APIAPE: Agents of Private Interest, Architects of Public Erosion

Exposé File: Paul Jonathan Goldsmith

List MP, National Party | Minister of Justice, Treaty Negotiations, Arts, Culture & Heritage, Media and Communications

Paul Goldsmith: Minister for Control, Not Consultation

From Curriculum Collapse to Cultural Revision – The Pen Behind the Reframe

Minister for Rewriting Truth · Minister of Convenience · Defender of Private Power

Paul Goldsmith, National Party MP
Image source: Waatea News (26 November 2023)

Current Portfolios

Paul Goldsmith calls himself a historian, but his record is being written not in books — but in bills. As Minister of Justice, Treaty Negotiations, Arts and Culture, and Media and Communications, he holds simultaneous control over the nation’s laws, its historical narrative, its cultural identity, and the platforms through which that identity is expressed. In most democracies, these powers would be split for balance. Under Goldsmith, they are consolidated like a corporate merger: “Justice, Treaty, Arts, and Media — all under one brand, no independent oversight required.”

Four ministries. One man. No public mandate for such concentration of authority. The question is not whether he is managing them competently — but whether any politician should be trusted with this breadth of unbalanced power. Is this leadership — or a textbook case of strategic capture?

In barely a year, Goldsmith has fronted legislation that:

These are not isolated initiatives — they form a coherent pattern: a referendum law to narrow democratic choice, court reforms to limit scrutiny, criminal law to chill dissent, funding law to weaken community advocacy, and historical amendments to reframe memory. Together, they mark a calculated reshaping of Aotearoa’s civic, legal, and cultural framework — in ways that serve state control over public empowerment.

1. The Referendum Framework Bill: Democracy Dismantled

Referendums Framework Bill (Government Bill 126–1, Paul Goldsmith)
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition

This bill centralises all power over referendums into the hands of the Government—blocking citizen-initiated votes, restricting referendums to general elections only, and allowing ministers to manipulate wording, voting methods, and outcomes.

“This bill is more about controlling the process than upholding democratic rights. It turns referendums into state tools rather than public voices.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 126–1

2. Treaty Breach and the MACA Attack

Paul Goldsmith has led the charge to gut the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, ignoring the Waitangi Tribunal’s urgent warnings and dismissing both judicial advice and Māori consultation. He seeks to overturn court rulings that recognised Māori customary rights — particularly in the eastern Bay of Plenty — where the Court of Appeal found the Crown’s interpretation of the law to be inconsistent with Te Tiriti and “entrenched Crown breaches.”

Rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, Goldsmith announced that the Government would legislate directly to overturn the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Re Edwards and similar decisions — bypassing the judiciary entirely.

“We didn’t want to wait that long… it was more important for Parliament to reassert what it had intended to do in the original legislation.”
— Paul Goldsmith

In other words, the Minister for Treaty Negotiations is not just ignoring legal precedent — he is rewriting the law to impose **a higher burden of proof on Māori claimants**, specifically:

This is not Treaty negotiation. It’s Treaty override. It marks a direct intervention by the Crown — not just to win a case, but to prevent the courts from ruling at all.

Source: Waatea News – 31 July 2024

Further undermining the Crown’s neutrality, Goldsmith met with seafood industry representatives in May 2024 — while the Court of Appeal was still considering a case over granting customary marine title along the Wairarapa coast. The meeting was revealed in documents submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal’s urgent inquiry into the Government’s MACA reforms.

“There’s a wide variety of conversations that ministers have with people across the sector and it is quite appropriate and I don’t see what the problem is.”
— Paul Goldsmith

The problem is clear: the Minister responsible for Treaty justice met with **commercial actors** whose **financial interests directly oppose** Māori claims — during an active court process. For a Minister of Justice to casually dismiss the implications of this is not just political blindness — it’s institutional bias on full display.

Source: Waatea News – 29 August 2024

Additional reporting confirms that Goldsmith’s meeting with seafood interests — including their legal representatives — took place two full months before the Government announced its plan to amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act. That meeting, held in May 2024, now appears as a key moment in the build-up to legislative backtracking that would later override the Court of Appeal and restrict customary marine title claims.

