Treaty Principles Bill to put rookie MPs to the test
by Jo Moir · RNZAnalysis - The MPs on Parliament's justice select committee may face an even tougher job ahead than Treaty Principles champion David Seymour.
Eleven MPs from across the political divide will be tasked with reading, hearing, and reporting back on submissions from the six-month-long select committee.
Seymour is expected to refer the bill to the committee after its first reading on Thursday.
With seven of the MPs all in their first term in Parliament, there is not a wealth of experience on the committee.
The remaining four include Labour's three representatives - Ginny Andersen and Duncan Webb entered Parliament in 2017 and Tracey McLellan in 2020 - while National's Paulo Garcia previously did one year at Parliament before returning in 2023.
First-term National MP James Meager chairs the committee and is responsible for keeping things orderly. He is considered one of the up-and-comers of the National Party caucus.
Meager has been around Parliament for years, firstly in the office of now-Leader of the House Chris Bishop, before moving into the ministerial office of then-deputy prime minister Paula Bennett.
And he has already had his chairmanship put to the test.
In October, committee colleague and Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris was heard saying "f***ing racist" following a submission from former ACT MP Dr Muriel Newman, on amendments to the foreshore and seabed legislation.
The ACT Party contacted the Speaker about the remarks as a matter of privilege - but if it does not meet that threshold it could be handed back to the select committee to deal with.
Given the Treaty Principles Bill is equally divisive and will attract many of the same submitters, that could just be a taste of what is to come for Meager.
Political parties may choose to sub in alternate MPs for the hearings, which could alter the dynamics of the committee and put some personalities on a collision course with the chair depending on how they think meetings should run.
The justice committee is relatively free-flowing in nature rather than strictly keeping to five-minute slots for submitters. Depending on how the hearings go, that might change if disorder amongst MPs, submitters, or both, becomes prevalent.
On top of that, the MPs could yet find themselves on the road for months on end, as was the case for the submissions being heard on Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill.
At the moment, submitters who want to be heard in person would, in the first instance, come to Parliament. However, the opposition parties could team up with ACT to form a majority and take the committee on a roadtrip around the country to embarrass National and NZ First for not shutting it down earlier.
That would create a somewhat uncontrolled environment and potentially throw up even more opportunities for disorder.
For Seymour, the task ahead is convincing enough of the country that his version of the principles of the Treaty need to be baked into Parliament's laws.
Polling and surveys of the issues that matter most to Kiwis regularly reveal the economy/cost of living, health, education and housing are the big concerns.
But Seymour told RNZ all of those issues were impacted or underpinned by the "conception of the Treaty as a partnership".
"It's harder to get on top of healthcare when you're constantly obsessed with people's identity rather than, how do we actually get more operations done, more pharmaceuticals funded, and more GP visits made available?
"How do you get consent to build more houses? Basically every issue in New Zealand today has come back to this constitutional conception of the Treaty as a partnership and I don't think that can stand," he said.
Many critics, including the prime minister, have called Seymour's bill "divisive", but the ACT Party leader argues the status quo is "divisive policy".
"Until you confront the underlying justification - the Treaty being a partnership - then New Zealand's long-term future is going to be this kind of divisive policy, and I think it's absolutely critical that we're prepared to have, what I agree is, a difficult conversation - and one many people hesitate to engage in - but nonetheless one that is a necessary conversation about what our founding document really means."
Both National and New Zealand First have been steadfast that their support for the bill expires after it comes back from the committee.
Reversing that would be a U-turn from which Luxon would not politically recover, and nothing about his rhetoric has softened in recent months.
Seymour has started to water down his optimism the bill will get across the line this term, now concentrating on the idea that having a national conversation about the Treaty principles is more powerful than whether it passes into law this term.
He maintains the bill will pass at some point in future years, saying it took three attempts in Parliament before he successfully legalised assisted dying in New Zealand.
By the time the bill heads to select committee next week, Luxon will have been missing in action from Parliament both for the day of its introduction and the first reading.
The introduction is a formality and not a debate, and the PM's absence there is nothing unusual - and on the first reading it is more convenience than coincidence he will not be in Wellington, instead jetting to the Apec Summit.
But it is not Luxon's bill. He is not driving it, and he has no plans to support it into law.
He has rightly copped a lot of criticism for wasting Parliament's time on progressing doomed legislation but it is for Seymour to fight its case on Thursday, not the prime minister.
Where Luxon will need to face the music is when the hīkoi protesting the legislation arrives at Parliament's doorstep the week after the first reading.
He has already said he will be in Wellington when they arrive - the question is whether he will front the crowd and tell them he has heard them.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.