The Ministry for Regulation says not enough work has been done to assess the possible impacts of the Treaty Principles Bill for it to be passed into law.
Act Party leader David Seymour is the Minister responsible for both the Regulation Ministry and the Treaty Principles Bill, which is part of his Associate Justice portfolio.
A regulatory impact statement (RIS) prepared by the Ministry of Justice failed a quality assurance test undertaken by a panel with members from both the Justice and Regulation ministries.
It said that ministerial direction—from Seymour—and time constraints had limited the range of policy options that could be considered and the depth of the analysis done.
In-depth analysis should involve testing the assumptions underpinning the problem definition, investigating unintended consequences, and undertaking consultation.
“The panel considers that full consultation on a broader range of options is required for the analysis to be considered complete,” an assessment of the RIS said.
While some “proxies” had been consulted, that was not sufficient given the “constitutional significance of this proposal” and its impact on the Crown–Māori relationship.
The impact assessment that was possible within the limited scope had been done well, they said. Justice officials' advice was that neither the status quo or the proposed bill would fully achieve the stated objectives.
“The panel’s view is that should this Bill proceed to enactment, more consideration would need to be given to implementation issues and addressing the risks identified in the RIS.”
Duncan Webb, the regulation spokesperson for the Labour Party, said Seymour was failing to live up his own standards of good regulation.
“[He] has failed to act on the advice [of] his own Regulatory Impact Statement on the Treaty Principles Bill [saying it] does not meet the very quality assurance criteria he has oversight of.”
“The Ministry for Regulation is a joke if its own minister won’t stick to its rules,” he said in a press release.
In a statement, Seymour said the Coalition was committed to strengthening regulatory analysis but only where it was relevant.
“That means where the Government is placing restrictions on the use and exchange of private property the relevant people should be asked. Over this term of Government you’ll see RIA revamped and refocused on what matters,” he said.
“I’m glad Labour are paying attention to Regulatory Impact Analysis, although it would have been even better if they’d done it when they were in Government.”
Principles of Politicking
The Treaty Principles Bill has been proving a headache for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon who has been forced to constantly reiterate that he does not support the proposal.
However, he has committed to voting in favour of the Bill when it is first introduced to Parliament in November. This will allow it to go to a six month select committee process, where the public will be able to share their views.
Luxon has sworn the National Party will vote down the Bill at its second reading, likely in May 2025, around the same time as Seymour gets a turn to serve as Deputy Prime Minister.
The trouble may not end there, however, as supporters of the Bill could push for a citizen-initiated referendum which would keep the debate alive for the 2026 election.
A petition signed by 10% of enrolled voters can trigger a referendum. The Act Party alone secured 8.5% of votes in the 2023 election, plus there are likely New Zealanders who voted for other parties but who support the proposal.
In 2023, a Curia–Taxpayers’ Union poll found 45% of respondents wanted a referendum on the Treaty Principles Bill and only 25% opposed the idea.
Support for the referendum may be partly due to its uncontroversial sounding principles, which simply say the Government has the right to govern and must treat everyone equally.
However, critics of the Bill warn it would effectively nullify the Treaty of Waitangi and erase the rights negotiated by Māori in exchange for allowing British settlers and law into New Zealand.
62 Comments
"You can't make this stuff up."
Yes you can.
"Did you know that in 2006 the entire Labour Party caucus voted at first reading for a bill that would delete all references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. They did this as part of a coalition agreement. Sound familiar?"
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/history_repeats_but_hysteria_increas…
So, your argument is based on something that happened 18 years ago—why does that matter now? Labour may have been wrong back then, but ACT is wrong now. What's your point?
A right-wing blog bringing this up just to deflect from the current issue doesn't change the fact that this is a ridiculous situation. A government minister creates his own pet ministry, which then opposes a bill he's trying to push, a bill that no other political party supports. It's a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money
A government minister creates his own pet ministry, which then opposes a bill he's trying to push
This is real democracy. Where people stand up for what they believe in, even if their superiors are trying to push it. If only we had mote of this in the previous government we wouldn't have had so much frivolous spending. No Mr/Mrs consultant, we won't hire you from AKL, fly you to WLG and back every week on he government dollar, give you accommodation paid, food allowance weekly and a lovely $250-360/hr pay rat on top to sweeten the deal, this is government money and that is completely irresponsible to be doing with taxpayers money. Oh wait this did happen, in many departments, add in executive lunches catered multiple times a week with copious leftovers, and many projects finishing with nothing implemented form them or actions taken as a result. My wife would tell me this from the inside, and it was at a scale most wouldn't believe.
Whatever your views might be, this treaty stuff needs to be sorted. So it's about time the media started being a bit more positive about dealing this matter - and Luxon also needs to pull his head out of the hole and accept it is a major concern to most of us - and deal with it.
I am growing a little retired of some fellow citizens who believe they rank above me - and these fellow citizens somehow forget all cultures, theirs included, all began well before they arrived in NZ.
