It was probably just coincidence but within two hours of me posting my previous Substack asking how many submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill were opposed and how many were in favour, the chair of the Justice Select Committee James Meager very kindly produced the numbers.
In case you missed them, he reports that of the more than 300,000 written submissions 90 percent were opposed to the Bill, 8 percent were supportive of it and 2 percent were unstated.
Of the oral submissions 85 percent were opposed, 10 percent supportive and 5 percent unstated.
To say these numbers are eyebrow raising is an understatement. In an earlier response to esteemed writer Graham Adams reporting these numbers as a comment to my first Substack on the matter, I hinted that a well organised campaign against the bill through online submission tools had most likely carried the day.
That’s because all recent polling on the matter has produced results considerably different to the percentages reported by the Select Committee.
The December 10 poll from 1 News/Verian in December found opposition to the Bill ahead of the support by 36 to 23, but 39 percent didn’t know.
Only two months prior, in October last year, a Curia poll showed 46 percent in support, 25 percent opposed and 29 percent unsure.
According to Wellington newspaper The Post, another Act party commissioned poll by Curia, reported on December 15, said 39 percent supported the Bill, 36 percent opposed and 25 percent were unsure.
On the same day The Post released its own poll by the Freshwater company which showed 40 percent opposed, 30 percent in support, 17 percent neutral and 13 percent unsure.
But get this: The Post poll asked whether Treaty principles should be defined by a referendum, Parliament or the courts.
The winner was … (drum roll) … a referendum!
These are scientifically conducted polls and show results significantly different from the submissions count.
But the Justice Select Committee can only report on what it received. James Meager says every submission has been read and analysed by the Ministry of Justice, and all submissions that met the criteria have been published on the Parliament website.
What Meager has also revealed are some outrageous attempts by Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori to block or hinder the Select Committee process.
On November 18 Duncan Webb of Labour wanted to report the Bill back without any submissions or reports.
Three days later Webb voted not to hear any oral submissions and have only written submissions.
On January 24th, the Greens, Labour and TPM voted to block the Minister in charge of the Bill (David Seymour) from making a submission.
Then on January 27th Labour voted with the Greens to stop a so-called Departmental Report being produced meaning no one in the Ministry of Justice would read or analyse the written submissions, and no one would know how many were for or against.
What Meager has reported shows the utter contempt parties of the left have for the process of democracy. They have won this battle because the Bill will be voted down at the second reading thanks to the cowardice of Christopher Luxon and the National Party.
However to try and block David Seymour from even submitting on the Bill is beyond belief. On second thoughts, after the utter disrespect TPM have shown to Parliament in the last few days, it’s probably just what we can expect now.
But this issue will not go away. Even readers of the left leaning Post newspaper believe that Treaty principles should be decided by referendum.
Seymour is unrepentant and determined. He reminded us all of the End of Life Choice Act which had 90 percent of submitters opposed at the Select Committee stage. But after Parliament voted it into law pending a referendum in favour, it passed with a whopping 65 percent to 34 percent majority.
The end of this Bill is by no means the end of the debate on Treaty Principles. New Zealand First says it wants to eliminate references to Treaty Principles from all legislation where it is not relevant. Progress on that is slow.
One look at section 9 of the Education and Training Act 2020 or Subpart 3 of the Public Service Act 2020 will make you realise what a massive task New Zealand First will have advancing that policy.
But it’s very significant that new resource planning legislation to replace the RMA has no reference to Treaty Principles. It’s a stance certain to be challenged by Maori interests as the legislative process continues.
For now any opportunity for Treaty Principles to be defined by the highest court in the land is dead and buried.
But we’re not far from Easter. That’s a time we’re reminded good ideas and good people rise again.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
To say these numbers are eyebrow raising is an understatement. In an earlier response to esteemed writer Graham Adams reporting these numbers as a comment to my first Substack on the matter, I hinted that a well organised campaign against the bill through online submission tools had most likely carried the day.
That’s because all recent polling on the matter has produced results considerably different to the percentages reported by the Select Committee.
The December 10 poll from 1 News/Verian in December found opposition to the Bill ahead of the support by 36 to 23, but 39 percent didn’t know.
Only two months prior, in October last year, a Curia poll showed 46 percent in support, 25 percent opposed and 29 percent unsure.
According to Wellington newspaper The Post, another Act party commissioned poll by Curia, reported on December 15, said 39 percent supported the Bill, 36 percent opposed and 25 percent were unsure.
