Speaker 1: Kyoda.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. David Seymour's
Speaker 2: Treaty Principal's Bill was introduced to Parliament last week, with
Speaker 2: its first reading debate scheduled for today. The bill has
Speaker 2: sparked fierce criticism since it was included as part of
Speaker 2: National and Acts coalition agreement last year. Protests are expected
Speaker 2: outside Parliament today, while thousands of March's protesting government policies
Speaker 2: affecting Moldy crossed the Auckland Harbor Bridge yesterday as part
Speaker 2: of a hiccoy to Parliament. So, now that we've actually
Speaker 2: seen the bill, what's in it and what exactly are
Speaker 2: the chances of it getting across the line? Today? On
Speaker 2: the Front Page, NEWSTALKZ that Be Political editor Jason Wolls
Speaker 2: joins us to discuss one of the most contentious government
Speaker 2: bills in recent memory. First off, Jason, can you tell
Speaker 2: me about the Treaty Principle's Bill? What actually is it?
Speaker 3: Well, it's an interesting question, and I think that a
Speaker 3: lot of what is the bill has essentially been a
Speaker 3: little bit lost in some of the protests around the
Speaker 3: bill basically it does what it says on the ten
Speaker 3: or that's what it wants to do, which is clarify
Speaker 3: the principles of the Treaty of Waypungi in law. Because
Speaker 3: at the moment the act Party argues, you know, these
Speaker 3: these principles have never been fully defined in law, and
Speaker 3: there is so much of New Zealand law that actually
Speaker 3: does hinge on what happens around the treaty. So having
Speaker 3: something that clarifies and really actually gives a bit of
Speaker 3: a bit more of a firm definition as to what
Speaker 3: these principles are, they, the act Party argues, is something
Speaker 3: that would be beneficial to all New Zealanders.
Speaker 2: Right, So it seems like the phrase, in particular, in
Speaker 2: the best interests of everyone is the stickler here, right, Well.
Speaker 3: I mean everything is the stickler here, right. I think
Speaker 3: that the Act Party, they've been on this bill, and
Speaker 3: we wanted to talk about it for quite some time
Speaker 3: in me even before it was in the Coalition agreement.
Speaker 3: And so they will argue that this is not divisive
Speaker 3: because this is actually certainly that benefits everybody across the country,
Speaker 3: every New Zealander. Now, of course you've got tea Party Marti,
Speaker 3: the Greens, Labor. I mean, look at the way that
Speaker 3: Luckson talks even maybe National at some stage saying that
Speaker 3: it is a divisive bill because it does essentially do
Speaker 3: that create division. But the act Party will, as they
Speaker 3: have been and continue to do so, have pushed back
Speaker 3: on that rather strongly.
Speaker 2: I think one of my major questions Jason is just
Speaker 2: as simple, why why is David Seymour pushing for this
Speaker 2: for so long?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean you can be cynical about this, and
Speaker 3: I will be cynical because it's my job. Is it's
Speaker 3: all about politics, right? I mean you can say yes,
Speaker 3: David Seymour definitely believes in this bill, His members believe
Speaker 3: in this bill, his supporters believe in this bill, and
Speaker 3: they think that it should become law. But David Seymour
Speaker 3: knows that it's not going to become law, at least
Speaker 3: not in this term of parliament. So you can cynically
Speaker 3: look at this and say what it's doing is it's
Speaker 3: almost now a bit of early advertisement for the twenty
Speaker 3: twenty sixth election. He is looking to make a lot
Speaker 3: of noise about this bill as to why it's only
Speaker 3: the act Party are the only ones willing to put
Speaker 3: a piece of legislation like this before the House. In fact,
Speaker 3: he's actually throw a National under the bus a little
Speaker 3: bit with this in his rhetoric. I mean he said
Speaker 3: the other day that the National Party aren't prepared to
Speaker 3: tackle the hard issues. This would be a textbook example
Speaker 3: of a hard issue that he's talking about. So he
Speaker 3: can take this to the next election come twenty twenty
Speaker 3: six and say it was the ACT Party who the
Speaker 3: only ones that were actually keen on having a proper
Speaker 3: debate about this piece of legislation, and that he's hoping
Speaker 3: that there will be a lot of National Party supporters
Speaker 3: that will say we'll hang on a second, right, the
Speaker 3: Nats didn't have the stomach to go after something like this,
Speaker 3: It was only Acted that did. And there'll be more people,
Speaker 3: more voters that that'll flock to the Act Party. Then
Speaker 3: in turn he can come back and use it as
Speaker 3: a coalition backstop or a coalition bottom line again and say, well,
Speaker 3: if whoever I'm in a coalition with has to pass
Speaker 3: this to the third reading and make it into law.
