Treaty Principles Bill: Seymour’s first step in normalising idea

On Thursday, the Treaty Principles Bill was introduced to a Parliament already committed to nipping it in the bud. 
Despite being just four pages long, the bill — championed by Act leader and Associate Minister for Justice David Seymour — has been met with vehement opposition from parties across the aisle, and has failed to find any support beyond a conciliatory nod from Act’s coalition partners.
Despite all signals pointing to it being dead in the water, Seymour took solace in the fact that social upheavals through legislation take time, and saw the milestone of having such a bill read in Parliament as a sign of what may come to pass. His coalition partners disagreed.
“The worst, most comprehensive breach of Te Tiriti in modern times”: this was the description leading headlines in coverage of Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. 
The Waitangi Tribunal’s report, which included that line, said the bill was a solution to a problem that didn’t exist, and that its passing “could mean the end of the Treaty”. 
The report was published on Wednesday, after the introduction of the bill was abruptly moved forward by a fortnight: a change Seymour insisted was not out of the ordinary in Parliament, but which forced a scramble from the Waitangi Tribunal nonetheless. 
The Tribunal is not able to publish reports on legislation once it has been introduced, so a sudden shift forward in the introduction necessitated a sudden publication of the Tribunal’s feedback. 
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said the shift also decoupled the bill’s introduction with the arrival of a nine-day hīkoi in protest at the bill, which remains due to arrive at Parliament on November 18: the original date of introduction. He also called on the “legal brains” of New Zealand to look into whether Seymour’s introduction of the bill was treasonous or not, as “he hasn’t consulted with the monarch themselves”.
The bill itself hinged on three principles:
Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly said his party and New Zealand First would not support the bill past its first reading. His go-to line when faced with questions has been that introducing the bill was part of a coalition agreement with Act, and no more – he has shown no interest in supporting it further.
But for Seymour, that was still a win. He told reporters on Wednesday that it often takes multiple attempts for significant upheavals to progress through Parliament, and cited the end of life choice movement as a prime example of something that was initially unpopular, but grew more palatable over time.
“Once you introduced the idea that it was okay to debate a topic, then it was inevitable that more sensible positions would come out,” said Seymour. He said he believed New Zealand’s stance on the Treaty as a whole “is not sensible”.
To Seymour, putting a controversial idea on a legitimate platform was a crucial first step towards an eventual success – even if the first attempt was clearly doomed to fail. He said “once we allow people to debate freely, New Zealanders usually get to a better place, and that is the legacy of [the bill], whether it passes this time or not”.  
Resources Minister Shane Jones did not see a place for the bill — or the ethos behind it — in the Parliamentary zeitgeist. “It will not take root in the parliamentary landscape,” he said.
Luxon’s National Party needed Seymour’s Act to consolidate power, and agreeing to bring forward the Treaty Principals Bill was a means to an end. For Luxon, the bill was a conciliation, with a clear expiry date after its first reading. 
But for Seymour, this is just the beginning