Photo: RNZ/Craig McCulloch
Associate justice minister and architect of the Treaty Principles Bill David Seymour came out of the Beehive on Tuesday to acknowledge the hīkoi and wave at the protesters - but retreated inside after just a few minutes without speaking to the crowd.
Seymour told Checkpoint it was difficult to hear what was being said from where he stood.
"But I think they were saying something about me not ... shouldn't be there."
Asked why he was promoting the bill, he said: "We've got a New Zealand where people conceive themselves as being part of groups, rather than as part of a country, and therefore put up these barriers."
Checkpoint host Lisa Owen said he had been wanting to promote a conversation, and asked if today was the conversation he had imagined?
Submissions were now open to the public as the bill was before the justice committee, he said - and anybody could have their say on the bill "and the way we intention... sorry... see the Treaty in modern times".
"There will always be people who are out there making a lot of noise.
"I think at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders are at work, going to school, and they'll be able to engage in this debate in their own way.
"So you wouldn't want to take this hikoi as being representative of New Zealand."
Owen circled back to the comment about how he "intentioned" the Treaty to be in modern times, and Seymour said he misspoke. "I don't know where that word came from."
About a million New Zealanders whakapapa Māori, he said, with seven of them in Cabinet, three in the ACT caucus, and "about 0.2 percent who are out in front of Parliament right now".
Owen challenged this, saying many others around the country - including KCs, Christian leaders and the Human Rights Commissioner - had voiced their opposition to the bill.
"First of all, can I just note you started off with priests, then you were down to 40 lawyers and you finished off with the Human Rights Commissioner," Seymour replied.
"I mean, it's not exactly a star-studded cast, and many of those so-called religious leaders on further inspection turned out not to be anything of the sort. But we'll put that aside."
Owen asked Seymour if he was dismissing a broad spectrum of New Zealanders with that statement.
He pointed to a survey - but did not name the source - that found when asked if they were in favour of the principles proposed in his bill, 25 percent of people were opposed, and a further 29 percent were still making up their minds.
Seymour said his Treaty bill created a country of individuals with equal rights, regardless of race, religion or other background, "because you're human, you have basic rights and that message is resonating very strongly".
"There's a group of people who frequently misinform the public and the audience about what this bill says," Seymour added.
Owen asked if he thought the people at the Parliament grounds were "misinformed - that they don't know their own minds?"
Seymour denied this, but added: "Some of them have been given bad information.
"For example, I saw someone this morning saying that they didn't want to have the Treaty changed. Well, my bill doesn't do that.
"What it does is change the principles which are a construct of Parliament set down - but never defined - in 1975. So I think there's a lot of scope for further discussion.... but even then, overwhelmingly the public are actually on side with these principles."
Owen said legal experts and historians had suggested the principles in the bill would remove the exclusivity of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, and would diminish their rights.
In response, Seymour said the principles would ensure equal rights for every New Zealander.
"There's a bit of saying going round that when you're used to entitlement, equality feels like oppression.
"Well, certainly, if you believe that because of your birth, you are tangata whenua, you have a special right to have seats reserved at the table in public institutions, and consultation expectations under resource management and so on - different from other people on the basis of your ancestry - then I guess you might be annoyed that we're not going to fulfill that expectation."
Owen asked him to specify who among Māori was entitled?
"It's not a question of an individual being entitled, it's a question of public policies that say this is a position that is in place for somebody who is Māori.
"This is a consultation obligation where you must consult somebody who is Māori. Now a person who is not Māori ... does not qualify for that position, and that is the key issue here."
David Seymour faces Treaty Principles Bill protesters, flanked by police and Diplomatic Protection Services. Photo: RNZ
Seymour - who himself has Māori ancestry - challenged Owen's question whether all Māori had got comfortable with entitlement, "as if we are a group of people, all of one mind, who think the same. Now I'm sorry Lisa, but that used to be called prejudice and profiling."
He said Owen was generalising this idea of entitlement to all Māori, "and that's exactly the sort of thinking we need to get away from".
He said he had already addressed this question, adding: "However, there is a distinction based on ancestry that is important to change."
Owen pointed out that his coalition partners had refused to support the bill past its first reading, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon calling it "simplistic".
Had Luxon said anything different to Seymour privately?
Seymour replied that anything said in confidence, he would be keeping it confidential.
Owen asked if, during public submissions at the select committee stage, contrary views were raised, would these be incorporated into the bill, and would he speak to Māori about them?
Seymour said he spoke to people every day, and did not categorise them by their ancestry.
"Of course I will speak to Māori people, and people who are Indian, and Chinese, and Pacific Island, and European..."
Owen pointed out that the Treaty was specifically a contract between the Crown and Māori.
"I don't think anyone disputes that," Seymour said.
"But the question is, what does that mean for the constitutional settings that all of the above people have to live under?
"It's more than just Māori and non-Māori. It's every human being who lives in this country, and has only one country.
"If you believe that there's a very strong argument against universal human rights, about equal rights before the law, against the New Zealand government having the right to govern and Parliament having the right to make laws - these are the things that my bill sets out - then sure, if I heard a strong argument against those things.
"But it would be very interesting to see what a strong argument against equality and non-discrimination before the law would be."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
