As has been repeatedly stated on this site, Christopher Luxon made a fool of himself and the National Party by taking such a ‘strong’ position, for whatever woke or nefarious reason was rumbling around in the echo chamber of his brain, that he needed to ‘bang on’ about the Treaty Principles Bill being voted down at its second reading. We all know that was in the coalition agreement, but still: there was absolutely no need for him to comment. A prudent and half-competent political leader would have avoided the controversy and simply said: ‘The bill is going through due process and, when we have the Justice Select Committee recommendation, we’ll proceed with the next step, whatever it might be.’
Instead, pandering to the Māori electorate (most of which is never going to vote National no matter what they do), he took a decisive stance. If only he would do that about something useful. The stupidity of his announcement is soundly reflected in his poll results since, with the select committee recommendation that the bill not proceed, he exposed himself for no good reason. Game, set and match. All that political damage for nothing and little chance of recovery.
To the select committee recommendation though: It came after what’s being described as “unprecedented public engagement”. Over 307,000 written submissions, with approximately 90 per cent opposing the bill, eight per cent supporting it and two per cent expressing no view. Interesting how one would go to the trouble of making a submission without expressing a view, but that’s the crazy old world we live in these days.
The committee also heard 529 oral submissions with around 85 per cent opposing the bill.
Without trying to dissect everything that was said, the general view from various reports seems to argue that the bill misrepresents the Treaty of Waitangi, undermines Māori rights and risks entrenching a narrow interpretation of equality that disregards historical context and equity.
I’m not an academic and I haven’t studied the Treaty of Waitangi and the various interpretations that have surfaced over the many years since it was signed. I’m a simple soul. When I read it, it looks pretty clear to me: three articles (or clauses) explaining what the agreement is and who gets what from whom. I don’t see a whole heap of room for re-interpretation. That’s something that the weird and wonderful have brought to the table in relatively recent times following the gravy train of the cottage industry that has sprung up around said treaty.
My reading of the Treaty Principles Bill proposed by ACT doesn’t appear to deviate in any significant way from the Treaty itself. However, one thing I didn’t miss is the clause in the bill that seems unambiguous: “Nothing in this act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi.” In addition, the bill requires a full referendum, arguably the ultimate democratic process. Luxon, you’ll recall, had previously ruled out a referendum on the issue while he remains in office.
Right at this moment, we have a justice select committee recommendation to simply stop its progress at this point. No proposed amendments, no further discussion: the bill is dead.
While 80 to 90 per cent of some 350,000 submissions may appear to be an overwhelming majority against, it counts only those who went to the trouble of putting pen to paper. The on-going Treaty issues are far too important to be defined by those numbers. Yes, it is a contentious and divisive issue and, yes, they had a record number of submissions. So what? Society can only work well when it openly confronts and negotiates its way through contentious and divisive issues.
Quite apart from anything else, polling on this subject would suggest the submission numbers are way out of kilter with public opinion. The numbers simply don't pass the sniff test I'm afraid.
Overall, given our population of some six million, 350,000 is a mere five per cent. Even accepting that that includes ineligible voters, it’s still such a small figure that it makes any suggestion of a democratic majority decision ludicrous.
And not one of them has proposed an alternative. What a surprise.
