In brief
- There is some cross-spectrum support for David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, but the centre-right may oppose it for strategic reasons.
- Public service bias could undermine a potential referendum.
- Left-leaning media campaigns could shape public opinion against the bill.
- Likely legal battles could stall the bill, with decades of law backing Treaty principles.
- Social division could cause political damage to the centre-right’s image.
A risky strategy
Some polling suggests strong support for David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill across the political spectrum.
While Centrist does not suggest how people should vote, it is important to understand some of the strategic reasons some may have to oppose a referendum, which go beyond accusations of racism.
Media and Public Service bias could sabotage a referendum
The centre-right may oppose the Treaty Principles Bill due to concerns over public service bias. Many believe that this bias could make running a fair referendum very challenging.
Also, New Zealand’s media, which often leans left, will almost certainly launch aggressive campaigns to oppose the bill.
Media outlets could use their influence to shape public opinion by spreading fear about the social and political consequences of passing the bill. As a result, the bill might never get a fair hearing, leading many centre-right voters to question if it’s worth the effort.
Legal battles will likely follow
Even if a referendum passes, the centre-right must be prepared for the inevitable legal challenges. The Treaty principles are backed by decades of law and academia, and overturning them will almost certainly lead to protracted “lawfare.”
This creates the risk that even with public support, the bill could be stalled indefinitely, preventing the centre-right from achieving any real results.
In an interview with Moana Maniapoto, political commentator Mathew Hooton suggested Māori activists should perhaps be looking for this very outcome:
“If ACT do support the principle of the common law, and they want to pass their bill, then the Supreme Court is gonna spend the next 50 years defining the meaning of tino rangatiratanga.
So maybe it should be the more so-called ’radical’ Māori who vote for this referendum rather than Pākeha! I mean, ACT better be careful about what they want.”
Should the Principles have been there in the first place?
Some critics argue that the Principles should not be crystallised via a referendum as they were never explicitly laid out and have always been ambiguous.
These principles are not mentioned in the Treaty itself and it wasn’t until 1986 when Geoffrey Palmer, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, introduced Section 9 into the State-Owned Enterprises Act. It stated that “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
This was a key moment in embedding Treaty principles into New Zealand law, ensuring the Crown’s obligations were upheld during the sale and restructuring of state-owned enterprises.
However, Winston Peters strongly opposed the inclusion, arguing it would create legal uncertainty and complicate future Crown dealings.
Fear of social division
Another reason the centre-right may hesitate is the fear that pushing the bill could divide the country. Many voters are likely concerned about sowing social discord, especially on a sensitive issue like the Treaty.
If the public perceives the bill as an attack on Māori rights, it could backfire politically, damaging the centre-right’s image.
Hooton argues the results could be similar to the 1995 Firefighters referendum, which came to be seen as more of a referendum on the Jim Bolger government rather than a concern about the firefighters’ issue itself.
There’s a risk that voters, anxious about increasing tensions, will reject the referendum in an effort to maintain social cohesion.
