Nothing about the Treaty Principles Bill can escape controversy.
That was highlighted last week in the shenanigans over its earlier-than-expected introduction into the House of Representatives.
Previous indications were the Bill, defining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and requiring them to be used when interpreting legislation where relevant, would be introduced into the House on November 18.
The change meant the Waitangi Tribunal, unable to comment on the Bill once it was introduced, had to rush to put out the second part of its report on the proposed legislation.
Unsurprisingly, the tribunal has been scathing about the Bill, describing the policy process as a breach of the principle of good government.
It was ludicrous for Act New Zealand leader David Seymour to get tetchy about the tribunal breaking the government’s trust by revealing the date change. It should never have been a secret.
The timing change meant Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will be out of the country when debate starts on it this Thursday and the Hikoi Mō te Tiriti, opposing the Bill, which sets off today from Cape Reinga/Te Rerenga Wairua, will not have arrived in the capital.
Whatever the reason for the changes in timing, they look rather convenient for Mr Luxon.
He is clearly sick of being asked about the Bill. Trotting out his tired old lines about how its introduction is somehow evidence of the maturing of our mixed member proportional (MMP) system is not convincing.
He tells us Act did not get what it wanted and nor did National, in this instance, and his party will not be voting for it beyond first reading.
He has acknowledged the Bill will be divisive and he is not alone in thinking that.
The regulatory impact statement (RIS) on the Bill, when comparing the proposed Bill with the status quo, says the lack of consultation with Māori on policy development is likely to leave them feeling alienated and excluded from meaningful participation in the direction of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.
Asking the public to decide te Tiriti matters through a referendum, as the Bill proposes, risked imposing the will of a non-Māori majority on the minority partner.
The results would likely not promote social cohesion or represent a consensus.
The RIS pointed out the status quo was unlikely to lead to greater consensus and a broader public discussion without some sort of (likely government) intervention.
Such interventions which could support that discussion included an independent panel, community engagement, discussion documents, or citizen assemblies, the RIS said.
This is vastly different from the adversarial route Mr Seymour has chosen by putting up a Bill without input from Māori.
It is more likely to result in those on all sides of the argument sticking to their established positions and talking past each other rather than engaging meaningfully and trying to understand other points of view.
It would be interesting to know whether any of the coalition partners argued for a different approach, given their opposition to the proposed referendum.
If National and New Zealand First are determined to kill the Bill at its second reading, it remains baffling they gave in to Mr Seymour about having a six-month select committee process.
It is particularly galling when other significant legislation supported by all three coalition partners are rushed through the parliamentary process at a break-neck pace.
It has yet to be seen how intense the discussions around the Bill will become, but it has been predicted opposition to it will be loud and likely to be sustained.
Thousands of Māori and Pakeha are expected to get involved in the Hīkoi Mō te Tiriti in both islands, culminating in a protest at the steps of Parliament on November 19.
The end of the six-month select committee process will be close to the time Mr Seymour is due to take over from Winston Peters as deputy prime minister.
If there have been months of sustained protest about Mr Seymour’s lame duck Bill distracting people from what Mr Luxon would like to see focus on, it is hard to see the deputy/PM relationship beginning on a positive note.
