The committee reported back on the controversial bill on Friday morning, recommending by a majority that it does not proceed.
That’s an unsurprising position given all parties bar Act were opposed to the legislation. National and New Zealand First supported it at first reading in line with coalition commitments.
Act leader David Seymour, the architect of the legislation, reacted by saying the report only reinforced the need for what he was proposing.
“They came in their thousands to oppose the bill, but only succeeded in showing why Parliament should pass it into law,” Seymour said.
He also dismissed the vast majority of submissions being opposed to the legislation, arguing that high-profile bills like this often result in “spam” and responses that are disproportionate to genuine public opinion.
While his coalition partners have publicly stated they won’t back the legislation past the select committee stage, Seymour has called for it to go to a referendum, which he believes will be a more accurate indicator of New Zealanders’ opinion.
The Treaty Principles Bill seeks to clarify the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi so their meaning in legislation can be clearly interpreted and understood. Currently, these principles haven’t been defined by Parliament, but instead via court rulings and government reports.
After passing its first reading at the end of last year, the Justice select committee has been considering the legislation and public submissions on it. The more than 300,000 submissions represented the largest response to proposed legislation Parliament has received.
Act's David Seymour says the report only showed why the legislation was needed. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The committee’s final report includes sections highlighting the views of the Green Party, Te Pāti Māori, Labour and Act.
The Green Party said it wanted to “express our strongest condemnation of this bill in its entirety”, describing it as an “international embarrassment”.
“Arguments from people supporting this bill made in submissions were incoherent, factually inaccurate, based on outdated perspectives and arguments, and many were outright racist.
“In reality, Te Tiriti and its interpretation is not a matter that is keeping New Zealanders up at night. It is only a vocal, fixated minority who believe that their rights have been eroded by the presence of Te Tiriti.”
Te Pāti Māori said the legislation was “based on a false historical narrative” that was “designed to take away indigenous rights, assert parliamentary dominance over Māori and erase any duty of the Crown to act with honour and integrity”.
Beyond just scrapping the bill, the party recommended developing a Te Tiriti o Waitangi education programme to be included in the induction of new MPs. It also wants the Crown to undergo a process alongside Māori “to undo the damage the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill has caused to social cohesion”.
Labour said the submission process carried out through the select committee had “demonstrated that the opposition to the bill is overwhelming” and that it confirmed bringing forward the bill “was wasteful, divisive and futile”.
“The fact that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill was introduced shows a lack of leadership by the Government. It is an abuse of the privilege of being in government to introduce a bill that it knows has no chance of passing and which it explicitly does not support.”
Act, however, outlined reasons why the legislation was needed, highlighting that while Treaty principles are mentioned in legislation, Parliament has never defined what those principles are.
“Parliament’s silence has been filled by court findings, Waitangi Tribunal reports, and government departments attempting to define the principles. The resulting principles afford Māori different rights from other New Zealanders.”
Seymour said in a statement that the report only showed why the legislation was needed.
“The alternative version of New Zealand supported by many submitters, where Parliament is not sovereign and people shouldn’t have their rights upheld equally, is unworkable,” he said.
“The idea that two babies born in New Zealand should have a different place in New Zealand thanks to events occurring nearly two centuries before their birth is abhorrent.”
The Act leader recognised it was a “really tough debate” and he was “proud” of his party putting it forward.
National MP James Meager chaired the committee. Photo / Mark Mitchell
James Meager, a National Party member of the committee, released a statement separately to the report in which he highlighted the “thorough process of scrutiny” the legislation had received.
He noted that the committee received more than 300,000 written submissions and requests for 16,000 oral submissions.
Meager said 90% of the written submissions opposed the legislation, with 8% in support and 2% not clearly stating their position. With regard to oral submissions, 85% opposed, 10% were in support and 5% were unstated.
Seymour said in his statement that high-profile bills often result in select committee submissions that “don’t reflect public opinion”.
“Opponents will make much of the balance of submissions, but if they believed the public opposed the bill they could call for a referendum where everyone votes. You can’t say the majority decides the matter unless you’re ready for the majority to decide the matter.
“We have seen wide contrasts between submissions and public opinion before. In the case of the End of Life Choice Act, analysis of that showed 90% were opposed. When that law was put to referendum, it passed by 65% to 34% (with a small number of ‘informal’ votes).”
A departmental report from the Ministry of Justice released alongside the select committee report said the main comments from those who supported the bills related to clarity and certainty, equality for all, the use of a referendum and the national conversation around the Treaty/Te Tiriti and social cohesion.
Alternatively, those who opposed the bill made comments relating to inconsistencies with the Treaty/Te Tiriti, the bill’s development process, equity and social cohesion.
“Some submitters contextualised their opposition to the bill on the assumption that the Crown has obligations to Māori under the Treaty/Te Tiriti of partnership, participation, and active protection,” the report said.
There has been some analysis by Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney – who is also a member of the Labour Party’s Policy Council – that it cost around $6 million to have this legislation go through Parliament.
Seymour has disputed that figure. He said if the parliamentary and ministry staff working behind the scenes on this bill hadn’t been doing so, they would have been working on some other legislation.
“A better question worth asking is if it was worth preventing another bill from going through while this one was, and the answer is absolutely,” he said.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office.
