Summarised by Centrist
Journalist Graham Adams argues that David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill could still gain momentum, especially if put to a public referendum.
Adams writes that despite 90 percent of submissions opposing the bill, Seymour remains “sanguine,” and has “redoubled” his commitment to legal equality and universal rights.
Adams compares this with Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill, which also faced overwhelming opposition in submissions but passed by referendum with 65 percent support.
He doubts voters would support maintaining what he describes as race-based advantages for “ethnic clans comprising 17 percent of the population.”
Adams criticises opponents across the political spectrum—from National’s Tama Potaka, who declared “nehu day is coming” for the bill, to TPM’s Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who told a submitter that his ancestors had been “invited” to live in New Zealand. When asked if Māori were also invited pre-1840, she abruptly shut the conversation down.
“One of the repeated refrains among opponents of the bill,” Adams writes, “has been to remind New Zealanders who don’t have Māori ancestors that they are guests in their own country — essentially second-class citizens… In PR terms, this must be one of the most disastrous and counter-productive tactics imaginable.”
He blames elite figures like Dame Anne Salmond, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Chris Finlayson for fuelling racial polarisation, and argues the Treaty is too contested to serve as a constitutional foundation. Quoting David Lange’s 2000 Bruce Jesson lecture, Adams says the Treaty “is no basis for nationhood” and offers no unifying concept.
Opponents’ refusal to support a referendum, he concludes, reveals fear that elite consensus may not reflect public opinion.