This timeline raises serious concerns about **undisclosed influence, bad faith negotiation, and the weaponisation of ministerial power** in favour of corporate beneficiaries. The Government didn’t just respond to the courts — it coordinated in advance with those who had the most to gain from nullifying them.

Source: Waatea News – 28 August 2024

Timeline of Erosion:
• May 2024 — Goldsmith meets seafood industry reps and lawyers
• July 2024 — Government announces MACA law rewrite
• August 2024 — Tribunal inquiry reveals timeline and intent
→ Māori rights sidelined, courts overruled, industry preferences prioritised

2.1 Minister Without Mandate: Dodging Waitangi

In December 2023, Paul Goldsmith was asked in a Radio Waatea interview whether he would attend Treaty commemorations at Waitangi as Minister for Treaty Negotiations. His response was evasive:

“That’s ultimately a decision for the Prime Minister… We will work through that at the appropriate time.”

When reminded that no previous Treaty Minister had ever missed Waitangi, Goldsmith still declined to commit. The moment captured a deeper issue — not just scheduling, but **symbolic absenteeism**. The person tasked with stewarding Māori-Crown relations **cannot or will not** commit to the nation’s foundational site of partnership.

This is not consultation. It’s discomfort in plain sight.

Source: Radio Waatea – Claudette Hauiti interview, 8 Dec 2023

2.2 Symbolism Without Substance: The Te Tai Tokerau Visit

In October 2024, Paul Goldsmith visited Te Tai Tokerau to meet with leaders of Ngāpuhi — the largest iwi in Aotearoa — in what was described not as a negotiation, but a mere “meet and greet.”

According to Ngāpuhi rangatira Hone Sadler, Goldsmith “didn’t offer anything” substantive — no new proposals, no shifts in stance, and no clear engagement path. It was a photo opportunity dressed up as consultation.

This kind of surface-level engagement reflects Goldsmith’s broader approach to Treaty matters: tick-the-box diplomacy, backed by legislative erasure. A handshake with no intention to share power.

Source: Waatea News – 4 October 2024

3. The Cultural Revisionist

Goldsmith opposes the new history curriculum, calling it ‘unbalanced’ for focusing on identity, colonisation, and protest. He prefers to highlight entrepreneurship and economic achievement—while his own books celebrate ACT-aligned figures and deregulation zealots.

His record shows a pattern: rewrite Māori history as a footnote, elevate economic elites as heroes, and undermine collective narratives that confront colonial harm.

3.1 History Denied, Not Reconciled

In December 2023, Paul Goldsmith was asked in a Radio Waatea interview about his past statements claiming “colonisation was good for Māori.” As Minister for Treaty Negotiations — and a former Waitangi Tribunal historian — he declined to address the comment, saying:

“I’m not getting into a discussion around that. All I’m focusing on in the role as Treaty Negotiations Minister is carrying on the excellent tradition that previous National Governments have had, taking the issue very seriously and getting on with getting them concluded.”

But his view is not a rumour — it’s published. In a 2019 opinion piece, Goldsmith wrote that colonisation brought Māori “literacy, freedoms, and democracy.” In a 2021 interview with Newshub, he doubled down:

“With it came all sorts of wonderful things such as literacy, the freedoms and democracy... so there’s good and bad. I think on balance it has been [good], yes.”

This is not reconciliation — it’s narrative management. By presenting colonisation as a net positive, Goldsmith rewrites the historical trauma of land theft, cultural suppression, and systemic inequality as a fair exchange for literacy and law.

And this view is not private — it is now policy. The coalition government has signalled its plan to amend the Waitangi Tribunal Act, with the stated aim of “refocusing the scope, purpose, and nature” of Tribunal inquiries. In plain terms: to limit its power, silence its warnings, and rewrite its constitutional mandate.

