Parliament’s Justice Committee has released its report into the Treaty Principles Bill, and recommended it does not proceed.
Sending the bill to the committee stage was part of the National-ACT coalition agreement.
ACT’s policy was to take the bill to a referendum, but the compromise it reached with National was to take it to a select committee.
National and New Zealand First have committed to voting down the bill at its second reading, which could come as soon as next week.
The bill received approximately 300,000 submissions and requests for 16,000 oral submissions. In the end, the committee heard 529 submitters, over 80 hours, over the course of five weeks.
Written submissions were 90% opposed, 8% supportive and 2% unstated. Oral submissions were 85% opposed, 10% supportive and 5% unstated.
The committee’s 45-page report said the themes raised by opponents were:
- inconsistency of the bill with the Treaty/te Tiriti
- flaws or inadequacies in the bill development process
- the bill’s promotion of formal equality over equity
- the negative effect of the bill on social cohesion
- uncertainty of legal and constitutional implication
- the negative effect on the Crown-Māori relationship
- concerns that the bill is contrary to international commitments and would negatively affect New Zealand’s reputation
- opposition to the use of a referendum and support for a national conversation around the Treaty/te Tiriti
- unnecessary clarification of already defined principles
- negative environmental impacts of the bill
- negative effect on the status of te reo and mātauranga Māori initiatives
- rejection of the concept of Treaty principles.
The themes across supporters were:
- lack of clarity and certainty about the principles
- the importance of equality for all
- use of a referendum to facilitate a national conversation around the Treaty/te Tiriti
- promoting social cohesion.
What political parties said about the bill
The report contained the views of the different parties in Parliament on the bill.
Labour said the principles in the bill bore no relation to the Treaty, and if it were to pass it would be a breach of comity by Parliament.
“The promoters of the bill have demonised the principles of the Treaty as if they are in fact some invention that extends the Treaty or undermines the authority of Parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth,” it said. “As noted by many submitters it is the function of the courts to undertake the interpretative task in respect of the law. It is not for the executive to usurp this role.”
Te Pāti Māori called the bill a distortion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, based on a “false historical narrative”, and that it aimed to solve a problem which did not exist.
“The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill brings Parliament into disrepute and should have never been allowed to be introduced to the House. This sentiment is shared by 90% of submitters.”
Labour also rejected the notion the Treaty gave different rights based on ancestry.
“The proponents of the bill also claim that there are other advantages given to Māori, for example, where healthcare is delivered by a Māori health authority, or social services are provided under a Māori model like Whanau Ora. This of course ignores two important facts,” it said.
“One is that non-Māori are not precluded from receiving government services in a way which suits them best-which may be in a kaupapa Māori way. However more importantly it ignores the fact that the provision of services in a non-Maōri way is in effect providing them in a Western/European way, and this ignores and diminishes the relevance of te ao Maōri. It is in fact unequal because it promotes one world view over the other.”
The Green Party said the justification or rationale for the bill did not exist, and it misrepresented the principles of the Treaty. It concluded the bill had been an international embarrassment.
“In a great show of humility by previous parliaments, including the government who presided over the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 when it came into effect, they acknowledged that Parliament does not have the knowledge or expertise to determine and define the principles,” the Greens said.
“Aside from the constitutional inappropriateness, Parliament is out of its depth when it comes to unilaterally adjudicating over Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we suggest that this is left to people with proper constitutional and legal skills and understanding to interpret and determine the principles and adherence to those.”
ACT — the bill’s main supporter — published a differing view, saying the Treaty of Waitangi Act had never defined the principles.
“Parliament’s silence has been filled by court findings, Waitangi Tribunal reports, and government departments attempting to define the principles. The resulting principles afford Māori different rights from other New Zealanders,” it said.
It said the bill sought to fill the silence.
“The bill does not alter the Treaty itself but instead seeks to define its principles through a democratic process rather than relying on interpretations developed by the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or the public service. The current interpretations have created a system where different groups have different rights, which is inconsistent with equal rights and liberal democracy,” it said.
National and New Zealand First did not submit a view on the bill.
The report also showed Labour MP Duncan Webb had attempted to move the committee to not hear any oral submissions on the bill, and only consider submissions made in writing. This was not agreed to.
When the committee finished its consideration of the bill, staff were still vetting submissions.
On Thursday, ACT MP Todd Stephenson – a member of the Justice Committee – moved a motion so submissions on the bill could be added to the public record, after the bill had been reported back to the House.
rnz.co.nz
