In our parliamentary system, if a government Bill is defeated it will usually raise the question of whether the House has confidence in the government.
Last week a government Bill was not just defeated, it was totally routed - 112 votes against to only 11 for - but the coalition government lives on to fight another day.
It was an unusual end to a thoroughly unusual piece of proposed legislation. From the outset - when two of the governing parties announced that they would vote against it at second reading - to its rancorous first reading to its controversial select committee process, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill has made all sorts of history.
Given that it was intended to revisit an aspect of New Zealand’s history and consider if it remained fit for purpose, maybe its historic demise befits it.
‘‘We are all thinking, we are all valuing beings. We should all have ‘‘ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi’’, the same rights and duties, just as the third article of te Tiriti itself says,’’ he said.
Mr Seymour’s contention was that the government defining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi would give all Kiwis equal rights.
However, the principles he set out in his Bill were subtly different from those which have evolved in the common law, so different as to spark opprobrium from all races and most other political parties, culminating in one of the largest political marches ever seen in Wellington and a record number of submissions to the select committee which examined the Bill.
After 80 hours of in-person submissions to the committee, let alone two fiery parliamentary debates, are we any further forward?
Mr Seymour told Parliament that a free society takes on hard work and uneasy conversations: ‘‘I'm proud that my party has had the bravery, the clarity, and the patriotism to raise uneasy topics, and I challenge other parties to find those qualities in themselves and support this Bill.’’
However, all other parties did not. Mr Seymour is convinced of the rightness of his cause and seems determined to continue to press it - as is his right.
But the depth of opposition, not just in the House but from the general public, must surely mean that Mr Seymour needs to pause, take stock, and consider whether what he is proposing is really the means to the end he is aiming for?
To use a phrase he himself has used often during the past 12 months, Mr Seymour wanted to have a conversation about the Treaty of Waitangi, its principles, and its place in modern New Zealand. He has raised his questions, and he has been answered emphatically.
The nation’s understanding of the Treaty, and where it sits in our legal system, has been a movable feast. Once a rat-chewed artefact dismissed by a judge as a simple nullity, it has now become what many submitters and MPs described as central to New Zealand’s existence.
From ‘‘a bold promise and a bold vision’’ to ‘‘it started our journey and forged our identity,’’ through to ‘‘our unique history and blended culture’’ politicians of - almost - all stripes collectively highlighted the importance and value of the Treaty.
Those voices seemingly echoed public opinion, which if submissions to the select committee are any guideline was overwhelmingly against Mr Seymour’s Bill. He would, and indeed did, argue that the referendum he proposed should his Bill have passed would have been the ultimate answer. But New Zealand has a representative system of government, and those elected to represent us said no to this Bill, as they do to many other proposed law changes.
Those who argue that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill experience has been a divisive, unnecessary and expensive exercise make an understandable point.
But the Treaty and its role has evolved over time, and will no doubt continue to do so. Mr Seymour’s Bill might, in retrospect, be seen to have been emblematic of where the Treaty once was, and the opposition to it as being symptomatic of where it is going to go.
History may well show that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill debate has indeed been an exercise in the people of New Zealand determining their constitutional future, although perhaps not in the way which its architect intended.
