PM still hasn’t seen draft Treaty Principles Bill

Comment: The Prime Minister has a long-held position on the Treaty Principles Bill: he doesn’t like it, he won’t support it beyond the select committee stage, but this is “MMP in action”.
As David Seymour’s controversial bill continues to steal the oxygen, Christopher Luxon is making no secret of the fact the Treaty Principles Bill has been a sticking point.
But at his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday, Luxon was more free in his criticism of the bill, and even of Seymour himself. He’s all but labelled the bill his dead rat, the one that has to be swallowed.
The day after the Kiingitanga announced Kiingi Tūheitia’s passing, Luxon travelled to Tūrangawaewae to pay tribute to the Māori king, saying his commitment to kotahitanga (unity) would have a lasting impact on Aotearoa.
“Kiingi Tūheitia, your words and exhortation for us all to embrace kotahitanga will be remembered,” the Prime Minister said at the time.
Luxon referred to Tūheitia’s comments at this year’s koroneihana (coronation), where he said everyone needed to focus on getting in the waka and working together.
“We heard you. Kotahitanga; unity – this is the pathway forward.”
Just over a week later – the same day 440 Christian leaders wrote to all MPs calling on them to abandon the proposed legislation – the Cabinet considered the Treaty Principles Bill.
On Monday afternoon, during a press conference after that Cabinet meeting, Luxon began by swatting away media questions about the bill and the process leading up to first reading, falling back on Cabinet confidentiality rules.
He refused to say what was discussed, who was drafting the bill, when he expected Seymour to bring his proposed bill back to Cabinet, and the tenor of the conversation between coalition parties.
He reiterated the Government’s plan for Seymour to introduce a bill to the House in November. Beyond that, he deferred to the Act leader.
“David Seymour will have more to say about it shortly.”
Luxon was asked whether the bill had faced any unnecessary delays. 
Though Seymour has repeatedly called for a national conversation on his flagship bill, it is in National’s best interests to draw a line under the whole saga as soon as possible.
“Well, we are where we are, and we’re working through it,” Luxon said.
When pushed, he admitted he had not yet seen a draft bill – less than two months out from it being introduced to the House.
Then, as the press conference wore on, Luxon became increasingly frank about his feelings.
Following a Waitangi Tribunal report last month, which called for the bill to be abandoned and described it as being based on poor policy rationales and a “novel” interpretation of the Treaty, Luxon said neither National nor Act were happy with the coalition compromise.
On Monday, he gave further insight into his opposition to the bill.
He said the bill proposal was responsible for the lengthy coalition talks after last year’s election; it was a sticking point. 
Though this is generally accepted wisdom, Luxon made a point of offering the information during the press conference.
“That was a big part of why it took a while for us to get there,” he said.
“The reason, very simply, as I said before, is that, you know, we had a different position in the National Party; we had a different position in the Act Party. 
“We’re in an MMP environment; that’s the system that New Zealand has voted for, and we have to operate within that,” Luxon said.
“We made a compromise that I’m sure the National Party is not happy with and the Act Party’s not happy with, but we’ve got a coalition agreement, and we honour our coalition commitments and our agreements.”
Luxon said compromise was reached “quite sensibly, quite calmly”, but did not speak about the tenor of current conversations. He did not answer a journalist who asked whether he regretted making this coalition commitment.
When asked – as someone who’s spoken publicly about his Christian faith – whether he agreed with Seymour’s scathing rebuttal to church leaders who called for MPs to vote down his bill, Luxon was quick to respond.
“They’re entitled to their opinion, and if they’ve a view, they’re entitled to actually say what they think.”
Just a couple of weeks earlier, in response to comments made by Luxon and Shane Jones at koroneihana, Seymour called it “anti-democratic” to take a position on something before seeing the bill.
Though Luxon’s position on the bill is well-canvassed, his willingness to talk at length on his opposition to it, to push back strongly against Seymour’s recent comments, and to divulge information about the difficulty this policy caused in the formation of the country’s first three-party coalition marks a shift.
It suggests Luxon is no longer able to (or has no desire to) hide his frustration at the trouble this bill – and the elongated process – is causing him.
Later in the press conference, when asked about Seymour’s opposition to the Commerce Commission’s plans to beef up wholesale regulations for supermarkets, Luxon was quick to hit back.
“Well, Andrew Bayly was the Minister of Commerce when I last checked,” he said, pointedly.
Though Bayly is the commerce minister, Seymour holds the relevant portfolio for regulation. 
Luxon went on to say he hadn’t discussed the matter with Act, and that he supported stronger regulation for supermarkets, citing disproportionately high retail prices.
The Prime Minister has faced repeated criticism over his unwillingness to rebuke Winston Peters for making comments that fly in the face of Government positions. And though he has not been keen to push back against his current deputy prime minister, the same can no longer be said about his future deputy prime minister.
Monday marked the Prime Minister’s first post-Cabinet press conference in two weeks because he was out of the country for the majority of the time in between.
He will not have wanted to spend his weekly press conference talking about an Act Party policy that he does not like, and it ate up the majority of the half-hour slot.
As the November deadline inches closer, and the select committee process (and Seymour’s “national conversation”) kicks off, the Prime Minister will no doubt find himself talking a lot more about the Treaty Principles Bill, as long as he lets it live.