When a Treaty Minister reframes colonisation as “on balance, good,” while also leading the charge to defang the very body that holds the Crown accountable — it is not negotiation. It is colonisation again, in committee form.

Source: Waatea News – 26 November 2023

3.2 Amnesia in Office: Forgetting the Truth He Once Helped Write

Prominent Māori lawyer Annette Sykes, who has cross-examined Paul Goldsmith in the Waitangi Tribunal, has publicly challenged the Minister’s memory — and his integrity.

Responding to his claim that “colonisation was good for Māori,” she urged Goldsmith to revisit the work he himself contributed to:

“I’m sure as he moves forward in this space he will reflect on some of the other things he said in the Waitangi Tribunal. Under cross-examination to me he did concede the Te Tiriti o Waitangi text was the primary text — because it was the one Māori gave their assent to.”
— Annette Sykes

Sykes calls it “specific amnesia” — a condition where politicians forget what they once proved when working for truth, not for power.

Before aligning with Don Brash, John Banks, and Alan Gibbs, Goldsmith worked on foundational Tribunal reports for Taranaki and Wairarapa claims. He knew the truth. He documented it. And now, in office, he distances himself from it.

When a Treaty Minister suffers from historical amnesia — and ignores the very testimonies they once helped compile — it’s not leadership. It’s erasure in a suit.

Source: Waatea News – Annette Sykes Interview, 4 Dec 2023

4. Double Standards on Diversity

Goldsmith was mistaken by his party’s deputy leader for being Māori in 2020. He publicly corrected her, but later implied familial ties to Ngāti Porou while defending himself from criticism over lack of diversity on National’s front bench.

This symbolic posturing is consistent with Goldsmith’s political approach: claim proximity to Māori, while simultaneously undermining Māori authority in law, land, and history.

5. Censorship in the Arts

As Minister for Arts and Culture, Goldsmith speaks of “letting artists do whatever they want”—but simultaneously slashes cultural reports, restricts hate speech law development, and promotes market-led models that weaken public funding.

His ‘creative vision’ prioritises economic return over cultural depth, dismissing community artists while appealing to elite showcases and commercial viability.

5.1 Digital Bargaining or Narrative Bargaining?

In July 2024, Paul Goldsmith reversed National’s prior opposition to the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill — a proposal originally introduced by Labour to compel tech giants like Meta and Google to pay news publishers for content use.

Goldsmith now says he will proceed with an amended version, aligning it with Australia’s digital bargaining code. The most concerning change? He wants to give the Minister unilateral power to decide which digital platforms are covered by the Act — centralising control over media-market regulation.

This raises serious questions about **ministerial discretion** in determining which platforms must pay and which are exempt — a subtle but dangerous step toward narrative control through selective enforcement.

Even ACT’s David Seymour invoked the coalition’s “agree to disagree” clause, saying the bill is a political gesture that fails to solve media’s deeper issue: “People don’t want the product on offer.”

The bill may help traditional outlets survive, but without addressing declining public trust, biased reporting, or elite agenda-setting, it risks becoming just another layer of managed media under the guise of fairness.

Source: Waatea News – 2 July 2024

6. Judicial Reforms Cloaked in Control

Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 117–1, Paul Goldsmith)
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition

This sprawling omnibus bill cloaks centralising reforms under the guise of “efficiency.” It weakens public access to court records, expands powers of unqualified judicial staff, and allows coroners to shut down inquiries into suspicious deaths. Together, these measures undermine transparency, judicial independence, and procedural fairness.

“These changes don't modernise the justice system—they insulate it from scrutiny and hollow out key protections.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 117–1

6.1 Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill – Diluting Justice Access

Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 160–1, Paul Goldsmith)
Formal Opposition Submitted By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition

This bill changes the Special Fund’s purpose from purchasing services directly from community law centres to also “funding, facilitating, and otherwise supporting” community legal services — vague language that strips away the guarantee of front-line legal help for those most in need.

“Access to justice is not served by vague funding powers — especially when the fund was created as a direct pipeline to those who cannot afford legal help.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 160–1

By weakening the fund’s protections, Goldsmith’s amendment risks starving community law centres while redirecting public interest money into the hands of those with the best political connections — not the greatest need.

