Debate on Treaty should hold no fears
Labour’s policies played into the polarisation of NZ, writes Fran O’Sullivan
It beggars belief that politicians trek to Ra¯tana and Waitangi each year to account for how their respective governments are upholding their end of the Treaty bargain with Ma¯ori. But there is precious little opportunity for the public to have a direct say on where relationships are moving outside of the too-blunt tool of the voting box.
Finally, Parliament will start talking — maybe even debating, please — issues around the 21st century application of the Treaty of Waitangi.
There should be little to fear from this in a modern democracy.
It is obvious that Act’s Treaty Principles Bill — the spur for the debate — is unlikely to get further than the first hurdle. But it will provide a welcome pause so views from all sides can be aired in front of a parliamentary select committee.
My pick is that many of the submissions will help build a consensus around the Treaty principles and will also thoughtfully air issues, some concerns and some solutions.
Politicians do not have all the answers. Opinion polling over the term of the last Government showed views hardened on race issues as Labour pressed ahead with policies that were not first put in front of the country at an election.
Some may dislike the hard edge of some of Act and NZ First’s policies on this score. But there is at least no suggestion of a hidden agenda.
The select committee, under the leadership of National’s Dan Bidois, should take its time to hear submissions and weigh them carefully. The committee is comprised of four National MPs, two from Labour and one each from Te Pa¯ti Ma¯ori and the Greens. Neither Act nor New Zealand First, which have been strident in their opposition to the Ma¯orification of public services, are represented.
There will inevitably be a repeat of claims that the Government is a bunch of white supremacists — laughable, really when one-third of the current Cabinet is Ma¯ori.
Also laughable given that it was the prior Labour Government’s failure to take the country with it on issues such as co-governance which ultimately led it to scupper the Three Waters project, and led also to an enormous amount of time and money being wasted setting up a parallel Ma¯ori health structure instead of simply launching well-directed programmes.
This played into the polarisation of New Zealand in recent years.
Christopher Luxon is already walking a fine line. As Prime Minister he has acknowledged Act’s bill is unhelpful and divisive. But those divisions already exist and arguably helped pave the way for the election, not just of National MPs, but also those from Act and New Zealand First.
As National’s leader, he has acknowledged he gave a commitment for his party to support Act leader David Seymour’s bill through to its first reading. That was part of the price for him to form a Government.
He couldn’t have been clearer when he faced his first post-Cabinet press conference on Tuesday. He would not unequivocally rule out supporting Act’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond the first reading, but says National’s position on it has been very clear.
“We’ve said that there is no intention or commitment to support beyond the first reading. I don’t know how we can be any clearer than that.”
The Prime Minister had to repeatedly make that point.
The upshot is that National’s opponents have said if Luxon will not make a firm commitment to support the bill beyond its first reading he should simply ensure it is withdrawn. That’s not how politics is played. Luxon made the point that he
Some may dislike the hard edge of some of Act and NZ First’s policies on this score. But there is at least no suggestion of a hidden agenda.
welcomes the “respectful” aeration of differing views on this and other contentious issues. He wants differences aired rather than buried and left to fester.
There is a lesson here. He does not want to find himself in a similar position to former prime minister Chris Hipkins who had to launch a policy bonfire.
At Ra¯tana, Luxon gave an assurance that the Government has no plan, and never has had plans, to amend or revise the Treaty of Waitangi, or Treaty settlements. The Government will honour the Treaty, without co-governance of public services, and will deliver for all New Zealanders. National believes in devolution and there is “lots of commonality of values”.
His job was to make sure that when he left his role New Zealand was more unified, and that strong differences of opinion did not mean less unity.
Finally, a Prime Minister who supports strong debate.