Yes. That's correct. The British were in control. One of the reasons that the treaty was signed was that the tribes were warring with each other, and slaughtering each other all the time, just has they had before the arrival of the British. So the treaty provided protection. The story that the tribes were all peaceful and lived in harmony prior to the arrival of the British, French, Dutch etc is a complete load of rubbish. They fought over land, took slaves from the losing tribes etc. The Maori were up against the strongest military force in the world. They had no chance, which is why this theory of partnership is also nonsense. Not only is it not written anywhere, the British had never made a treaty of partnership with anyone they had conquered previously, and had no reason to do so with the Maori.
Oh, so they really did live in harmony. All their stories about the great wars they had against each other (between the tribes) are false. The ruins of all of the Pa with massive amounts of fortifications are made up, and created to tell a story, and they certainly were not used in war. The British did not have guns and cannons, it was actually the Maori that had the advanced weapons and over powered the British and gave them an ultimatum of sign the partnership agreement or die. You are completely correct, that is exactly how it happened. You really need to get out more.
Careful what you wish for averge
What would happen if there was no Treaty of Waitangi?
One easy answer is that we wouldn't be commemorating its signing 175 years ago and billing it as our national day. Another easy answer is that with no treaty there would be no argument about whether, in signing the treaty, iwi ceded sovereignty, as the English version says. In the te reo version they didn't.
There never was a partnership, please read this page.
https://nopunchespulled.com/2023/05/01/bruce-moon/
I think the sooner we all treat each other as equal is the better for this country.
Time to end the special rights of one race, they are not special, we are all New Zealanders.
Ah another argument based on the definition of a word in a language the person arguing from doesn’t understand. The Maori treaty was not establishing general rules for land owners in NZ (much to the chagrin of the libertarians today), it was establishing specific rules for the Maori people by calling them the people of the land as that’s what they called them at that time. I have no doubt that the spineless hypocrites in said movement will gleefully ignore this fact and try to push their redefinition away from indigenous rights to property rights.
Because He Whakaputanga which was recognised by King William IV in 1835 confirmed that Nu Tirani was an independent sovereign state under the United Tribes (notwithstanding only 34 iwi signed He Whakaputanga).
Because the independence and sovereignty of Nu Tirani had been recognised by the british Crown, the british were therefore unable to claim NZ was terra nullius in the same way they did with Australia despite the 50,000+ years of continuous occupation of Australia by first nations people there.
so because He Whakaputanga existed, was recognised as confirming Nu Tirani as an independent country with its own systems and peoples, Te Tiriti was the only step possible by the crown to essentially enter a partnership to allow british settlers to come to NZ.
those settlers were to be subject to british laws, whilst maori were able to continue their own customs.
over the years, bad faith actors bastardised te tiriti, and completely ignored its precursor of he whakaputanga.
in actual fact, he whakaputanga resulted in NZ having no fewer than 7 separate treaties between the crown and the relevant iwi - namely those who did not sign ti tiriti - for example the Fenton treaty, the King Country treaty, the Tuhoe treaty.
Its only for the sake of avoiding small minded white people having a blindness to those facts that Ti Tiriti is held up as “the one” treaty when it isn’t.
Nonsense. Out of all the stuff that has been made up over the last decade, or anything I have ready previously, I’d have never heard this story. You have great imagination. I give you that. What you are referring to is something signed as a precursor to the treaty, and that would make it void. So its existence means nothing. As for all these other treaties…..well if that’s true, all that does is make a strong case for the treaty principles.
Try reading actual history instead of the crap from Hobson's Choice and other race baiting groups. Hell, the English lost the war in the north.
Oh an read some european history if you want to know about "They fought over land, took slaves from the losing tribes etc.
You're so wrong Andrew, history, pfffft.
It's happening right now in Europe. A number of times in my lifetime. Even the good old one often cited, saving Maori from cannibalism, Europeans were into that less than 100 years ago.
As to the crown bringing a bit of law, that was needed to control the lawless Europeans, especially in kororareka. Bit of control over some of the missionaries too.
Not race. Culture/ethnicity.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
Democracy seems a better goal.
Sounds like a worthwhile goal. Do we have a vision for achieving it?
Re the treaty, race and culture - are we able to heal this without acknowledging the history behind it - namely the Doctrine of Discovery, and all other 'races' were to be treated as non-human. That is the history of our culture.
What a load of nonsense the treaty has been re-interpreted may times since them based on the culture of the time. No one alive could possibly know real the intent of the 3 paragraphs of the treaty.
Even in your fantasy world where the treaty was sorted, it is crazy to have founding document not be changeable over time as peoples ethics change, we thought slavery was ok, we had more than just a figurehead monarch. No agreement should be binding forever and should be reviewed. Men who didn't own property didn't even have the vote in 1840, let alone women, are you seriously suggesting that these people are beyond review?
Or you could just be being sarcastic, based on the quotation marks, its hard to tell in written form.
Not that disimilar to Simeon's approach. One rule for everyone else, one rule for me. This coalition is the biggest threat to democracy in living memory.
Documents showed Brown directed his officials to engage with only three groups about the timeline and scope for the review: the Motor Industry Association, the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association and the Motor Trade Association.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/528014/transport-minister-pushed-a…
I say look forward to the referendum. It's coming. If National don't do something sensible, like put it up for referendum rather than support the bill now, then there is going to be a citizens initiated one. Signatures are already being collected for this purpose. So, one way or another there will be a referendum and it will pass. Whether it becomes law after it wins in a referendum is another story. The referendum will pass with between 60-70 support.
I got the email and registered my support, several months ago.....and why would I be out of my depth ? When an organization (that I belong to obviously), sends out an email and tell me that they are organizing in the background to initiate a referendum and are collecting signatures (so that obviously they can strike straight away and have all the contacts ready so we can sign), why would I but out of my depth in trying to understand that. Isn't it obvious ?
Do you think that this issue will reach 10%
Apparently theres been 48 citizen initiated referendums total and 5 have been put to a vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_New_Zealand#:~:text=7%20Ex….
I suspect that a few people will be reluctant to put their name to it publicly given how fizzed up about the issue some are. I'm probably in that camp, I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to publicly make a stance under my government name.
I agree. But some people that consume only within their own echo chambers tend to think that whole of society is with them.
Also i wonder what they think the question should be, if related to Seymours bill. It would have to be quite technical to give him any sense of mandate for this partcualar action. But that would risk being ignored or not understood by most people.
A referendum is opposed by 25%. You really think they won't get 10% putting their hand up out of the remaining 75% that either want a referendum or have no opinion. You are dreaming I think. This will definately end with a referendum. This really is a debate worth having, and it needs to be decided. The gravy train passengers know what the decision is going to be, because it is staring them in the face, hence the anger.
"" investigating unintended consequences "" - when was that ever a part of NZ politics?
Immigration aimed at those with high levels of skill but NZ gets the unskilled but desperate. Or a socialist govt that correctly decides providing a home to live in is a priority but ends up with ever longer lists of those waiting for social housing and families with children living in motels for extended periods. An accommodation allowance that rewards the unemployed staying in the cities where there are too few housesrather than returning to rural areas with empty houses. Super, Accommodation and other benefits that reward divorce over marriage.
Politicians are in it for the 'being-kind' sound bite but not actually doing something to change NZ into a better place to live in for non-elite Kiwis.
Just goes to show you what a total joke Seymour is. He has no convictions. If this doesnt event pass the sniff test of his own pet Ministry - he should agree it is not worth it.
This will be the most divisive thing in decades - and if it succeeds it will open up decades of settled law and legal cases again.
The government need to realise, this isn't even in most peoples top 10, maybe even top 20 issues right now. For a bill that will go nowhere, it seems like a massive waste of political capital.
If people do not like the treaty, a bill that tinkers around the edge will not do something other than upset everyone. For those commenting here that think it will be the instant solution or easy fix - it wont. Easy answers to complex challenges never are.
This will be the most divisive thing in decades
Why must everyone resort to thinking the next thing will be the most divisive. Until I see again see thousands upon thousands of people united in protesting at parliament and camping out again, I won't be thinking differently. Actions speak louder than words, so prior to the mandate protests, I would refer back to the springbok tour.
It must be solved. Whatever your belief is as to what the details were when the ToW was actually signed, you can not possibly believe that the way forward is two different sets of rights, laws and property etc. depending solely on if one has Maori ancestry or Non-Maori ancestry. That is completely unsustainable and highly incendiary and will ultimately lead to a disaster.
Then simply put - have the debate about creating a constitution for New Zealand. But it will be a long debate but give us the chance to set the path forward as a modern forward looking 21st century democracy.
Having the debate via a back room coalition deal stitch up that will go nowhere is not the right place for it.
That is exactly how it is. Seymour made it a requirement for ACT to support the government. Luxon has no choice but to agree or there would be no Coalition.
But all other parties have said they will support it no further. So it is dead in the water.
So if you want to have the debate, do it properly, through a means that will actually generate a long lasting agreement, such as with a constitution. This flash in the pan idea is actually distracting the coalition from dealing with the issues that people are actually caring about which is the economy and law in order, both of which are going further backwards at the moment. It is a waste of time and money.
Have the debate, but do it properly. Trying to get it done through the back door, is not the way forward - especially when Seymour's own ministry think it is a waste of time.
The other parties will support it no further.....until it is clear what public opinion is, and that will happen over the next six months as the public have their say. When the level of support is established, the other parties will either change their mind, or put the issue to a binding referendum. They are just keeping their powder dry at the moment.
This is absolutely right and if you listened that exactly what Seymore wants, at no point does the deal state anyone had to vote for anything, he wanted a referendum but he could not accomplish this. All the deal did say we should discuss. Yes we should have a constitution that says everybody is equal under the law but the current interpretation of the treaty stops that.
Also the is so much hate, the Waitangi Tribunal put down bill before it was even released, that's not open minded at all, they aren't even willing to discuss it. Even this story what exactly is the problem, did it state even one actual thing wrong with the bill, or that it didn't go through enough bureaucracy to be passed? Really both NZ First and National have stated they are not going to pass it, so what we really need is a few more million spent on lawyers going over every bit of legislation to make sure it doesn't have a conflict. /sarcasm Even if they did there would be plenty of people thinking up other reasons why it should not even be discussed.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.