With New Zealand heading to the polls on November 7, a new election report has exposed significant differences between political parties over military spending, nuclear disarmament, international conflicts and whether Aotearoa should become more closely aligned with major global military powers.
The 2026 Political Party Peace and Disarmament Profile Report, released by the Peace and Disarmament Collective Aotearoa (PADCA), examines the positions of seven political parties across 15 major defence and foreign policy questions.
The report, associated with PADCA Chair Richard Northey, considers everything from New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and the AUKUS security partnership to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, military artificial intelligence and the prospect of New Zealand becoming involved in future international conflicts.
Its central finding is that while political parties broadly agree on protecting New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, significant divisions remain over how the country should respond to an increasingly unstable world.
BILLIONS FOR DEFENCE OR GREATER INVESTMENT IN PACIFIC RESILIENCE?
One of the clearest divisions concerns military spending.
National supports increasing defence expenditure to more than two percent of GDP over eight years, consistent with the Government’s Defence Capability Plan.
PADCA also assesses ACT and New Zealand First as supporting that direction, based on their public policy positions and participation in the governing coalition.
Labour, however, opposes adopting an arbitrary defence spending target, arguing that investment should be determined by New Zealand’s own defence requirements.
The Green Party opposes the proposed spending target and wants defence priorities more closely aligned with climate change, humanitarian assistance and environmental protection.
PADCA assesses Te Pāti Māori as opposing increased militarisation and favouring the redirection of resources towards housing, health, climate adaptation and Indigenous self-determination.
For Pacific communities, the debate raises an important question: should regional security be measured primarily through military capability, or through the ability of communities to withstand climate disasters and humanitarian emergencies?
AUKUS DIVIDES THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
Another major fault line is New Zealand’s potential involvement in AUKUS Pillar Two, the technology and security partnership involving Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Labour has explicitly ruled out joining any part of AUKUS, while the Greens also oppose participation.
National has not committed to joining, instead indicating that it is examining the potential implications and opportunities before making a decision.
PADCA assesses ACT as supportive of AUKUS Pillar Two, while New Zealand First has not taken a definitive position.
Te Pāti Māori is assessed as opposing participation, with the party’s wider foreign policy position emphasising Pacific sovereignty, independence and opposition to militarisation.
The report suggests the AUKUS debate is about more than technology or intelligence sharing.
It raises questions about New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and whether closer military cooperation could increase the country’s exposure to conflicts involving major powers.
NUCLEAR-FREE AOTEAROA REMAINS COMMON GROUND
Despite those differences, the report identifies strong agreement on one of New Zealand’s most enduring foreign policy principles.
All seven parties examined are assessed as supporting the country’s nuclear-free status and the protection of the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone.
Labour, National and the Greens confirmed their positions directly to PADCA.
The positions of ACT, New Zealand First, Te Pāti Māori and The Opportunity Party were assessed through publicly available policy material.
The report also identifies broad support for measures intended to prevent arms exports from contributing to breaches of international humanitarian law.
However, agreement on maintaining nuclear-free protections does not necessarily translate into agreement over military alliances, defence procurement or international disarmament initiatives.
TE PĀTI MĀORI AND THE GREENS FAVOUR A DIFFERENT SECURITY APPROACH
For Māori voters, one of the most significant aspects of the report is its examination of how tino rangatiratanga, Pacific sovereignty and Indigenous perspectives intersect with foreign policy.
PADCA assesses Te Pāti Māori as favouring military neutrality, opposing participation in AUKUS and supporting a greater emphasis on humanitarian assistance, climate resilience and Indigenous self-determination.
The Greens similarly advocate a stronger focus on diplomacy, environmental security and international disarmament.
Both parties are assessed as opposing New Zealand’s participation in large-scale foreign military exercises such as RIMPAC and Talisman Sabre.
Labour and National, by contrast, support continued participation in joint exercises as part of maintaining Defence Force readiness.
The differences reflect competing views about what security means for Aotearoa and the wider Pacific.
For some parties, military preparedness and cooperation with allies are essential to protecting national interests.
For others, security should place greater emphasis on peaceful dispute resolution, climate resilience, international law and the wellbeing of communities.