Speaker 3: So there is method to what some people have described
Speaker 3: as David Seymour's madness here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what are the chances of this bill actually gaining
Speaker 2: legs really none?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean it's not going to pass into it's
Speaker 3: not going to pass into law. That's almost for certain
Speaker 3: that this stage. I mean, David Seymour has been quite
Speaker 3: forthright in his defense of the bill, saying that it's
Speaker 3: not actually up to the politicians, it's up to the voters.
Speaker 3: And if voters send the National Party a message saying
Speaker 3: that we actually do support this bill, then the National
Speaker 3: Party will be back lickety split and there'll be the
Speaker 3: one supporting this bill and it'll be progressing into law.
Speaker 3: I can't see that happening. Just how full fullheartedly Chris
Speaker 3: Luxon has nailed his colors to the mask on this
Speaker 3: one and saying that the Nats have absolutely no business
Speaker 3: supporting this at the second reading, and the fact that
Speaker 3: you can listen to how his language has transformed since
Speaker 3: the bill was first actually brought onto the public debate.
Speaker 3: He started off by saying essentially, oh, we'll support it
Speaker 3: in the first reading, but we're not sure about what's
Speaker 3: happening in the second reading, or he was a little
Speaker 3: bit sort of wholehum about what it will support it
Speaker 3: to the Select Committee and then we'll see what happens
Speaker 3: after that. And then more and more pressure that was
Speaker 3: building on him, his language changed to the point where
Speaker 3: he stood up in the House and was talking about
Speaker 3: how the National Party won't support this, we don't like it.
Speaker 3: We didn't get everything that we wanted when it came
Speaker 3: to the coalition agreement. Neither did the act Party. And
Speaker 3: this is just the nature of MMP.
Speaker 1: Our view is that we have not supported this bill
Speaker 1: from the very beginning. We see no need for it.
Speaker 1: It's not some of the National Party will be supporting
Speaker 1: from here. So we're going to vote it down in
Speaker 1: the second reading. And I suspect if the opposition parties
Speaker 1: do the same and it won't be a law.
Speaker 3: So Chris Luxon can't talk a big game like this
Speaker 3: and then decide that he's going to turn around and
Speaker 3: support this in second reading. Again, all bets are off
Speaker 3: when it comes to a new coalition agreement. If the
Speaker 3: act Party can canvas enough support to get a big
Speaker 3: chunk of the NAT's voters, they can use this as
Speaker 3: a coalition bottom line the next time around. But in
Speaker 3: terms of looking at this term of government, in terms
Speaker 3: of looking at the second reading in the House. It's
Speaker 3: not going anywhere and it will be voted down.
Speaker 2: The bill was introduced to Parliament earlier than expected, which
Speaker 2: has added to the contention around this. Why was it
Speaker 2: brought forward?
Speaker 3: Oh, we don't know. I mean, that's the thing. David
Speaker 3: Seymour says, things like this is just parliament. Bills move
Speaker 3: around every once in a while, and he's been very
Speaker 3: clear that the Waikangi Tribunal were the ones that demanded
Speaker 3: a date for this bill to be tabled. But that
Speaker 3: doesn't actually always happen. I mean, things do move around
Speaker 3: in Parliament. I mean we never really cover when things
Speaker 3: are being tabled in the House because it's just something
Speaker 3: that we as pressed don't really pay that much attention to.
Speaker 3: We pay attention to the first reading, a little bit,
Speaker 3: the second reading and then definitely the third reading. But
Speaker 3: when a bill is tabled, it's really not all that
Speaker 3: exciting because when you're a government and you table a bill,
Speaker 3: we already know that that bill is essentially as good
Speaker 3: as past because you are the government, you have the
Speaker 3: votes in the House, and if you introduce a bill,
Speaker 3: it means that bill is going to be come out
Speaker 3: the other side of the third reading and it's going
Speaker 3: to have the votes to get through. Hence why it's
Speaker 3: not usually something that we pay attention to. So David
Speaker 3: Seymore might be right. These things might move around and
Speaker 3: we just don't really know enough about them and we
Speaker 3: don't really concentrate enough on that aspect of it. But
Speaker 3: on the other hand, you know, it's a very contentious
Speaker 3: piece of legislation. It's timing of which is very newsworthy.
Speaker 3: I mean, you've only got to look at the timings
Speaker 3: of the hikoya across the country to work that one out,
Speaker 3: and as well as the fact that the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: and his Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters are both going
Speaker 3: to be out of the country when this bill has
Speaker 3: its reading.
