Key points:
- A draft of the Treaty Principles Bill was tabled at Cabinet yesterday, with its basic outline signed off
- Act leader David Seymour said he continues to hope his coalition partners will support the bill after its first reading
- However, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reiterated that it wouldn’t have National’s support beyond select committee
- Seymour also revealed the legislation would now acknowledge that iwi and hapū had specific rights in 1840.
ACT leader David Seymour continues to hope that the National Party will support the controversial Treaty Principles Bill despite Prime Minister Christopher Luxon repeatedly stating it won’t be supported to a second reading.
In its coalition agreement with ACT, National said it would support the bill up to the select committee stage but no further.
Seymour confirmed to Breakfast this morning the Bill was tabled in Cabinet yesterday, with its basic outline signed off, allowing it to be sent to the parliamentary council office.
With regards to Article 2 of the principles, he said it would now acknowledge that iwi and hapū in 1840 had specific rights.
More than 400 Christian leaders signed an open letter yesterday asking MPs to strike the Bill down.
At a post-cabinet press conference yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister reiterated his stance surrounding the Bill – repeatedly stating that National would not support it past the first reading. The third coalition partner, NZ First, has also pledged not to support it past its first reading.
ACT leader David Seymour continues to hope that the National Party will support the controversial Treaty Principles Bill beyond first reading – something the Prime Minister has consistently ruled out. (Source: 1News)
On Breakfast this morning, Seymour was asked whether he held onto some hope that Luxon and his party would support the Bill beyond first reading.
Seymour said: “Yes”.
“People say that they won’t support it, but no one’s actually read the Bill yet,” he said.
“And no one’s seen the response of the public. I’ve always thought it’s important to try and keep an open mind about that and wait to see what people say.”
Seymour said that should Bill fail after the first reading, “we’ve introduced the idea that each of us have the right to participate and a say over what our founding document means and what our constitutional future is”.
“I think once that discussion has started, it’s going to be hard to say, ‘no no no, we’re gonna go back to a world where unless you’re an expert… then you can’t discuss this’.”
The Prime Minister also spoke with Breakfast this morning, and was asked if David Seymour’s hopes were warranted.
“The answer is no,” Luxon said.
“I’m not changing my position, and the National Party isn’t changing its position either,” Luxon said.
Luxon told Breakfast his party remains unmoved on its pledge not to support the bill past select committee. (Source: Breakfast)
“We live in an MMP environment, and there are three parties in this Government. ACT has a different position from the National Party, as was well expressed before the election. We both had to make a compromise, and that’s what we did.”
Bill will contain explicit mention of iwi and hapū rights
This morning, Seymour revealed the legislation would now explicitly mention iwi and hapū in Article 2 around tino rangatiratanga.
This appeared to be some movement on the outline of the proposed Bill on ACT’s website, where it stated the Government would honour “all New Zealanders” regarding tino rangatiratanga.
He told Breakfast that “it hasn’t gone back” but “acknowledged that iwi and hapū in 1840 had specific rights”.
“I’ve always taken the view that Article 2 when it said all New Zealanders, it didn’t just mean those in New Zealand in 1840. It meant all New Zealanders in perpetuity.”
He said, “it was intended to strengthen the rights of Māori by saying everyone has these rights”.
“Actually, what they’ve said is ‘we feel affronted that we’re not mentioned there’.”
Seymour said that once drafting was completed, there would be some specific mention of iwi and hapu.
“Hopefully, that will get across further. This is a force for good, a positive initiative, and it is far from changing or diminishing the treaty; it actually embeds it in legislation.”
