A conservative estimate suggests it will cost about $4 million to progress the controversial, and doomed, Treaty Principles Bill to a second reading at Parliament.
The estimate, calculated by Council of Trade Unions (CTU) economist Craig Renney, suggests just 12 people would have been working to create the bill since the government was formed in November last year, and includes the legislation passing through a six-month select committee process.
It does not include costs such as contractors, consultants and lawyers, or any involvement from Crown Law, the Waitangi Tribunal, or the Human Rights Commission.
Act New Zealand leader David Seymour is dismissing the analysis, calling it fabricated.
Renney said his analysis was "extremely conservative".
He said realistically, many more people would be working on the legislation than he had estimated, and costs could be beyond $10m in reality.
"We have assumed very limited engagement with departments, and only a tiny number of departmental staff (12 in total - not all full-time) being involved in the direct production of the bill.
"We have not added in costs for bodies such as the Waitangi Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission, nor Crown Law. There are a range of other costs - such as security, parliamentary questions, and support for the Governor-General which have also been left out of this equation."
Renney said about $2m had already been spent on drafting the proposed legislation, but he argued that was a waste of money.
"David Seymour is entitled to put bills before the house," Renney said.
"That is a perfectly proper thing for him to do as a consequence of his role as an MP and as a minister. But that doesn't mean that he has to have the resources of the state to support a process that is already dead."
He said Seymour could pull the legislation now, given it would not progress past the second reading, and save taxpayers at least $2m.
Seymour dismissed those claims, saying you cannot put a price on democracy.
"These are fabricated figures from a trade union, based on what people working for the government get paid," Seymour said.
"If there was no Treaty Principles Bill, those people would still be working at the government and getting paid the same amount of money. So actually the cost is zero, or alternatively you could say the cost is another bill they otherwise would have been working on.
"I happen to think that the Treaty Principles Bill is a very worthwhile bill compared with other bills they'd be working on if they weren't working on this."
Seymour said it was wrong to think of work on the Treaty Principles Bill as money spent, but rather as time spent by people already working for the government.
"You could argue that another bill would be more successful, but I actually don't think you could a bigger success than democratising conversation about our founding document. If that's all it achieves, it'll be one of the most valuable pieces of legislation that these public servants could be working on."
Seymour also suggested the CTU was hypocritical to suggest money should not be spent on the Treaty Principles Bill when it was in full support of fair pay legislation.
"If the trade unions are worried about the cost preparing bills, well how about the fair pay agreements which were always going to be shot down, they have been removed, are they complaining about the cost to run through fair pay agreements? That cost a helluva lot more money than anything on the Treaty Principles Bill, and it's no longer law."
Asked if fair pay legislation was a waste of time and money, Seymour said "absolutely it was a waste of time".
And when asked why doomed fair pay legislation was different to the doomed Treaty Principles Bill, Seymour said "you're wasting your time with that logic".
"They might argue that they've advanced the debate on labour law in New Zealand, but actually people have long had access to the debate on labour law in New Zealand.
"What they haven't had is the ability to have a say on their constitutional document and what these principles mean. It's a completely different debate."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon dismissed concerns the bill was a waste of money.
"I haven't got estimates, but I'd just say to you we have many government's propose ... I mean we had the last Labour government spend $1.2 billion on Three Waters and [did] nothing. $300m on Te Pukenga, $230m on Auckland light rail."
Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters would not answer questions about whether the bill was a waste of money.
"You'd have to ask the minister in charge of that, not me."