On the same day The Post released its own poll by the Freshwater company which showed 40 percent opposed, 30 percent in support, 17 percent neutral and 13 percent unsure.
But get this: The Post poll asked whether Treaty principles should be defined by a referendum, Parliament or the courts.
The winner was … (drum roll) … a referendum!
These are scientifically conducted polls and show results significantly different from the submissions count.
But the Justice Select Committee can only report on what it received. James Meager says every submission has been read and analysed by the Ministry of Justice, and all submissions that met the criteria have been published on the Parliament website.
What Meager has also revealed are some outrageous attempts by Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori to block or hinder the Select Committee process.
On November 18 Duncan Webb of Labour wanted to report the Bill back without any submissions or reports.
Three days later Webb voted not to hear any oral submissions and have only written submissions.
On January 24th, the Greens, Labour and TPM voted to block the Minister in charge of the Bill (David Seymour) from making a submission.
Then on January 27th Labour voted with the Greens to stop a so-called Departmental Report being produced meaning no one in the Ministry of Justice would read or analyse the written submissions, and no one would know how many were for or against.
What Meager has reported shows the utter contempt parties of the left have for the process of democracy. They have won this battle because the Bill will be voted down at the second reading thanks to the cowardice of Christopher Luxon and the National Party.
However to try and block David Seymour from even submitting on the Bill is beyond belief. On second thoughts, after the utter disrespect TPM have shown to Parliament in the last few days, it’s probably just what we can expect now.
But this issue will not go away. Even readers of the left leaning Post newspaper believe that Treaty principles should be decided by referendum.
Seymour is unrepentant and determined. He reminded us all of the End of Life Choice Act which had 90 percent of submitters opposed at the Select Committee stage. But after Parliament voted it into law pending a referendum in favour, it passed with a whopping 65 percent to 34 percent majority.
The end of this Bill is by no means the end of the debate on Treaty Principles. New Zealand First says it wants to eliminate references to Treaty Principles from all legislation where it is not relevant. Progress on that is slow.
One look at section 9 of the Education and Training Act 2020 or Subpart 3 of the Public Service Act 2020 will make you realise what a massive task New Zealand First will have advancing that policy.
But it’s very significant that new resource planning legislation to replace the RMA has no reference to Treaty Principles. It’s a stance certain to be challenged by Maori interests as the legislative process continues.
For now any opportunity for Treaty Principles to be defined by the highest court in the land is dead and buried.
But we’re not far from Easter. That’s a time we’re reminded good ideas and good people rise again.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
Luxon said - on TV - " We will spike the Bill". Mission accomplished.
He has also spiked his career as a PM of integrity who respects the equality of all citizens.
citizen initiated referendum
Iwi put in place a campaign to write opposing submissions. Even the Catholic Church set up an online portal to assist parishioners to write opposing submissions. The media were fully against it. It was a David and Goliath situation but in this case Goliath got what he wanted.
Well said Peter
However, l think your comment about the Treaty Principles Bill being “dead and buried for now” is premature in the context of a need for change.
I have been saying for some time that it will play a big part in the outcome of the next General Election and possibly even this year’s Local Body Elections as well - let’s hope so.
Either way, it is the one thing that will determine Luxon’s future as PM.
I have no grief with anything that Peter Williams writes, and from the posted comments pinned -there are very few that disagree.
In many cases I am intrigues by the " comment[s]" on voting, be it -
- Local Body Elections
- Referendums
- General Elections >
- when it has been ' observed ', that there is a growing sense - by many across our Nation - " why vote, when they promise this, that and the other thing and if they gain power, do the opposite".
The other aspects of Peter's opine-
1./ is that a Religious Group - " has crossed the meridian " and has become ' vocal in matters political ' [not uncommon for this Church - they have already shown their true colours with their signature of a Petition, which was signed also by 400 other Church leaders] - when Religion should not meddle in Politics, to do so will have Politics come and bite you - think Henry VIII.
2./ - I would challenge the ' so called counting of submissions ', so how many ended up in a rubbish bin, as being not worthy of reading or for further consideration?
Where in any legislation are "references to the Treaty' Principles" relevant?? Only references to the Treaty itself could possibly be relevant. Therefore Winstons bill to remove ALL REFERENCES to TREATY PRINCIPLES should be straight forward. But I wish he would stop playing his one-upmanship political games and get o with his bill ASAP.
Why hasn’t Winston backed Seymour’s bill and suggested the outcome could well be used to eliminate any mention of Treaty Principles?
Post a Comment