7. The Sentencing Reform Illusion

In February 2025, Paul Goldsmith presented the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill to Parliament — a bill that cloaks control as clarity. Capping sentence reductions, stripping context from justice, and amplifying punishment over principle, the bill was sold to the public as a fix for frustration. But in truth, it undermines rehabilitation, restricts judicial discretion, and erodes the idea that sentencing must reflect both offence and offender.

It’s sentencing by spreadsheet — a rigid framework that rewards outrage over evidence, and headlines over healing. Goldsmith says this is justice. But justice, by definition, requires discernment. This bill removes it.

“This isn’t reform. It’s restriction — of fairness, flexibility, and the future.”
— Ukes Baha, Response to Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill

8. Stalking the Public: Weaponising Ambiguity

Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 107–1, Paul Goldsmith)
Opposition By: Ukes Baha | Read the full opposition

This bill introduces a new offence of “stalking and harassment” that at first appears protective—but in fact creates vast legal grey zones open to misuse. Clause 216Q makes it a criminal offence to cause “fear or distress” through a pattern of just three acts within 12 months—regardless of intent. Clause 216P defines these “acts” broadly to include contact, criticism, or anything “likely to cause fear” to a “reasonable person.” Even digital tools like AI or tracking apps are vaguely implicated.

“This Bill tries to look like a shield for victims, but it acts like a sword against freedom of expression, lawful protest, and public interest journalism. It criminalises discomfort, not harm.”
— Ukes Baha, Opposition to Government Bill 107–1

9. Sentencing Reform — or Just Government Control?

In February 2025, Paul Goldsmith pushed the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill through Parliament, calling it “restoring law and order.” But take a closer look — this isn’t about justice. It’s about control.

The bill restricts how much judges can reduce a sentence — even if the offender is young, remorseful, or a first-time offender. No matter the situation, sentence reductions are now capped at 40%. Exceptions are rare. Helping police is one. Most other human factors — age, history, intent — are pushed aside.

Many may support harsh sentences, especially those who’ve been hurt. But history shows us: long punishments don’t equal real safety — and not every person behind bars was guilty to begin with. Some were set up. Some were judged by corrupt systems. And when laws ignore all context, those mistakes become permanent.

What Goldsmith really does is take power away from everyone: judges, communities, families, and the public. He forces the system to treat every case the same — no matter the story, the person, or the path to change.

And the media helps Goldsmith. Even when appearing to question him, they use racialised language and selective framing. When the media uses “whānau,” they highlight Māori — echoing Māori statistics, not the system behind them. Using te reo in this context isn’t cultural respect — it’s political deflection. It paints Māori as the face of crime, softening the public for policies that are unjust and harmful to everyone. But these are not laws — they are regulations, rules, and political agreements passed off as law. Real law cannot be unjust. If it is unjust, it is not law — it is control disguised as order. This pattern — blaming Māori while hiding the structure — is how public consent is manufactured for legislation that erodes justice, hardens offenders, and creates more victims. That is why we have more harm now, not less.

Can a man who ignores everyone really care for anyone?
Paul Goldsmith shuts out the voices of judges, mental health professionals, frontline workers, families, and entire communities — replacing their insight with his own word. He ignores research, evidence, and lived experience. He uses victims as a shield, branding control as care — while showing no care for anyone beyond his agenda. Like Jacinda Ardern once urged the public to trust “only one source of truth,” Goldsmith wants us to trust only him: His view of law. His view of victims. His version of safety.
But justice doesn’t belong to one man. It belongs to all of us — and it begins with listening, not control.

This legislation may sound tough, but it makes things worse. It sends people into prison faster, with less hope, and strips judges of their ability to respond to the full truth of a case. It’s punishment by numbers — and it affects every New Zealander, whether they realise it or not.

“When the media uses te reo to frame the problem — and stats to skip the system — it’s not truth. It’s cover.”
— APIAPE

10. Electoral Amendment Bill — Franchise Erosion & Rule-of-Law Bypass

Government Bill 186–1 (Paul Goldsmith) narrows the franchise, concentrates executive discretion, and politicises election operations. It reintroduces a blanket prisoner voting ban, freezes enrolment 13 days before election day, empowers executive validation of irregularities, and inserts partisan consultation into operational polling decisions.

What the Minister Said — and What It Means

In the First Reading (29 Jul 2025) debate, Paul Goldsmith framed the package as “timeliness” and “integrity,” rejecting claims of disenfranchisement. Opposition and cross-bench speakers referenced the Attorney-General’s s 7 NZBORA report concerns and departmental analysis indicating likely lower enrolment, lower turnout, and more disallowed votes under the earlier cut-off. The House nevertheless voted the bill to select committee (Ayes 68 / Noes 54).

“The starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote… A compelling justification is required to limit that right.”
— Points repeatedly raised in the debate regarding the Attorney-General’s analysis (First Reading, 29 Jul 2025)

Why This Fits the Pattern

As with Goldsmith’s referendum, courts, and stalking/harassment initiatives, this bill narrows participation, centralises control, and blurs accountability—using “efficiency” as the pretext for enduring structural shifts. It is less administrative tune-up than democratic contraction.

Read more / take action:

11. Constitution Amendment Bill — Continuity or Unelected Power?

Government Bill 187–1 (Paul Goldsmith) extends the tenure of Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries after they cease to be MPs, until the Electoral Commission declares list candidates. Marketed as “continuity,” it breaks the core link between executive power and parliamentary mandate, relies on non-binding caretaker conventions, and creates loopholes that can be exploited during delayed counts or hung Parliaments.

What the Minister Said — and What It Means

At the First Reading (14 Aug 2025), the Government framed the change as essential to ensure the Governor-General is never without advisers. Opposition and cross-bench speakers warned that under MMP, protracted negotiations or a hung Parliament could see unelected Ministers and Under-Secretaries remain in office for an extended period — precisely the scenario conventions are too weak to police.

“Continuity must come from law and process — not power without a mandate.”
— Ukes Baha

Why This Fits the Pattern

As with Goldsmith’s referendum, courts, and stalking/harassment initiatives, the Bill protects incumbent control at the system’s edges: extending politicians’ tenure while constraining the public’s. It is not a neutral tidy-up; it is constitutional contraction.

Read more / take action:

12. Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill — Return as Control Mechanism

Government Bill 197–1 (Paul Goldsmith) presents the return of Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia as a gesture of goodwill — but the mechanism entrenches Crown control and narrows safeguards. It ousts court review, subordinates Parliament to a deed that can be altered later, disapplies normal conservation and planning checks, preserves Crown-era concessions and bylaws, and even allows transfer of the fee simple away from Ngāti Rēhia.

Why This Fits the Pattern

As with Goldsmith’s referendum, courts, sentencing, and stalking/harassment packages, the Bill centralises control and curtails scrutiny. It uses the language of “return” to mask legal design that weakens oversight, sidelines public participation, and constrains Māori authority.

Read more / take action:

13. Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill — Criminalising Dissent as “Privacy”

Government Bill 238–1 (Paul Goldsmith) creates a new offence for “targeted and disruptive” demonstrations near residential premises — punishable by up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. Framed as a balance between protest and privacy, the Bill actually shifts the legal threshold from established disorderly/offensive behaviour to a vague and subjective “unreasonable disruption” test that duplicates existing law, invites selective enforcement, and chills lawful protest.

“When comfort becomes the measure of legality, dissent becomes a crime.”
— APIAPE

Why This Fits the Pattern

As with Goldsmith’s referendum, courts, sentencing, and stalking/harassment packages, this Bill narrows the democratic space using technical language. It reframes visibility as threat, turning proximity into an offence — and redefining protest as disruption to be managed rather than speech to be protected.

Read more / take action:

What You Can Do

Every case documented strengthens public memory—and demands accountability.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index