"Goldsmith - The Minister Of Everything Fails Every Test" - 14 October 2026

Kia ora Aotearoa,

A magician with ten hats never has to explain a single rabbit.

Paul Goldsmith went on Te Ao with Moana and read out his portfolios like a menu.

Then he met the questions.

This essay covers:

• A short history of how a list MP came to hold this much power.
• His answers, set against the public record.
• Three examples for the Western mind, with harm counted and solutions named.
• The five-question tikanga test, applied statement by statement.
• Why I say this coalition must go.

The Māori Green Lantern would love for you to click on this essay. It holds information you can use in your kōrero at work, at the marae and around the dinner table. There is an audio podcast that lays out this kaupapa in detail. There is a short video that explains it. For long-form readers, a cited essay is waiting.

This is a repository for our mokopuna. When they look back, they can say that at least they knew the Māori Green Lantern, among a few, was warning us.

I'm Ivor Jones, Te Arawa, Ngāti Pikiao, with Welsh whakapapa. I hold the taiaha for whānau Māori.

The Test I Use: Tika, Pono And Tikanga

Tika asks whether it is right. Pono asks whether it is true. Tikanga asks whether the system built mauri. That means five questions:

• Did it preserve mana?
• Did it recognise whakapapa?
• Did it respect wairua?
• Did it involve whānau?
• Did it return people to wellbeing?

My verdicts below are opinion. The evidence beside each is the factual basis.

How A List MP Got Ten Hats

Goldsmith is a list MP. The National Party's own page calls him "List MP, Epsom". Wikipedia says he was first elected a list member. A Newsroom column says he has stood five times in Epsom for National and "had to pretend he was in it to win while tacitly allowing Act candidates to claim the electorate". That arrangement is the 2011 cup-of-tea deal. The Herald says it has told Epsom voters since 2011 to give their electorate vote to Seymour and their party vote to National.

When Chris Penk was sacked after challenging the Prime Minister, 1News reports Goldsmith floated running in Penk's safe seat. RNZ reports a National Party rule stopped him, and that he had "momentarily" thought about it. Now the Herald reports he faces being ousted and says he's in to win. The Spinoff puts him sixth on National's list.

My opinion: a minister who answers to the party that ranked him, not to a seat he has won, is telling Epsom its vote was never the one that mattered. Under the Auditor-General's MMP review, list MPs are legitimately elected. The line of accountability just runs through the party first. In the interview he said "as a minister you serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister", and then told the country officials "weren't elected". He has never been elected to a seat.

Test One: Tika, Is It Right?

"We reserve the right to do that ultimately."

He said Parliament overrides the courts "very seldom". The Justice Committee's report says the Smith bill "raises significant constitutional concerns because it applies retrospectively to the ongoing Smith v Fonterra proceeding". RNZ says the bill responds directly to Mike Smith's case against Fonterra, Z Energy and four other emitters, six defendants in all. The hearing is set for next year. Newswire reports Goldsmith confirmed it is retrospective. A law written to end a case still before the court is not "very seldom". It is a defendant rewriting the charge sheet while the judge hears the evidence.

"It didn't change our government response to climate change."

He also said it is "impossible not to meet with people from Fonterra", and that he can't recall whether his office met them about this case. The people the law protects had easy access to the minister writing it.

"I can't remember the exact timing."

The Regulatory Standards Act took effect on 1 January 2026, with Part 2 by 1 July 2026 at the latest. I can't prove his memory wrong. A Justice Minister who can't recall when his own standard began is telling us how little it binds him.

"Officials weren't elected — we were."

He said officials advised against "just about everything" he has done in justice. The Spinoff reports the Treaty clauses were weakened or repealed despite officials warning of "significant risks". My earlier essay, The Grave Robbers In Suits, reported (citing the NZ Herald) that his own Cabinet paper recorded officials warning the review could be seen as a Treaty breach.

"Strategic voting is snake oil."

He said anyone telling voters to support National by voting for someone else is a "snake oil salesman". That is the Epsom deal, which put him in Parliament.

Test Two: Pono, Is It True?

"Nobody will ever know."

He said the Crown "took" sovereignty and that no one can know what signatories meant. The Waitangi Tribunal concluded in 2014 that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in February 1840 did not cede sovereignty. The 2022 report builds on it. That covers the Bay of Islands signatories, not every iwi. My earlier essay, The Grave Robbers In Suits, reports (citing the NZ Herald) that Goldsmith demanded iwi accept Crown sovereignty before settling.

"Happy with the status quo."

