Tova O’Brien is Stuff’s Chief Political Correspondent and host of the weekly political podcast, Tova. Listen to the latest episode, Protest and Principles: Te Tiriti under the new government, here.
ANALYSIS: The Prime Minister killing off any prospect of a Treaty referendum will be seen by many as a promising turn for the country (and National), but others – namely his coalition partner – will be justified in feeling aggrieved.
A major impetus for the protests at parliament, and around the country this week, is ACT’s attempt to redefine the Treaty principles in law.
David Seymour had wanted a referendum but instead, by way of a compromise from National, which doesn’t want one, he instead secured the introduction and support of a Treaty principles bill to select committee.
Seymour chalked this up as a win.
ROBERT KITCHIN/The Post
Prime Minister Chris Luxon, David Seymour, and Winston Peters announce that they are in coalition together, and signed the documents formally.
The theory being that he would use the debate and panel beating process of select committee – coupled with his powers of persuasion – to convince National and NZ First to maintain their support to the second and third reading, before eventually going to referendum – a hurdle major constitutional changes like this have to clear short of a super-majority of 75% in parliament.
But in a surprise twist – a sudden flutter of self-awareness and room reading -Luxon scotched the prospects of the bill going any further than select committee.
“That’s as far as it will go,” Luxon told the House – and the attentive ears of the country – during question time on Thursday.
It’s a sensible step for the Prime Minister in terms of listening to the concerns raised by many New Zealanders about the divisiveness of a referendum and what it could do to the country.
ROBERT KITCHIN/The Post
On the Treaty principles bill going to select committee, Chris Luxon told the House, “That’s as far as it will go”
Though why he needed to wait for the chorus of voices to reach this deafening peak is unclear. And although it’s a nod in their direction, there’s no way it will hush the voices completely.
Alarm bells have been ringing loudly from Māori leaders (all the way up to the Kingitanga), from former Prime Ministers (red and blue), from political parties across the house, constitutional law experts, historians, academics, Kiwis from all backgrounds and cultures and, of course, those protesting up and down the country.
Those listed above would be justified in thinking it shouldn’t have taken so long for Luxon to hear them and send this conciliatory signal, but he got there eventually. The country needs leadership willing to listen and to unify.
But, for Luxon, the flipside of going some way to show Māori and other concerned New Zealanders that you’re listening, risks irking Seymour.
DAVID UNWIN/The Post
Protests calling out government for ‘anti-Māori, anti-Treaty’ views and actions.
Seymour wasn’t given a heads-up by Luxon that the bill would only go that far.
It could be seen by ACT as circumventing the democratic process. How could you possibly rule out progressing the bill further when you haven’t heard all the arguments or even seen the wording of the legislation yet?
Though that’s not unusual. Governments and political parties make decisions every day about progressing policies based on the spirit of an idea or ideology.
But where ACT, and supporters of the referendum, would have a valid point to prosecute is the fact that Luxon and National made this bed, they allowed it to be negotiated into the coalition agreement, they allowed ACT to pick this particular scab and are therefore complicit in its conception.
With skin in the game, it would be fair for ACT to see Luxon’s kibosh as bad faith.
For Luxon and National though, after a government that has so far looked whipped by the minors, it’s a tentative first step towards regaining a semblance of sovereignty – or tino rangatiratanga – befitting the majority they hold in the three-way government.