GAZA, UKRAINE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
The report also examines political party positions on the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.
Labour, National and the Greens directly affirmed their support for international law and international legal institutions.
On Gaza, PADCA assesses Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and The Opportunity Party as broadly supportive of legal accountability through the International Court of Justice.
National and New Zealand First are recorded as not having taken a definitive position on PADCA’s supplementary question concerning the Court’s consideration of alleged Israeli violations.
ACT is assessed as opposing the position advanced in that question.
Importantly, these supplementary assessments were inferred from public policy records rather than direct responses to the questionnaire.
On Ukraine, the report records support from Labour and National for sanctions and assistance to Ukraine, while the Greens emphasise sanctions and non-combat humanitarian support.
Te Pāti Māori is assessed as favouring diplomatic and humanitarian approaches, without a definitive position on the full package of military assistance examined.
COULD NEW ZEALAND BE DRAWN INTO ANOTHER WAR?
Perhaps the most provocative section of the report examines how political parties might respond if New Zealand were asked to participate in active combat overseas.
PADCA models three hypothetical scenarios: an expanded NATO conflict with Russia, a United States–Israel coalition engaged in combat with Iran, and a United States-led military conflict involving Taiwan.
Its assessment places the Greens and Te Pāti Māori among the parties least likely to support combat deployments across all three scenarios.
ACT is assessed as comparatively more willing to consider military participation alongside traditional security partners.
Labour, National and New Zealand First are generally assessed as unlikely or somewhat unlikely to support direct combat involvement, depending on the circumstances.
These assessments are PADCA’s own predictive judgements, not commitments made by the parties or measured probabilities of future military decisions.
They nevertheless highlight the difficult choices a future government could face if international tensions escalate.
KILLER ROBOTS AND THE NEXT GENERATION OF WARFARE
The report also examines the growing use of artificial intelligence in military operations.
Labour supports binding international rules to maintain meaningful human control over lethal autonomous weapons.
The Greens favour an international treaty banning such weapons, while PADCA assesses Te Pāti Māori as supporting a similar approach.
National supports international discussions but has not committed to the specific treaty proposal examined.
ACT is assessed as opposing restrictions that could disadvantage allied countries developing advanced military technologies.
The debate reflects growing concern about the development of weapons systems capable of selecting or engaging targets with reduced human involvement.
WHY THIS ELECTION MATTERS
PADCA argues that decisions about defence spending, military alliances and international law have consequences beyond foreign policy.
Military expenditure competes with other demands on public funding, while international instability can affect trade, economic confidence, energy costs and household living expenses.
The report’s wider message is that New Zealand’s approach to peace and security deserves greater attention during the election campaign.
For Māori and Pacific communities, that includes questions about the future of the nuclear-free Pacific, the protection of Indigenous sovereignty, climate resilience and the country’s obligations under international law.
There is also an important distinction in how the report was compiled.
Only Labour, National and the Greens provided direct questionnaire responses. The positions attributed to ACT, New Zealand First, Te Pāti Māori and The Opportunity Party were inferred by PADCA from public statements, policy documents and parliamentary records.
Those inferred positions should therefore be understood as the organisation’s assessments rather than direct confirmations from the parties concerned.
With advance voting beginning on October 26 and election day on November 7, voters have an opportunity to consider not only the domestic policies of political parties but also the decisions they might make about war, peace and New Zealand’s place in the world.
The question emerging from the PADCA report is whether Aotearoa’s future security will be defined by greater military capability and closer strategic partnerships, or by diplomacy, disarmament, climate resilience and an independent foreign policy.
#RadioWaatea #WaateaNews #Election2026 #NZPolitics #PeaceAndDisarmament #PADCA #RichardNorthey #AUKUS #NuclearFreeNZ #TePatiMaori #GreenParty #LabourParty #NationalParty #ACTParty #NZFirst #DefenceSpending #PacificSecurity #TinoRangatiratanga #ManaMotuhake #TeTiritiOWaitangi #MaoriPolitics #MaoriVote #ClimateSecurity #InternationalLaw #Gaza #Ukraine #NuclearDisarmament #ArtificialIntelligence #ForeignPolicy #Aotearoa
