, and domestic production creates jobs, strengthens energy security, and generates royalties for regional communities. (RNZ, NZ Herald, 2024-2025)

Against reopening exploration

Labour, Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Green energy spokesperson Scott Willis pledged to reinstate the ban if elected and to "revoke any permits granted under the current fossil fuel-obsessed regime." The Greens argued that "resilient energy supply means investing in distributed renewable energy, not burning public money to subsidise new gas fields." Opponents argued that new exploration permits lock in 30-40 years of fossil fuel infrastructure, which is inconsistent with the net-zero 2050 commitment. They also noted that the overwhelming majority of public submissions opposed the bill. (RNZ, 2025)

What this means for your vote

This issue involves a trade-off between energy security and economic development on one hand and climate commitments on the other. Supporters argue domestic gas production reduces import dependence and supports regional employment. Opponents argue it is inconsistent with NZ's legislated climate targets. The Greens have a bill in the ballot to reverse the changes. Voters' priorities on energy and climate policy may influence their choice.

Sources

Current status: Passed. New exploration permits being issued.

The Regulatory Standards Act

ACT's flagship regulation bill passed with coalition support, but NZ First pledged to repeal it days later.

What happened

David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Act 2025 requires all new regulation to pass a cost-benefit analysis and respect property rights. It creates a Regulatory Standards Board to assess legislation. Seymour described it as the foundation for improving regulatory quality. Critics argued it could be used to legally challenge environmental and Treaty-based regulation by requiring cost-benefit justification for any restrictions on property.

Why it's controversial

The bill received approximately 23,000 public submissions, with 88% opposed. Seymour disputed the submissions, claiming "99.5% were bots." Seven days after the bill passed, Winston Peters announced NZ First would repeal the Act if re-elected, meaning NZ First voted for a law it has pledged to undo. Peters said NZ First was "opposed to this from the word go" but had limited negotiating leverage within the coalition. Labour's Duncan Webb has lodged a repeal bill in the members' ballot.

Key facts

88% of approximately 23,000 submissions opposed it
Seymour claimed '99.5% were bots'
NZ First voted for the bill on 13 November 2025
Winston Peters announced NZ First would repeal it on 20 November 2025 - 7 days later
Labour has a repeal bill in the ballot (Duncan Webb, Christchurch Central)
Creates a Regulatory Standards Board to assess legislation
Passed 68-55 on party lines

What each side says

For the Act

ACT

David Seymour said the bill "turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles.'" He argued it would allow New Zealanders to "live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives" by improving regulation quality. Seymour stated: "If you want to pursue some cause, then you need to be open about whether it is going to impact people's value that they get from their property and the value they get from their time." He dismissed opposition, saying: "It doesn't prevent politicians from making laws." (RNZ, Stuff, November 2025)

Against the Act

Labour, Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Labour and the Greens argued the Act's cost-benefit requirements could be used to legally challenge environmental protections, Treaty obligations, and public health measures. Critics said the property rights provisions could impede housing density rules, conservation measures, and other regulations where broader public interest may outweigh individual property impacts. Labour's Duncan Webb lodged a repeal bill. (RNZ, November 2025)

Voted for but pledged to repeal

NZ First

Winston Peters said NZ First "was opposed to this from the word go but you've only got so many cards you can play. We did our best to neutralise its adverse effects and we will campaign at the next election to repeal it." He characterised the Regulatory Standards Board's powers as a "terrible overreach" and "not fit for a modern democracy." Peters rejected Labour's proposal to repeal it during the current term, stating: "We in NZ First stick by our word and our coalition agreements." (RNZ, NZ Herald, November 2025)

What this means for your vote

The Act introduces new requirements for how regulation is developed and assessed. Supporters argue it will improve regulatory quality and protect against poorly designed rules. Opponents argue it could be used to block regulations that serve the broader public interest. NZ First's position illustrates the compromises involved in coalition government. The Act's future depends on the composition of the next government.

Sources

Current status: Passed and in force since January 2026. Repeal bill in the members' ballot.

Cannabis Law Reform

The 2020 referendum narrowly rejected legalisation. A new bill from the Greens is in the members' ballot.

What happened

In the 2020 general election, New Zealanders voted on whether to legalise recreational cannabis. The result was 50.7% No, 48.4% Yes (with 1% informal). PM Jacinda Ardern later revealed she had voted Yes but chose not to disclose her position before the vote. Cannabis remains illegal for recreational use. Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has a new Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill in the members' ballot.

Why it's controversial

The narrow result has kept the issue alive in political debate. Some argue the outcome was influenced by a lack of government advocacy compared to the euthanasia referendum (which passed 65-35 with clearer public positioning). Proponents of reform point to racial disparities in enforcement: Maori are convicted for cannabis offences at 3-4 times the rate of Pakeha despite similar usage rates. Opponents of legalisation argue the referendum result should be respected and that cannabis poses mental health risks, particularly for young people. International evidence from jurisdictions that have legalised is cited by both sides.

Key facts

50.7% No, 48.4% Yes - one of the narrowest referendum results in NZ history
Jacinda Ardern revealed after the vote that she had voted Yes
Maori are 3-4x more likely to be convicted for cannabis despite similar usage rates
Estimated $500M+ in potential tax revenue from a regulated market
Chlöe Swarbrick (Green, Auckland Central) has a new bill in the members' ballot
Canada, Uruguay, and 24 US states have legalised recreational cannabis
Medicinal cannabis is already legal in NZ under a separate scheme

What each side says

For legalisation

Green Party, Te Pati Maori

Chlöe Swarbrick has argued that prohibition has not reduced usage, noting that 80% of New Zealanders have used cannabis by age 21, while the current system means "unknown people consuming unknown substances, in unknown places, purchasing off unknown people." Proponents argue a regulated market would generate tax revenue, ensure product safety standards, reduce gang revenue, and address racial disparities in enforcement. They point to evidence from Canada and US states that have legalised. (RNZ, NZ Herald)

Against legalisation

National, NZ First

Former National leader Judith Collins said the National caucus would vote against legalisation, arguing "it is absolutely not something that people who care about the mental health of New Zealanders should be setting up." National and NZ First maintain that the referendum result should be respected as a democratic decision. They cite concerns about mental health effects, particularly for young people, and argue that legalisation would normalise use. (RNZ, 2020)

No committed position

Labour, ACT

Labour has not taken a party position, allowing conscience votes on the issue. Many Labour MPs supported legalisation personally but the party has not committed to it as policy. ACT's libertarian principles suggest philosophical support for individual choice, but the party has not made cannabis reform a policy priority. Both parties' positions would likely depend on the specific legislation proposed. (RNZ, NZ Herald)

What this means for your vote

If Swarbrick's bill is drawn from the ballot and the Greens hold influence after 2026, cannabis reform could return to Parliament. The Greens and Te Pati Maori have stated positions in favour of legalisation. National and NZ First oppose it. Labour and ACT have not committed either way. Voters with strong views on this issue should note these distinctions.

Sources

Current status: Bill in the members' ballot. Not drawn yet.