The many unanswered questions behind Seymour’s Treaty bill – Editorial

Act leader David Seymour during his media conference after the Treaty Principles Bill was voted down. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Editorial

THREE KEY FACTS

• Parliament has voted down the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, with only Act supporting it.
• The bill received 300,000 submissions, with 90% opposing it, and sparked significant debate and protest.
• Act leader David Seymour has vowed to reignite the issues in his controversial Treaty Principles Bill, saying his party would reveal the next steps before the 2026 election.

“It hasn’t failed,” David Seymour said.

What the Act Party leader himself has described as an “uneasy conversation” seems inevitable to continue.

Seymour knew the current iteration of the Treaty Principles Bill was doomed to be voted down. It would’ve taken an Olympic level backflip from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to pull off such a turnaround and support the proposed legislation.

Luxon rightly wants more political oxygen spent on our fledgling economy rather than an unnecessary rewriting of our constitutional foundations.

He says he needs to “get on and run this country”.

But this issue isn’t going away. It has stirred up emotions and angst on both sides of the debate. If Seymour plays hardball at the next election it could lead to a referendum as part of a future coalition deal.

“Sooner or later the logic of this bill is going to prevail. New Zealanders are equal, the Treaty does give us the provision to be equal,” Seymour said.

His answers to questions have, however, only raised more questions. One that remains unanswered is, what was the logic of this bill?

Was it to get it through Parliament? Was it to stir up debate over an issue Seymour genuinely is motivated by? Was it to give Kiwis an opportunity to have their say on what the Treaty means to them? Was it to build Act Party support and an exercise in political pontificating?

It is possible the bill was all of the above.

Whatever ethnic or cultural background people come from, most who call this country home believe in the idea of equality under the law. Anyone who doesn’t is being disingenuous about the opportunities a liberal democracy like ours affords its people.

What is the problem this bill was trying to solve? Who is treated unequal by law today?

The resulting principles afford Māori different rights from other New Zealanders, Seymour claims.

Is he saying all non-Māori are being treated unfairly? Really?

Throughout this debate, Seymour has also said he believes the Treaty and its principles have been “hijacked” by the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and the bureaucracy.

This is a pervasive idea. It seemingly implies there is orchestrated judicial activism in cahoots with government bureaucracy.

It is without evidence and dangerously damaging to our trust in those important democratic pillars.

Perhaps that was the logic? For a future version of it to prevail, maybe one required ingredient is a country which has lost faith in its institutions.

Seymour is confident something like version one of his bill will eventually come to pass.

“We’ve got a country where a large minority of people genuinely believe we should be ranked by the arrival time of our ancestors,” he said.

The bill received 300,000 written submissions, the previous record was just over 100,000.

Of these, 90% opposed the legislation, 8% supported it and 2% had not clearly stated their position.

Seymour has an answer for this too, the numbers are disproportionate to genuine public opinion.

Where is the logic to that?

Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.