Duncan Webb, Labour's Justice spokesperson, speaking during the first reading for the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Labour's Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb says thousands of submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill are set to be excluded from the Parliamentary record.
He said it was not a matter of submissions arriving after deadline, but that the committee staff do not have enough time to process the unprecedented number of written submissions - including more than 200,000 online and 12,000 hand-written.
"The committee's working but they've made it very clear that there's no way that they can process all of the submissions by the time the committee is due to report back, and if they're not processed ... they kind of fall off the end and don't become part of the record," he told RNZ.
"This is an unprecedented number of submissions, but it's also unprecedented that submissions that people have made don't form part of the parliamentary record."
Many made submissions to Parliament earlier this year on the Treaty Principles Bill. Photo: Supplied / Parliament
He said the hard-copy submissions not being considered would be particularly "heart-rending".
"There's pictures drawn by kids and there's handwritten letters written by people from all around the country of all ages who have put their heart and souls into those submissions," he said.
"They should absolutely form part of the record so that we can look back and say 'when we resolved on this Bill what we were going to do, here's what people had to say' - and every single person who had something to say deserves to have that recorded forever."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Friday told reporters it was up to the opposition whether they wanted to stall the progression of the bill or not.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has said National will vote down the bill. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
"We want the bill to come back to the House to be able to vote it down, ultimately Labour and the Greens have got to determine whether they're going to just carry on with it through a select committee process or whether they want to just end the Bill," he said.
"I think the select committee's done the very best it can to make sure it hears the sentiments expressed on all sides of that debate, but you know - now is the time to move on... It's up to the committee and it's frankly up to Labour and the Greens as to whether they want to extend the process and play politics or whether they actually want to end the bill. And we're ready to vote the bill down."
Webb said he did not believe giving every New Zealander who wanted a say on the matter that opportunity was slowing up the process.
"I call it good parliamentary procedure, and I can understand that the Prime Minister is embarrassed by what's going on, because he's been made to look like a fool," he said.
"If he wanted to go out and allow the ACT Party to go out with this Bill and ask the public what they thought, he's got to pay the consequences and listen. And truncating the process so that you can't have a proper Parliamentary record is appalling process."
Webb raised the matter in Parliament on Thursday, asking Justice Committee chairperson James Meager if the bill would be reported back to Parliament "before all submissions have been processed and considered by members".
Justice Committee chairperson James Meager. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi
Meager responded those decisions were made by the committee, not the chairperson.
Webb further asked why Meager did not himself "propose seeking an extension of time to report back to the House or support my motion to do so in light of the fact that members will not be able to consider all of the submissions made by the public".
However, the Deputy Speaker Barbara Kuriger intervened, noting Meager had already stated it was not his responsibility but that of the committee.
In a response to RNZ's requests for comment, Meager said everything remained confidential to the Committee until the Bill was reported back, and making any comments could be a breach of privilege.
"Changing the date for reporting back is ultimately a decision for the Business Committee or the House to make, not the Justice Committee," he said.
He did not offer further comment.
Webb was adamant, however, that it was not a breach of privilege, and said the usual process was for a committee to request an extension which would then go to the Business Committee to approve.
"Normal procedure is if a select committee asks for more time, they'll usually get it unless there's some something odd going on," he said.
"I don't consider it to be a breach of privilege because the committee itself has talked about how many submissions there are. We put out press releases, so talking about how many submissions there are and the challenges that are ahead of us is entirely appropriate.
"To talk about a motion that has been considered and disposed of - that's no longer before the committee - it's not live business.
"James Meager voted against asking the Business Committee for an extension of time. He did not want an extension of time. So it's disingenuous of him to suggest 'it's not my problem' because he voted against getting an extension of time."
Correction: This story was corrected on Saturday 29 March to reflect James Meager said "making any comments could be a breach of privilege", not "would be".
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
