Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was asked about Te Pāti Māori comments calling the Govt white supremacists, and what he hopes to achieve at Rātana Pā on Wednesday.
Video / Mark Mitchell
Opinion by Derek Cheng
Derek Cheng is a Multimedia Journalist for New Zealand’s Herald. He values holding those in power to account and shining a light on issues kept in the dark.
So what we all thought was the case has been clarified - kind of. The contentious and yet-to-be-written Government bill on the Treaty of Waitangi principles will go no further than a select committee.
That’s despite Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stopping short of ruling out support forthe bill beyond its first reading. “No intention” of further support, as he said yesterday, doesn’t necessarily mean he would never support it, though it sends a pretty strong signal.
NZ First’s Shane Jones, however, appeared to be unequivocal. “We’ll participate in the process to have the bill tabled in Parliament, debated in Parliament, referred to select committee, and after that we won’t be voting for it,” he told Newshub.
With opposition parties against redefining the Treaty principles, the bill will not become law unless it has the backing of all three members of the governing threesome.
If that all seems a bit unusual, that’s because it is.
Usually the public gets to have a say on a bill during the select committee stage, and the committee then releases a report with any recommended changes, along with whether the bill should proceed.
Politicians then reconsider their stance on the bill; it’s not uncommon for the process to unearth something they were previously unaware of.
So, yes, killing the bill before that process has even started seems somewhat premature, especially if the killers are also some of the initial backers.
Confusingly, Jones then walked back his comments when the Herald sought to confirm them, saying NZ First would honour its coalition agreement but then “all bets were off”, meaning the party wasn’t obliged to support the bill beyond the first reading.
Again, a strong signal, but he didn’t rule out the possibility of the party’s ongoing support.
This means what David Seymour is hoping for might still have a chance, albeit minimal.
The Act leader wants the national conversation - facilitated by the committee - to convince both National and NZ First of the merits of the referendum that the bill is a precursor for, especially if public sentiment is forcefully in favour of one.
Act leader David Seymour has been pushing for a referendum on the Treaty principles. Photo / Dean Purcell
Aside from whether he thinks the Treaty principles need to be redefined, Luxon has never wanted a referendum. “Divisive and unhelpful,” he has said repeatedly, and which he said again at his post-Cabinet press conference yesterday.
He also said, repeatedly, that this is MMP. Translation: Sometimes you have to swallow a dead rat to get to where you want to be.
So to fulfil coalition obligations, Luxon has to support a bill that he thinks would be bad for the country, at least at first reading, and take the heat at Rātana today and Waitangi next month and elsewhere.
Seymour has had to buckle on what he’d said he wouldn’t buckle on, having previously said a referendum was a bottom line, but fallen short of including it in coalition agreements. (He’s also said, in other interviews, that bottom lines were generally a “silly concept”.)
The coalition agreements also have all governing parties promising to work in good faith.
That means, broadly, to act fairly and honestly and openly without misleading each other.
But it would be more than a stretch to say that Luxon’s “no intention” of further support could be a breach of fairness on grounds that he’s prejudging the select committee process. It’s not like he’s only just started to call the prospect of a referendum “divisive”.
It would also be terrible optics.
As we all wait and see how well the unlikely political bedfellows play together, it would be a bold move for Seymour to call the Prime Minister’s comments a breach of coalition obligations so fresh from the new Government’s starting line.
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery and is a former deputy political editor.
