John MacDonald: Was the Treaty Principles debate worth it?

The Treaty Principles Bill is history. Done and dusted. But ACT leader David Seymour, who came up with the bill in the first place, has no regrets.   

And it’s not done and dusted, as far as he’s concerned.  

He could bring it back again. But I think what he’s most likely to do is make it a campaign issue in next year’s general election, or try to get a more explicit equality provision in the Bill of Rights Act.  

All he’s saying is: “I accepted that they've decided on this particular bill at this point in time.” Going on to say: “watch this space”.  

But whatever happens in the future, the questions at this point are: was the whole thing worth it? And did we learn anything?  

I tell you what I’ve learned – although, it’s probably something that I knew anyway. But what I’ve taken away from all this is that, wherever we are on the political spectrum, we are not as open to new ideas as much as we might like to think so.  

The Treaty Principles Bill got those on the left extremely agitated and excited. Just like 3 Waters got those on the right extremely agitated and excited.  

I was against it because I think any agreement shouldn’t be tinkered with – especially when you get Parliament poking its nose in and tinkering with it.  

And that’s what the Treaty is. It’s an agreement.  

The real problem is how the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example: I’m against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences. I’m against the Treaty being used as a reason not to hire the best person for the job.   

But that’s not the Treaty’s fault. That’s the fault of the institutions and the organisations and the individuals who have enabled that to happen.  

Because let’s say the Treaty Principles Bill hadn’t been binned yesterday and it went through all the stages and ended up being law, do you really think it would have made things any better or any different?  

Because the idea behind it —as David Seymour is still saying today— was to ensure everyone is treated equally. But what does “treated equally” mean?  

I bet we’ve all got different ideas of what that is. For example, if the Treaty principles were changed in the way David Seymour wants them to be, what’s to stop a judge (for example) seeing this so-called “equal treatment” being a licence to give a lighter sentence to someone from a disadvantaged background? So for me, the focus needs to be much more on how the treaty principles are applied, not the principles themselves.  

As to whether it’s been worth the effort and whether it’s been a waste of time – at this point, I think it has been a huge waste of time, energy, and money.    

But it won’t have been a waste if we do learn from this and realise that it’s not the Treaty itself but the way that it’s applied that’s the real issue.  

If we’re big enough —even those of us who opposed David Seymour’s bill— to see that we have learned something out of the process, then it won’t have been a waste.   

But as I say, this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we are —as a country— of having the so-called “grown up conversations” David Seymour thinks we should be having.  

And if we can’t get beyond that, then there’s no doubt this whole thing has been a complete waste of time. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
So the Treaty Principal's Bill, it's dead, it's done and dusted,
it's over. But Active Leader David Seymour, who came up
with it in the first place, he has no regrets.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
I'll never regret standing up for a sick human rights
being equal and also for standing up for truth. And
if you watch the debate yesterday, the most interesting thing
is that not a single opponent pointed to here's one
of the principles proposed, and here's why I oppose it,
and this is why we're going to have a better

(00:46):
country without it. The fact is that Parliament does have
the complete right to make laws. The Crown does have
an obligation to uphold all people's rights, including maris, such
as property rights, and we are all equal before the law. Now,
obviously it's taking a while for certain people in Parliament
to catch on to that, but the how else do

(01:07):
they want a country to work?

Speaker 2 (01:08):
And he's saying, as far as concern is not dead,
it's not done and dusted, and whatever you think of that,
I think we can agree, can't we that even if
the bill itself is history. The debate isn't and David
Seymour isn't saying anything explicit, but he is showing no
signs that he's finished with it. He could bring it

(01:30):
back again or I think what he's most likely to
do is make it a campaign issue in next year's
election campaign. I see the New Zealand heralds Thomas Coglan
is writing today that Seymour might have been try to
get it a more explicit equality provision in the Bill
of Rights Act. All he's saying is this quote. I

(01:51):
accepted that they that's Parliament's MPs. I accepted that they
decided on this particular bill at this point in time,
going on to say watch this space. But whatever happens
in the future, the questions at this point are the
whole thing worth it? And do we learn anything? And
I tell you what I've learned, although it's probably something

(02:13):
that I knew. I knew anyway, so for me, it's
a reinforcement more than anything new. But one I've taken
away from all of this is that wherever we are
on the political spectrum, we are not as open to
new ideas as much as we might like to think so.
The Treaty Principal's Bill got those on the left extremely

(02:33):
agitated and excited. Just three waters got those on the
right extremely agitated and excited. Now I was against the
Treaty Principal's Bill because because I think any agreement shouldn't
be tinkered with, especially when you get Parliament poking its
nose and then tinkering with it. And that's what the
treaty is, It's an agreement. The real problem is how

(02:59):
the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example, I'm
dead against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences.
I'm against the Treaty being used as a reason not
to hire the best person for the job. He said,
that's not the Treaty's fault. That's the fault of the
institutions and the organizations and the individuals who have enabled
that to happen. Because let's say, let's say, for example,

(03:24):
the Treaties Principal's Bill hadn't been binned yesterday and it
did go through all the stages and did end up
being law, do you really think it would have made
things any better or innydifferent because the idea behind it,
as David Seymour was still saying today, the thinking behind
it was to ensure that everyone is treated equally. But

(03:45):
what is treated equally mean? I bet we've all got
different ideas, but you've got a different idea than I have.
For example, if the treaty principles were changed and the
way that David seamwore, wanted and still wants them to be,
what would stop a judge, for example, seeing this so
called equal treatment being a license to give a lighter

(04:08):
sentence to someone from a disadvantage background wouldn't fix that
at all. So for me, the focus, the focus needs
to be much more on how the treaty and the
treaty principles themselves are replied, not the treaty or not
the principles. As to whether it's been worth the effort,

(04:29):
whether it's been a waste of time, well, at this
point I'll explain myself. At this point, I think it's
been a huge waste of time, energy and money. But
it won't have been a waste. That won't be the
case if we do learn from this and realize that
it's not the treaty but the way that it's applied

(04:49):
that's a real issue. If we're if we're big enough,
even those of those of us who opposed David Seymour's bill,
even those on the left who were dead against it,
if we and they are big enough to see that
we have learned something out of the process, then it
won't have been a wasted But as I said before,

(05:10):
this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we
are as a country of having the so called grown
up conversations David Seymour thinks we should be having. And
if we can't get beyond that, then there's no doubt
that this whole thing has been a complete waste of time.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio