Two Readings Too Many

The Treaty Principles Bill, ACT’s post-truth politics, and the public who refuse to be ignored

Yesterday, Parliament voted down the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill at its second reading. That was already two readings too many — this level of disinformation should never have made it into the House. Despite overwhelming opposition to the Bill during the select committee process, and passionate speeches in the House, the ACT Party continues to claim that most New Zealanders support it, and has declared it will reveal its next steps prior to the election.

Cherry-picking statistics

On the day the select committee released its report, ACT Party leader David Seymour posted on social media:

“When people are asked about the Bill’s principles, they come out strongly in favour. For example when a scientific poll asked about the specific wording of the proposed principles, they were strongly supported by an average margin of two votes to one (see image).”

Shared at https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15MNDthLC8/

Seymour, who frequently dismisses arguments based on scientific evidence, appears more than willing to embrace a “scientific poll” conducted by Curia Market Research. Curia — led by David Farrar — and Farrar himself resigned from the Research Association of New Zealand last year during an investigation by the Professional Standards Group.¹ The group had upheld a complaint regarding Curia’s poor polling methodology and was considering a recommendation ranging from suspension to expulsion.²

Seymour has chosen to privilege this questionable ACT-commissioned poll over the tsunami of thoughtful, well-informed submissions made to the select committee by more than 300,000 New Zealanders. That really is grasping at straws, or straw men, and seems to demonstrate a continued unwillingness to engage with reality.

A Pattern of Selective Framing

It is entirely in character for Seymour to curate a biased selection of evidence to support his aims — the proposed Treaty principles themselves are based on cherry-picked partial phrases from te Tiriti o Waitangi.

As I explained and demonstrated in earlier articles, minimal part-phrases are selectively taken from the Māori text of te Tiriti, stripped of their linguistic, historical, and cultural context, and repurposed with entirely new meanings.³

I was one of 27 licensed Māori translators who wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and senior ministers in July last year, detailing the highly inaccurate translation of te Tiriti that underpins the proposed principles. We made clear that it breached international ethical standards of translation and risked enshrining fiction as legal fact at the heart of our constitutional arrangements.

The principles of the Treaty, of course, cannot credibly be ascertained without full and informed consideration of the te reo Māori text of te Tiriti — that which was debated and signed.

One of the most serious issues with the entire Treaty Principles Bill process is that it is predicated on misinformation. Once an erroneous foundation is established, it becomes easy to build circular arguments upon it — arguments that are difficult to refute without first dismantling the foundation itself. This is the situation New Zealand has found itself in.

Hubris over Hearing

Following the release of the select committee report, Seymour stated, “There are no compelling arguments that Parliament is not sovereign, and citizens of this country do not have equal rights.” This is a response to a question that wasn’t asked. The select committee was tasked with considering whether the Treaty Principles Bill should be passed — not whether Parliament is sovereign.

Seymour may also have kicked himself in the foot. By stating that “there are no compelling arguments that citizens of this country do not have equal rights,” he inadvertently acknowledges that New Zealanders already have equal rights. This aligns with the position taken by most submitters to the select committee: that different rights can exist for valid, contextual reasons — different does not mean unequal.

Either way, Seymour is suggesting that among hundreds of thousands of submissions, not a single compelling argument was made against his proposal. This is a striking display of hubris — an unwavering insistence on the correctness of his position, irrespective of the evidence presented. If he has indeed read every submission, his dismissal is all the more troubling. If he has not, then he is rejecting the perspectives of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders without serious consideration. In either case, it reveals a disregard for the public and the democratic process — one that privileges optics over substance, and predetermined outcomes over genuine listening.

A Debate Untethered from Truth

Over the past year, the ACT Party has consistently demonstrated this kind of double-speak: expressing a desire for debate while refusing to genuinely engage with anyone whose views differ from theirs. They called for us to “democratise the Treaty debate” and claim success on that front.

As I wrote last year, what ACT framed as a democratised debate was, in practice, an invitation for misinformation to flourish — where opinions untethered from historical or linguistic fact were given equal weight to decades of scholarship and lived experience. This post-truth approach has only deepened division, replacing informed discussion with ideological distortion and fear. The media have reinforced this dynamic by repeatedly platforming Seymour’s misinformation as if it were simply another valid perspective — one that must be included for the sake of balance.

New Zealand has spoken — and Seymour is not listening. He has responded to the select committee’s recommendation to reject the Bill by doubling down on ACT’s commitment to ensure it eventually passes. He reconfirmed that stance yesterday – the day of the second, and final, reading.

Foundations Built on Falsehoods

His rhetoric deserves deeper unpacking, which I will return to in a subsequent piece. For now, it suffices to say that while we welcome Parliament’s rejection of the Treaty Principles Bill at its second reading, it should never have been introduced in the first place. Although this was an ACT Party initiative, Cabinet — which includes all coalition parties — had to sign off on its content and the so-called “Treaty principles” it contained.

The coalition agreement did not bind National or New Zealand First to endorse any particular principles. They could have taken an ethical stance and agreed only to support principles genuinely derived from te Tiriti, before proceeding to select committee. That would have demonstrated good governance and upheld a standard of truth in legislation.

It sounds like this was only round one. Let us learn from it. As we build our shared future in Aotearoa New Zealand, it must rest on a foundation of truth. By acknowledging reality — however uncomfortable — we lay the groundwork for a future that is strong, enduring, inclusive and just.

1. See https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/08/why_i_have_resigned_from_the_research_association_of_new_zealand.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2. See https://www.researchassociation.org.nz/Update

3. See Painting over the Treaty in E-Tangata and Treaty Principles Bill: Smokescreen for sweeping change? in Nick’s Kōrero