Te Pāti Māori foreign policy prioritises Indigenous self-determination and climate resilience, new report finds

A new election report released by the Peace and Disarmament Collective Aotearoa (PADCA) has highlighted the distinct foreign policy positions of New Zealand’s political parties ahead of the general election on November 7. The 2026 Political Party Peace and Disarmament Profile Report examines the stances of seven parties on 15 major defence and foreign policy issues, ranging from AUKUS participation to nuclear disarmament. According to the report, associated with PADCA Chair Richard Northey, Te Pāti Māori is advocating for a shift in national priorities away from increased militarisation. The party is assessed as favouring military neutrality and the redirection of military resources toward essential community needs, including housing, health, and climate change adaptation. A key pillar of their platform is the advancement of Indigenous self-determination and the protection of Pacific sovereignty. Te Pāti Māori, alongside the Green Party, is noted for opposing New Zealand's participation in large-scale foreign military exercises like RIMPAC and Talisman Sabre. The party has also taken a firm stance against joining the AUKUS Pillar Two technology and security partnership. Instead, their policy focus emphasizes a non-aligned approach that prioritizes humanitarian assistance and independence in the Pacific region. While significant divisions exist between the major parties regarding defence spending targets—with National, ACT, and New Zealand First supporting a move toward two percent of GDP—there remains a unified commitment across all seven parties to protect New Zealand’s nuclear-free status. The report indicates that Labour, National, and the Greens confirmed their support for the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone directly to PADCA, while the positions of Te Pāti Māori and others were assessed through their publicly available policy material. For Māori voters, the report underscores a growing debate on whether regional security should be defined by military capability or by the resilience of communities facing climate and humanitarian challenges.