He said the Iwi Leaders Forum "weren't keen on any change because they were happy with the status quo". The Iwi Chairs Forum says the review breaches te Tiriti and wants it halted and reset with iwi at the table. That is opposition, not contentment. His next line: "that was the same as what the Waitangi Tribunal said". By his own account, the Tribunal and iwi agree. Then he told the Tribunal to "stand for Parliament". The Tribunal granted an urgent inquiry and heard claims of an "unrelenting assault" on Māori rights.

"Good for everybody."

In 2021 he told Newshub Nation colonisation was good for Māori "on balance" (The Spinoff). On Moana he widened it to "everybody". Pressed on Māori specifically, he changed the subject to crime victims.

"Clarity."

He said the review gave departments clarity. E-Tangata reports the advisory group did not recommend repeal. This is the Treaty Principles Bill by another route. That bill was rejected 112 to 11 in April 2025, which is 91.06% of votes cast.

Three Examples For The Western Mind

Example One: The Defendant Who Wrote The Law

Imagine a company sued for damage. Before the trial, it lobbies the government to pass a law ending the case. The government does it, and applies the law to the case already under way.

• Harm: one trial removed, six emitters protected (RNZ), and the ability to seek an injunction taken away.
• Solution: let the High Court hear the case, and keep the committee's own constitutional concerns on the record.
• Tikanga impact: mana is lost because a claim is removed before it is heard. Whakapapa is ignored when tikanga principles of harm and redress are shut out. I haven't audited the full report. Check it before quoting.

Example Two: The Wage Claims Wiped Overnight

Imagine an employer, while a wage dispute is before the arbitrator, getting a law passed that cancels every dispute. The workers had no say.

• Harm: 33 claims discontinued (DLA Piper), and $12.8 billion reportedly saved by the government (Te Ao News). A panel of former women MPs found a "flagrant and significant abuse of power". That panel is extra-parliamentary, so it is opinion, not a court ruling.
• Solution: the Greens have pledged to restore pay equity law and settle the care workers' claim for around 65,000 workers.
• Tikanga impact: Te Ao News reports Ministry research shows the gender pay gap for wāhine Māori is significantly higher than the national 8.2%. Hāpai says wāhine Māori carry the cost. Mana is lost when care work stays undervalued. Whānau lose wellbeing when carers' wages are shelved.

Example Three: The Lease Rewritten Behind The Tenant's Back

Imagine a landlord rewriting a lease, telling the bank the tenant is happy, then inviting the tenant to a meeting to be told it's done.

• Harm: the Iwi Chairs Forum says te Tiriti is breached (Te Ao News). Newsroom lists changes across nine Acts. My earlier essay put it at 23 laws, citing the NZ Herald. The counts differ, so I treat nine as the minimum.
• Solution: the Forum's demand: halt, reset, iwi at the table.
• Tikanga impact: mana is lost when a partner is told rather than asked. Whakapapa is ignored when the Tribunal's findings are brushed off. My earlier essays The Grave Robbers In Suits, They Are Not Completing Te Tiriti — They Are Trying To Bury The Witness and Five Kingmakers, No Conscience cover this ground. I also named the Colonial Sovereignty Supremacy, Treaty Principles Bill: A Neoliberal Dagger and The Taiaha Strikes essays, but I couldn't verify their URLs, so I left them unlinked.

Test Three: Tikanga, Did It Build Mauri?

Here are his statements, one by one, against the five questions.

Mana: Taking Power Away From The People Who Hold It

Mana is protected when people keep their standing and a government lets their claims be heard. Goldsmith said it is "impossible not to meet with people from Fonterra". The defendants had easy access, and the plaintiff's standing was removed before the trial. On pay equity, he called it "appropriate" for MPs to get a pay rise while claims were shelved. A panel of former women MPs found a "flagrant and significant abuse of power". That panel is extra-parliamentary, so it is opinion, not a court ruling. If your employer got a law passed cancelling your wage claim, your standing would be gone. That is what 33 claims lost.

Whakapapa: Rewriting Who We Are

Whakapapa is recognised when a government respects the record of who agreed to what. Goldsmith told Moana the Crown "assumed sovereignty and took sovereignty", and that what signatories meant cannot be known. The Tribunal says otherwise for the Bay of Islands signatories. Asked about the Tribunal, he said its criticism "was the same as what" iwi said, and then that they "should stand for Parliament". By his own account, the Tribunal and iwi agree, and he dismissed both.

Wairua: Telling Us It Was All Good

Wairua is respected when the spirit of a people's experience is heard, not explained away. In 2021 he said colonisation was good for Māori "on balance". On Moana he widened it to "everybody". Asked about Māori directly, he spoke of crime victims. My opinion: that is a minister who hears the question and chooses another one.

