Prime Minister doubles down on allowing exclusion of Treaty Principles Bill submissions

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has doubled down on allowing submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill to be excluded, and David Seymour agrees - saying it's important to meet their timing commitments.

That's despite warnings from legal scholars the move sets a precedent that could erode democratic participation.

Labour last week raised concerns thousands of on-time submissions on the bill would not be considered because the select committee was running out of time to process them.

The party's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb had moved for the committee to seek an extension so all the submissions could be considered, but was voted down by government MPs.

Academic warns of 'cynicism' about democracy

Victoria University of Wellington law lecturer Eddie Clark told RNZ it was the first case he knew of where submissions delivered to the committee on time would not be processed.

"Sometimes there's urgency [and] we don't get submissions, but when they're called for all the submissions that have come in have, in fact, been read by the committee before the bill is reported back to the house. And that doesn't look like it's going to take place here."

While the Ministry of Justice would normally provide a summary, the submissions would typically be sent to the ministry once the committee had processed them - so there was a risk the unprocessed submissions would never be considered, even in summary form, he said.

The precedent this set would, he suggested, risk creating additional cynicism about engaging with democracy.

"I encourage people - my students, the public, people I talk to on social media - to submit on bills because the committee will read it ... and your ideas can potentially influence the legislation.

"That has always been true, and if it becomes not true I think it really risks creating a cynicism about engagement with democracy between elections.

"If this was a boring tax bill that they decided to [make] technical changes to tax legislation ... and 15 people submitted, and they said, 'now, we're not going to read them', that would be a real problem as well."

Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said he generally agreed with Dr Clark's view.

Luxon refuses to back down

Luxon last week said the committee had done its best to hear all sides of the debate, and he wanted the bill to come back to Parliament so it could be voted 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."

Returning to Parliament on Tuesday, he stood by that position.

"Look, we've been overwhelmed by the number of submissions. The positions on the Treaty Principles Bill are well known on all sides of that debate and what's important now is to actually wrap it up and actually move it forward," he said.

"Ultimately that's a decision for the select committee to say, have they got a good sense of what the submissions pro and against are about, and what we've seen is a Labour Party that said they want to kill the bill, and now wanting to extend it out. And I think that's political, I think it's rather cynical."

Asked if he thought it could undermine the democratic process, he said "sure, and that's a decision for the select committee under Parliamentary law, it's not for the prime minister to make".

Luxon maintained that stance, even when it was put to him it was his own party's MPs who opposed the extension.

Clark did not think Luxon had a legitimate point.

"I don't think so, no - particularly given in this context, this is not a first-100-days commitment. This is not something that they've promised to pass quickly, in fact it will likely be voted down at the second reading. So there is nothing that'll be lost in extending this time out."

'What's important is the ideas come out' - Seymour

Clark pointed to a media release from the bill's main proponent David Seymour.

"He said every New Zealander can have the chance to be part of this conversation, and I'd just quite like to know what's changed between then and now, because not every New Zealander will have their ideas heard.

"They could be supporters of the bill that are making really good points that could help make Seymour's argument, they could be really important points opposed that would strengthen the case against. We don't know, because the committee hasn't read them."

Seymour, however, argued there was a time pressure.

"Look, we've got a commitment to get it back this month, and I think it's important that we keep our commitments. Obviously we didn't expect so much interest but what that's really told me is that people genuinely are interested in this topic," he said.

Seymour did not respond to questions about where this commitment was set down.

However, it is not a requirement in the coalition agreement - which only demands that the government progress the bill to a select committee as soon as practicable.

Another clause in the agreement requires the coalition's decisions to uphold "the principles of liberal democracy, including equal citizenship, Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and property rights, especially with respect to interpreting the Treaty of Waitangi".

"The real way to give people their say is to have a referendum," Seymour said.

"The point of a select committee is actually to ensure that we get new ideas and ultimately if you have a thousand people submit, usually you don't get too many new ideas in the second thousand - and by the time you get to the third thousand a lot of it tends to be reinforcing points people have already made."

He said it was not "ideal" for some of the legitimate submissions to be excluded from the public record, "but let's be honest, you've had over 300,000 submissions is my understanding ... what's important is that the ideas come out. It's not a referendum, if you want to have a straight referendum then the bill actually provides for having a referendum".

Govt should 'eat what they ordered' - Labour

Labour's Chris Hipkins said he had not been aware of the matter, but if the government wanted a national conversation on the Treaty Principles it should live up to that commitment to the public.

"I haven't spoken to our members on this, so this is the first that I've heard of it, but I would certainly be encouraging them to support there being more time to ensure that those views were reflected in the official record of the select committee's procedings," he said.

"If the committee clerks are telling the committee that they just need more time to compile the submissions, I think that is quite a compelling argument.

"Clearly on a committee process like this where there is just such a lot of submissions, you want to make sure that those are properly resourced - there's probably questions about why this wasn't flagged up earlier ... those are the sorts of things you would want to get good answers for.

"The select committee should be able to at least table them even if they can't be collated and analysed. There's nothing to stop the committee doing that now - they can simply receive the submissions, they get tabled, and therefore they become part of the committee's official record."

One of those Labour MPs on the committee - Tracey McLellan - said ensuring submissions were part of the official record was "the normal way of doing things and that is the expectation that New Zealanders should have".

She did not think much of Luxon's stance.

"We were never keen for this bill to come to the House in the first place - and when we said there should be a shortened period, that was to spare people from having to go through the process. The government didn't agree to that.

"Given they've already had to go through that process, the least the government can do is eat what they ordered."

Labour's Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson said he was saddened many of the submissions would not be included.

"I think it's important you go through this process ... I would have thought good democracy meant everyone should be given a view.

"Seymour waffles on and on, he should be on to this - but I think he knows 90 percent of those submissions are against his terrible bill and so he doesn't much care about it now."

He said Luxon should intervene and allow an extension.

"The reality is this bill has been probably the most offensive bill in many, many years and New Zealanders have been wanting to take an opportunity to have their protests vented and to have their protests heard, and I think this demands a prime minister intervention.

"He should talk to his chair and say 'let those views be heard'."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.