Speaker 2: The latest Waitangi Tribunal report on the policy warned whether
Speaker 2: the bill was actually enacted or not, its impacts will
Speaker 2: not fade for a long time. So I guess is
Speaker 2: that Seymour's main goal here to keep that conversation going
Speaker 2: because it's not going to get through and he just
Speaker 2: wants to keep the buzz alive.
Speaker 3: I guess the buzz alive. I mean that makes it's
Speaker 3: a good way of putting it. I mean the buzz
Speaker 3: in this sense could be very much seen as the
Speaker 3: Select committee process once. I mean, if you look at
Speaker 3: the Coalition agreement, it says the National Party will support
Speaker 3: the treaty's principles through its first reading into the Select
Speaker 3: Committee process, meaning that it will be looked at by
Speaker 3: a Select committee. Select Committee, of course, is a cross
Speaker 3: party group of MPs that scrutinize legislation to see how
Speaker 3: they can be improved on, and they take various different
Speaker 3: public soundings on it as well. It's very common for
Speaker 3: bills to be submitted on In fact the Press Gallery
Speaker 3: I'm also the Press Gallery chair as well as zeb's
Speaker 3: political editor. We are currently submitting on the Parliament Bill
Speaker 3: because we think that people should be able to oia
Speaker 3: parliamentary services. So as part of that submission we go
Speaker 3: along to the Select Committee and they ask us questions
Speaker 3: and we respond in kind, and we ask them questions
Speaker 3: and they respond in kind. It's part of the submission
Speaker 3: process and it's a cornerstone of New Zealand's democratic process.
Speaker 3: So some of the concerns from the likes of the
Speaker 3: Waikongi Tribunal have been that this will just be a
Speaker 3: vehicle for people that have racist intents to platform them
Speaker 3: and what they say and use that as a way
Speaker 3: of talking down this bill. David Seymour will say that
Speaker 3: this is an opportunity for people that want the bill
Speaker 3: and have serious reasons behind why they think it should pass,
Speaker 3: to have the ability to speak to MPs and the
Speaker 3: media can come along and listen as well and get
Speaker 3: those arguments across. So this bill, whether David Seymour likes
Speaker 3: it or not, and I do think he probably would
Speaker 3: like it, is going to be on the political agenda
Speaker 3: for quite some time after the first reading when that
Speaker 3: comes up later today.
Speaker 2: So you've already mentioned this, But the hikoy taking place
Speaker 2: at the moment, it's not only about the Treaty Principal's Bill, right,
Speaker 2: So the Hikoy.
Speaker 3: Is at its heart a protest against the Treaty Principal's Bill,
Speaker 3: and that has been evident from the start. However, it
Speaker 3: is also a vehicle for other people to air their
Speaker 3: grievances against the government, specifically, I would say to do
Speaker 3: with Mardi issues. I mean Tipati Marti. One of the
Speaker 3: things that they've done incredibly well since they've been in
Speaker 3: Parliament is they've been able to mobilize and activate their
Speaker 3: base to get out and be very vocal against various
Speaker 3: different government policies that they think are anti Mahdi. For example,
Speaker 3: you know, the changing the names of the various different ministries,
Speaker 3: not changing the names, just having the English name first
Speaker 3: and the today or name second rather than the other
Speaker 3: way around. So there are a bunch of different things
Speaker 3: that people are protesting about. This will be the main
Speaker 3: one and the vehicle in which that they will bring
Speaker 3: this Hikhoi to Parliament. I would say that if you're
Speaker 3: looking at all the or the controversial issues that the
Speaker 3: government has put through or is deciding whether to put through,
Speaker 3: is this the case with the treaty's principal bill, I
Speaker 3: would say this is probably the one that has courted
Speaker 3: the most controversy. So it makes sense that that is
Speaker 3: the main thrust of the Hikoi when it arrives.
Speaker 2: I think you made a really good point there saying
Speaker 2: that Tapatimordi has done an excellent job of mobilizing their supporters,
Speaker 2: because they absolutely have. What about on the other end
Speaker 2: of the spectrum, Is there anybody on the other side
Speaker 2: of the discussion that is quite vocal about this?
