Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer says David Seymour’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill is damaging the “collective fabric of our nation” and the Government has not followed the correct legislative process in introducing it.

The bill seeks to replace the Treaty principles, such as Partnership, which have been developed over time by the courts and Waitangi Tribunal, with three new ones and enshrine them in law. Seymour says the bill would provide certainty and clarity around the principles, and prompt a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements.

Palmer, who served as Prime Minister under the Labour Government from 1989 for about a year, told Parliament’s select committee a constructive and good-faith conversation was appropriate in light of the country’s history – but it needed to be approached with the “utmost care and respect”.

“Those issues warrant a thorough and considered process, involving public education, engagement and consultation. Process is everything.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Karen Feint KC. Photo / Julia Gabel

“I wish to argue in front of you that the process that led to this bill’s introduction was fundamentally flawed compared to the processes that are used that lead to legislation customarily in this house.”

He said orthodox policy processes would normally involve in-depth analysis before decisions were made, policy options would be analysed, there would be inter-departmental consultation and discussions, and Māori would be consulted.

“Instead, what we have seen is a bill that has clogged up the House with more than 300,000 submissions it is said, wasted a tremendous amount of time and money and damaged the collective fabric of the nation. We really need to learn from this,” Palmer said.

In her opening remarks, former National Minister Hekia Parata acknowledged the thousands of people who marched in protest to Parliament, despite also having their home demands.

She said the bill was “irretrievably flawed” and should be voted down.

“Instead, I recommend our focus should be on establishing the conditions for Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be honoured in modern and forward-looking ways as the original signatories anticipated for all of us.”

Parata said there had been a “persistent conflation” of the collective rights held by iwi and hapū and tangata whenua and the individual citizen rights that Māori have, which has led to people misunderstanding the purpose of the Treaty.

Former National Party Minister Hekia Parata. Photo / Julia Gabel

“It is the persistent failure of public policy and management that creates many of the misunderstandings New Zealanders have.”

She referenced foreshore and seabed legislation as an example.

“Those beaches on the Tairāwhiti were considered by Ngāti Porou to belong to them, as do Ngāpuhi in Northland. They were never a citizen’s right in the sense of the foreshore and seabed policy.

“Those [issues] have seen marches up and down our country as well, and that will continue unless we really tackle this issue of the definition of rights and the rights holders and circumstances in which those can be exercised, which by the way we do for every other public policy and public management issue.”

Opponents also included former mayor of New Plymouth and self-confessed “recovering racist” Andrew Judd, who said there was a lack of education among Pākehā and the bill was leading to division.

“We haven’t moved on from anywhere. Cook may as well have arrived yesterday. This is so, so divisive and sad,” Judd said.

Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.