Is the Treaty Principles Bill dead or has it just suffered a flesh wound?

Written By: - Date published: 12:31 pm, August 20th, 2024 - 21 comments
Categories: act, Christopher Luxon, david seymour, Maori Issues, national, nz first, Politics, racism, Shane Jones, treaty settlements - Tags:

All the major parties bar one headed yesterday to Ngaruwahia to visit Kīngi Tūheitia for the annual celebration of his coronation.

In speaking about Act’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill both Christopher Luxon and Shane Jones were as definite as could be hoped for. They both confirmed that their parties would not progress Act’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond the first reading.

While this is pleasing it makes you wonder why go through the charade of a select committee process that will divide the nation and cause major controversy? Why not kill it now?

Shane Jones claimed that New Zealand First had to because of the coalition agreement.

This caused the lawyer in me to wonder if this is actually so and to check out.

Jones’s comments were close to but more definitive than his party’s position as set out in this earlier Newsroom article:

“New Zealand First will fulfil its commitment to vote for the Treaty Principles Bill through to select committee as per the government coalition agreement.”

Once the select committee reported back, the caucus would decide whether to support it through the second and third readings, the spokesperson said.

But the thing is the Treaty Principles Bill is not mentioned in the National NZ First Coalition agreement.

References to the treaty in the agreement include these:

“The Coalition Government will honour the undertakings made by the Crown through past Treaty of Waitangi settlements.”

“The Coalition Government will reverse measures taken in recent years which have eroded the principle of equal citizenship, specifically we will … [c]onduct a comprehensive review of all legislation (except when it is related to, or substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements) that includes ‘The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and replace all such references with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty, or repeal the references.”

And its stated ongoing decision making principles include this:

“[U]pholding the principles of liberal democracy, including equal citizenship, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and property rights, especially with respect to interpreting the Treaty of Waitangi.”

There is no specific obligation to support the introduction of Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.

There are however general obligations to Act including an obligation to work together in good faith and cooperate with each other in respect of Executive and Parliamentary activities to advance their shared goals. The agreement provides that “[t]his includes a commitment to policies and programmes set out in the “Policy Programme” section of this agreement and to ACT’s Policy Programme in the National and ACT Coalition Agreement”.

There is power to agree to disagree.

Jones’ stance is in keeping with the terms of the coalition agreement his party has signed. But I wonder if they have thought about using the wriggle room that is there to stop the Bill getting out of the starting blocks.

Meanwhile the message from Māori to the Government at the meeting was clear. They are really annoyed. And there is going to have to be a whole lot of mana enhancing behaviour to change this.

Tukurangi Morgan on behalf of te Kīngi told Luxon:

“You have thrown Māori under the bus. And you have run them over.

And irrespective of whether we say to you ‘you have to stop, you have to consult’ your ears are deaf to our people.”

Rahui Papa also on behalf of te Kīngi said this:

Get rid of all of the Māori bashing racist bills and policies and procedures … You may have coalition mates, but they only last for three years. Te Ao Māori are for ever Prime Minister.”

Meanwhile David Seymour thinks that the Bill still has a chance of progressing. You have to admire either his complete lack of understanding of reality or how devious he thinks his coalition partners are willing to be to breach what are now exceedingly clear undertakings.

He referred to a poll that suggests 60% of New Zealanders supported the referendum.

He is obviously referring to this Curia poll, which was conducted from October 1 to October 4, 2023, right in the middle of the election campaign. The questions in the poll are in the words of the Waitangi Tribunal novel in their interpretation of the Treaty. The poll feels like push polling in the heat of an election campaign. If only the left had this sort of resource available.

Seymour should take heed of the latest One News Verian poll where only 10% think the Government’s policies have reduced racial tension and 46% think that the Government’s policies has increased racial tension.

It is abundantantly clear that he does not care. He needs the circus for political advantage. That he is willing to enrage Māori for political advantage says a lot about him.

Hopefully National or New Zealand First or both will see sense and stop the bill at the first hurdle.

If they don’t they will be as complicit as Act in their contempt for our race relations. And show that they too are willing to tolerate a political circus that will damage the fabric of our race relations just for political power.

Shame on them all.

21 comments on “Is the Treaty Principles Bill dead or has it just suffered a flesh wound? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    20 August 2024 at 12:48 pm

    The smirking twat from Epsom has some good advisors at Atlas Network that know about long term politics.

    Incel Dave was not the only holdout against banning semi autos after the Mosque massacre without good reason, he was biding his time. The post COVID revenge vote was the perfect time for him to pounce.

    Luxon and Jones spoke to the Kingitanga outside of Parliamentary privliege, and their comments appear fairly direct, but as Micky points out, there is a lot of room for the Natzos and NZ First to manoeuvre, or develop amendments etc.

    So I do not trust Luxury Luxon one little bit either.

  2. Tony Veitch 2
    20 August 2024 at 2:18 pm

    From No Right Turn:

    Meanwhile, Rimmer is simply not getting the message, and still seems to think he can persuade National and NZ First to vote for his steaming pile of racist horseshit. Which means he's either completely delusional, or he's planning to destabilise the government and sabotage the rest of its agenda, or even topple it, unless he gets his own way. And given what a fanatic racist he is, the latter can't be ruled out. Which means the opposition parties might want to make sure they have a plan for an early election next year, just in case…

    Good advice!

