Audrey Young is the New Zealand Herald’s senior political correspondent. She was named Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards in 2023, 2020 and 2018.
OPINION
This is a transcript of the Premium Politics newsletter. To sign up, click here, select Premium Politics Briefing and save your preferences. For a step-by-step guide, click here.
Welcome to the Politics Briefing. There are some incredible features in the Cabinet paper released yesterday on the proposed Treaty Principles Bill by Act leader and Associate Justice Minister David Seymour.
One of its stated aims is to bring more certainty and clarity to the meaning of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. No matter what Seymour’s intentions are, it does the opposite.
And, like the Treaty itself, it is the wording and meaning of article two – guaranteeing the chiefs tino rangatiratanga – that is the most contentious.
It says it is not intended to alter the text of the Treaty itself. But the suggested wording of the bill concerning article two directly contradicts the Treaty and produces a contradiction within a clause.
This is how: Seymour says his principles would recognise the rights that hāpu and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. But in the next sentence, it elaborates by saying it will only recognise those it wants to, being only those specified by legislation or agreements with the Crown. So where does that leave tino rangatiratanga?
Not surprisingly, officials advised Seymour that “defining the principles of the Treaty in statute will be seen by some as a removal of Māori rights guaranteed under the Treaty and is likely to be the subject of public and legal challenge”.
Officials further advised that while it was Seymour’s intent not to alter the text of the Treaty itself, “it is likely that this will not be sufficient to mitigate the actual effect of defining the principles in statute”.
In another piece of officials’ advice to the Cabinet (the regulatory impact statement), it says an interpretation of article two of the Treaty that does not recognise the collective rights held by iwi and hapū “calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty/te Tiriti and its status in our constitutional arrangements”.
The officials are right. Seymour wanted certainty and to quarantine the Treaty itself from his tinkering. Instead, he has outlined a bill that will increase uncertainty about its effects on existing rights under the Treaty.
Cabinet has approved the outline of the bill as presented by Seymour and it is being drafted so the final wording is not yet known. It is guaranteed to fail because it will have the support of only the Act party beyond its first reading in November. But were it to pass, it would guarantee decades of litigation to get the courts to settle its meaning and effect.
The draft that Seymour put before the Cabinet is the third iteration of three key principles he wants enshrined in law. When he first proposed them, in 2022, he wanted the second principle to say: “All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.”
Last year before the election, he changed it to: “The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property.” Now it is proposed to say this: “Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori – the Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements or other agreement with the Crown.”
The concerns of officials are dismissed by Seymour in the Cabinet paper as “disappointing” and reflecting the sort of view he wants the bill to change. I have never seen a Cabinet paper so critical of a ministerial proposal, nor a minister more dismissive of officials.
Seymour has vast expertise in public policy and a formidable intellect, and yet for the most significant constitutional proposal in decades, he has not employed them well.
“A contractor, a farmer, a good Kiwi bloke is lost – my boy is gone. His suicide was one thing; it could have been many things, but I will say this to this House: in this god-awful mess that is my life, I am in this House every day because I absolutely believe in rural people” – Act MP and farmer Mark Cameron yesterday speaking about losing his son, Brody, in May and the pressures of rural life.
Defence Minister Judith Collins was on hand this week to welcome the delivery of what new asset for the Defence Force? (Answer below.)
Goes to Seymour for dragging his officials into the public debate over the Treaty Principles Bill because of the free and frank advice they tendered about its risks and weaknesses. “They believe people aren’t allowed to have a say about the future of their own country,” Seymour told reporters yesterday. Appalling really.
Goes to Melissa Lee, whose original 2022 member’s bill requiring a minimum three-year expiry period for retail gift cards passed in Parliament (shepherded through by Dan Bidois because ministers can’t promote members’ bills). Good news for consumers and good news for Lee, who has had a rough year since her demotion.
Treaty Principles Bill: The three principles Cabinet has agreed to include in David Seymour’s contentious Treaty Principles Bill have been released.
Policy cut: Health Minister Shane Reti has intervened to scrap a health policy targeting young Māori and Pasifika in Hawke’s Bay.
Opinion - Treaty bill: National and Act are engaged in an extended bout of arm-wrestling over the timing of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, writes Claire Trevett.
Health targets: Health Minister Shane Reti says he can’t guarantee his five targets for the health system won’t be gamed by under-pressure health staff.
Industry crunch: Methanex, the country’s largest gas user, has proposed shedding staff and moving from a two-plant operation to a one-plant operation “for the forseeable future”.
Opinion - Wellington economy: Is Wellington dying or is it just feeling sorry for itself? Thomas Coughlan takes a look at the employment and economic data.
Quiz answer: The first of five new C-130J-30 Hercules. The rest are due to arrive by the end of this year.
For more political news and views, listen to On the Tiles, the Herald’s politics podcast.
MPs literally counted down the final seconds of Parliament.