Speaker 3: David Seymour is the champion on the other side, and
Speaker 3: he is alone. He's a long wolf in this fight
Speaker 3: in terms of the fact that he doesn't have the
Speaker 3: support of Chris lux and he doesn't have the support
Speaker 3: of Winston Peters, and there's nobody that's really been standing
Speaker 3: up to add their support to this bill. But that's
Speaker 3: okay for David Seymour because that would distract from the
Speaker 3: fact that is the ACT Party who are the ones
Speaker 3: that are pushing this bill through. He wants people to
Speaker 3: see that it's him and the ACT Party that are
Speaker 3: ones that are standing up for their rights in terms
Speaker 3: of the Treaty's Principals Bill. So he'll be happy with
Speaker 3: the fact that it's just him because he gets all
Speaker 3: the attention over this, and he will what he's been
Speaker 3: doing is he's been talking about the opposition to the bill,
Speaker 3: but you'll often you'll you'll see as well that he's
Speaker 3: been almost targeting, well not even almost, he has been
Speaker 3: targeting the media and talking about the fact that it's
Speaker 3: been incredibly biased in its coverage. You can the ACT
Speaker 3: Party in David Seymour's Facebook and social media pages are
Speaker 3: littered with what they see as example of media bias.
Speaker 3: So all he needs to do is just drum up
Speaker 3: enough anti media supports, drum up enough anti anti party Marti,
Speaker 3: anti labor support, so all the focus comes back to him,
Speaker 3: so that his would be supporters would be saying, well,
Speaker 3: this is our guy for the next election.
Speaker 4: So there have been protests, you know across the country.
Speaker 1: There's an ecoy that's coming down to Wellington. Is that
Speaker 1: not a sign that there is division in what the
Speaker 1: skill is doing.
Speaker 4: No, it's a sign that some people oppose it. Actually,
Speaker 4: they were counted seventeen people outside Parliament and I watched
Speaker 4: your news look, which was zoomed on one or two
Speaker 4: people to make it look as though it was bigger
Speaker 4: than it really was.
Speaker 2: You mentioned that this could have a good role on effect,
Speaker 2: taking some of those National supporters who were on the
Speaker 2: fence and moving them over to ACT. But what about
Speaker 2: the opposition parties? Have they benefited from the backlash to
Speaker 2: the bill at all? Do you reckon that they're going
Speaker 2: to scoop up some of those act or even labouring
Speaker 2: Green voters with them not going ahead and not backing
Speaker 2: David Seymour on this.
Speaker 3: They have a different problem on the other side of
Speaker 3: the political aisle, and that is that if the focus
Speaker 3: of the Treaty Principal's bill proponents is well and truly
Speaker 3: David Seymour, the opponents should be the leader of the opposition,
Speaker 3: which is Chris Hopkins. It's not it's te Pati Marti,
Speaker 3: it's Debbie Nadi were Packer, and it's an Alki Waitity.
Speaker 3: And that is because they are so good at the mobilization.
Speaker 3: I mean, they're not in the house very often, they
Speaker 3: neglect that part of the job, but they do get
Speaker 3: out amongst the country all the time, and that's the
Speaker 3: way that they communicate to their base. It's a new
Speaker 3: way of doing things, and I think it's ruffled a
Speaker 3: few of the sort of the Stormwart's sort of parliamentary
Speaker 3: figures around here. But the problem with that is that
Speaker 3: they're the focus here and it means that I think
Speaker 3: that they're more likely to get votes from this than
Speaker 3: the Labor Party will. And you'll remember that at its
Speaker 3: heart here there is they might look quite close allies,
Speaker 3: but there is a conflict between Tea Party Marty and
Speaker 3: the Labor Party. In terms of those seven Marty seats
Speaker 3: at the moment, six of those are to Tea Party
Speaker 3: Madi and their vote outside those seats is just about
Speaker 3: around about three percent. Whereas the Labor Party, yes, they
Speaker 3: didn't have a very good election result, but they lost
Speaker 3: all of those Marty seats bar one that was held
Speaker 3: by Auti Waitity in the twenty twenty election. So there
Speaker 3: is a bit of a battle between them going on
Speaker 3: because without those seven seats, or without any of those seats,
Speaker 3: Tea Party Marty wouldn't be in Parliament and Labor desperately
Speaker 3: wants them back, and at this stage Tea Party Marty
Speaker 3: is probably going to win. They might even get a
Speaker 3: clean suite, and they know that it's because of issues
Speaker 3: like this that they are able to do a lot
Speaker 3: better at than the Labor Party.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Jason, no problem at all. That's
Speaker 2: it for this episode of The Front Page. You can
Speaker 2: read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
Speaker 2: enzied Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Ethan Sills Richard Martin as sound engineer slash producer.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
Speaker 2: or wherever you get your podcasts and tune in tomorrow
Speaker 2: for another look behind the headlines,