Whānau: Telling Iwi Instead Of Asking Them

Whānau are involved when they are at the table before the decision. Goldsmith said iwi were "happy with the status quo". The Iwi Chairs Forum says the review breaches te Tiriti and wants iwi back at the table. E-Tangata reports the advisory group did not recommend repeal, and The Spinoff reports officials warned of "significant risks". He answered that officials "weren't elected".

Wellbeing: Counting The Cost In Whānau

Wellbeing returns when people end up better off. The numbers point the other way:

• Women in prison forecast to rise 63% over a decade (RNZ). The eLocal repost links the rise to tougher theft penalties. Asked about children pushed into state care, he said he wasn't sure what modelling exists.
• 47,500 more children in material hardship than in 2022 (CPAG). His growth plan, in his own words, "takes time". The children can't wait that long.
• He said "yes" to remand rehabilitation. The Beehive confirms first steps, but Victoria University says rehabilitation for remand prisoners will be hard to achieve. It also reports Budget 2025 put $472 million into a prison population growing from greater use of remand.
• He said "yes" to more boot camps. RNZ reports the pilot was too small to give meaningful data and rushed.
• On wealth, my 2 October essay records, citing the NZ Herald, that the top 10 percent of households hold 48 percent of wealth and the bottom half hold 6.7 percent. That is 35.8 times as much per household (see the working above). Secondary.

What I Call This Government

My opinion, with the facts above as its basis: this government is neoliberal in its economics, and white supremacist in the effect of its Treaty agenda.

I use those labels about outcomes and governing architecture. I make no claim about any person's private beliefs.

A minister who rewrites the rules mid-case, wipes wage claims, and tells the Tribunal to stand for Parliament has shown whānau where he stands.

Why You Should Not Vote This Coalition Back In

1. They rewrite the rules when they lose. The Smith law, the pay equity law, and the clause review all ended a fight someone else was winning.
2. They say one thing and do another. Iwi were "happy", and the Forum says the opposite.
3. They answer to themselves. A list MP who "serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister" told the country officials "weren't elected".
4. They protect the wealthy. The top 10 percent hold 48 percent of wealth, per the NZ Herald figures in my 2 October essay.

Why I Say Vote Green

I say give your party vote to the Greens. This is my opinion, and these are my reasons.

• Pay equity. They have pledged to restore pay equity law and fund a settlement for the roughly 65,000 care and support workers. RNZ reports they have not costed restoring the whole scheme.
• Te Tiriti. Their Te Tiriti platform commits to upholding te Tiriti. Their Te Waonui a Tāne policy would give marae long-term, protected funding.
• The record. I haven't audited the Green manifesto in full, and no party is above scrutiny. I have not verified a Green position on the Smith bill. Hold them to account.

The election is on Saturday 7 November. Enrolment closes at midnight on Sunday 25 October, and advance voting starts on 26 October. Vote like your mokopuna are watching.

The Deep Dive Podcast

Westminster Supremacy Versus Mori Accountability

0:00

/1211.686893

1×

Listen to a lively conversation between two hosts, unpacking and connecting topics in the sources of this essay.   I apologise in advance for the AI's very harsh pronounciation of reo.  Please dont shoot me, :). 

Youtube Video

Like video?  Here is a short video suppporting the essay.  Again, don't shoot the messenger please because of AI's pronounciation.  :)

Support This Mahi

You might ask who is paying the Māori Green Lantern to expose a minister who rewrites the law mid-trial, wipes 33 wage claims and tells the Tribunal to run for Parliament. The answer is you do. The Māori Green Lantern is supported through koha and that is it. There are no corporates supporting this mahi. Every koha signals that whānau are ready to support the accountability that Crown and corporate structures will not provide. It signals that rangatiratanga includes the power to support our own truth tellers.

Kia kaha, whānau. Stay vigilant. Stay connected. And if you are able, consider a koha to ensure this voice continues.

If you are unable to koha, no worries! Subscribe or follow the Māori Green Lantern at themaorigreenlantern.maori.nz, kōrero and share with your whānau and friends. That is koha in itself.

Four pathways exist:

• Koha: Support this mahi directly
• Subscribe: Receive essays and support through subscription
• Bank transfer: Ivor Jones, account number 03-1395-0099387-000
• Facebook: Subscribe on Facebook

Public Interest, Right Of Reply And Disclaimer

• Goldsmith is a minister speaking in his public capacity (Lange v Atkinson). His office should be offered a right of reply before publication.
• Facts are attributed to named sources, and opinions are flagged. This is commentary in the public interest (Durie v Gardiner), based on public sources as of 14 October 2026.
• "White supremacist" and "neoliberal" are my opinions about outcomes and governing architecture, with factual bases in the same sections. A retraction will follow where an error is shown.