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.
Seymour’s office has been approached for comment.
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.
36 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…
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.
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 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 ?
"" 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.
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.