    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/search/label/ACT

    • mickysavage 2.1
      20 August 2024 at 3:54 pm

      That is an interesting comment and NRT is obviously even more cynical about what Seymour could do than I am …

      • Kat 2.1.1
        20 August 2024 at 4:49 pm

        This toxic coalition is a reflection that National would do anything to be in power……Hipkins needs to rethink not saying anything because in his mind its too early in the election cycle……..now is the time for the opposition to ramp up the political pressure, expose the cracks and prepare for an early election……..before the sheeple get lulled into slumber because Luxon has gone up 2% in a popularity contest and the coalition appears steady in the polls……..we all know who pays that piper……

      • Tony Veitch 2.1.2
        20 August 2024 at 5:04 pm

        While I don't think Seymour would be foolish enough to force an early election, he is in an unquestioned position to extract whatever he likes from such a weak leader as Luxon by obstructing any Natz/NZF legislation.

        I'd like to be a fly on the wall of the Cabinet room!

        And yes, Kat, Labour needs to be prepared for an early election!

        • Tony Veitch 2.1.2.1
          20 August 2024 at 5:53 pm

          Incidentally, Debbie Narewa-Packer asked Luxon a question during QT which must have stung him:

          "Is there anything in the constitution which allows for three Prime Ministers?"

          Ouch!

    • Tiger Mountain 3.1
      20 August 2024 at 5:07 pm

      Nice to see mincing manipulator Farrar get some evidence based push back after all the damage he has done to the working class people of this country.

      • Mike the Lefty 3.1.1
        20 August 2024 at 6:45 pm

        Yeah.

        "evidence based".

        Great how the right come up with that one all the time, isn't it?

        You give them the evidence, they ignore it.

  4. Mike the Lefty 4
    20 August 2024 at 6:42 pm

    I agree that there shouldn't be any celebration yet.

    Perhaps Shane Jones and Chris Luxon made their promises to get the heat off them, they were obviously squirming and wanted to get out of there alive so they promised.

    With those clods, who would be surprised if they backtracked once the legislation was before the house and they were safe from retribution?

    They would come up with some excuse why they had to break their promise like when John Key promised not to increase GST and then did anyway.

    The main architect of the outrage, meanwhile, didn't dare to show his face.

  5. Incognito 5
    20 August 2024 at 7:19 pm

    ACT and Seymour are cynical, manipulative, and unethical in their rage-baiting. People and Parties that support this behaviour are equally responsible.

  6. georgecom 6
    21 August 2024 at 6:48 am

    read this morning spendmore is wasting $15 million of tax payers money per year on 91 staff for his ministry of red tape. that's 3 times the size of the ministry it replaces (productivity commission), a bloated act bureaucracy

  7. Ad 7
    21 August 2024 at 9:29 am

    Well fine but at some point we're going to need to be Ukraine and have the honest conversation about where the lines really are.

    Did anyone notice that there was a seriously massive uprising against co-governance?

    Did anyone notice the near universal cheering when the Maori health authority got binned for more useful things?

    Did we not notice the strength of the electoral swing against Treaty sovereignty last October?

    We are now 16 years from our Bicentennary and still fucking around between the parties government by government.

    The Ardern-Mahuta line was simply a bridge too far. We have to admit that and help form a more tenable position on the Treaty.

    • James Simpson 7.1
      21 August 2024 at 10:36 am

      That is my observation also.

      We seem to be running away from the debate, rather than confronting it with confidence.

      A big reason for why we have this government is the public pushed back hard on co-governance.

      That indicates there is a lot of work for us to to do. It is going to be an election issue in 2026 and each party will need to clearly define where they stand and what the future looks like. Only ACT and Te Pati Maori (and possibly the Greens) have a clear policy on that.

      The debate and adult discussion still needs to happen, without the heat, hyperbole, name calling and abuse.

      • Belladonna 7.1.1
        21 August 2024 at 1:35 pm

        Push-back not only co-governance, but on poorly explained co-governance.
        Mahuta failed massively in selling her policy (whether it was 'hers' or the government’s – doesn't matter, she was lead on the issue).

        And tying co-governance to another major political/operational change (water management) was an additional blunder. Concerns over one, easily bled over into concerns over the other.

        I look forward to debate without "heat, hyperbole, name calling and abuse" – but doubt it's going to happen.

  8. Champaign Socialist 8
    21 August 2024 at 9:42 am

    I think National will play it by ear – if polling suggests there are electoral gains to be had rarking up culture ware issues then they will push ahead with the bill.
    There is also the economy to think about – if economic conditions in NZ continue to deteriorate then a divisive and distracting circus could be very helpful.

  9. Chris 9
    21 August 2024 at 1:29 pm

    Every now and then an idea is proposed that only reckless, stupid and/or hateful right-wingers support. Sometimes, those same reckless, stupid and/or hateful right-wingers while privately agreeing with a proposal will choose to publicly oppose it because the political price of supporting it is too high. Legislating the treaty principles away is one of those proposals. Luxon (because he would've been told) and Peters know that if it went ahead they'd be inviting the inevitable show-down in the Supreme Court where the question will be whether parliamentary sovereignty can be used by a party to a Treaty between peoples and recognised by international law, to alter that agreement unilaterally. Luxon would've been told that this is a different league to Key trying to change the flag and that he will not want the legacy of being the idiot who tried to legislate the Treaty of Waitangi away.