The PM ‘can’t be any clearer’ about his stance on our founding document, so why is everyone still so confused? Hayden Donnell tries to get to the bottom of the matter.

Chris Luxon was at his wit’s end. For months he’d been trying to explain his party’s position on Act’s attempts to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and people still didn’t seem to be getting it. He was meant to be speaking about his move to dump Auckland’s regional fuel tax, but once again reporters were quizzing him on our founding document. “Can you just be really clear about the language?” a reporter pleaded. “Really clear about what National’s position is?”

Luxon’s laugh sounded like dust being displaced by a grave. His mouth smiled but his eyes were hollow. He kept repeating the same thing. “What I just say to you is I can’t be any clearer,” he said. “I think I have been pretty clear.”

Words were his problem. Words piled upon words. Luxon has been speaking about David Seymour’s efforts to force a referendum on the Treaty for the better part of two years. The more he explains, the more people get confused. His statements have become a tangled slinky, each new sentence adding another kink to the snarled-up mess on his political lounge floor. The only way to find his position now is to go back to the start, and unravel his explanations one by one.

February, 2022: I am not ruling Act’s Treaty of Waitangi policy in or out

When asked about Act’s efforts to remove any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation, Luxon’s position was firm: any policy that might emerge from coalition talks was “hypothetical” and he wouldn’t speak on hypotheticals.

March 29, 2022: I am ruling out one of Act’s Treaty of Waitangi policies

When asked about Act’s plans to orchestrate a referendum on co-governance, Luxon’s position was firm: he would speak on hypotheticals, and a referendum was unhelpful and unneeded.

March 30, 2022: But I am not actually ruling out Act’s Treaty of Waitangi policy

On RNZ the following morning, Luxon clarified: the country isn’t ready for an unhelpful and unneeded Treaty referendum right now, but it might be keen for one in future. After this flurry of proclamations, he entered a lengthy period of contemplation, reemerging the following year.

August 22, 2023: We do not support a referendum on the Treaty

In the leadup to the 2023 general election, reporters repeatedly interrogated Luxon’s position on Act’s call for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi. “I’m saying to you that [redefining treaty principles] is something that’s not our policy and we don’t support it,” he told RNZ in August.

September 20, 2023: I will not rule out a referendum on the Treaty

A month after saying National doesn’t support Act’s Treaty referendum policy, Luxon refused to rule out adopting Act’s Treaty referendum policy. “I appreciate you want to get into it. I am not negotiating a coalition agreement with the media this side of an election,” he told reporters.

October 2, 2023: We do not support a referendum on the Treaty

Speaking to Julian Wilcox on The Hui, Luxon said a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive and he wouldn’t support one.

October 16: I will not rule out a referendum on the Treaty

But never say never.

November 24, 2023: We don’t support a divisive and unhelpful effort to redefine the Treaty but I will support legislation aimed at redefining the Treaty to at least first reading

After more than a month of coalition negotiations, Luxon combined his two positions on redefining the Treaty into a kind of legislative Frankenstein’s monster, in a desperate effort to form a government. That’s MMP for you.

December 7, 2023: We will not support Act’s Treaty Principles Bill past first reading

As protest mounted against Act’s effort to redefine the Treaty, Luxon refused to rule out supporting the legislation past first reading. That didn’t satisfy critics, including in the media, who accused National of being humiliated and bossed around by its junior coalition partners.

During a testy debate in the House in December, Luxon got back on the front foot. He was unequivocal: the Treaty Principles Bill will fail at first reading. “That’s as far as it will go,” he said.

January 23, 2024: I won’t rule out supporting Act’s Treaty Principles Bill past first reading

Sike.

February 7, 2024: We won’t back the Treaty Principles Bill past first reading

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 14 times in a row, things are getting weird. But this time Luxon really did seem definitive. “We are not supporting it beyond first reading,” Luxon told AM. “We will not be supporting that bill.” There’s definitely “no wriggle room” there, said Newshub’s Jenna Lynch. Luxon would go on to tell Te Karere “the Treaty is not changing”. “The Treaty is to be respected. It’s our foundational document. It’s sacrosanct. And it’s not for changing,” he said.

February 8, 2024:  I won’t rule out backing the Treaty Principles Bill past first reading

When quizzed by reporters again on his commitment to shooting down the bill at first reading the following day, Luxon retreated into familiar, more equivocal language. He said there was “no commitment, no intention” to support the bill into law. “What I just say to you is, I can’t be any clearer: myself, the National Party, my National Party caucus do not want to support it.”

A harmonisation of the relevant data shows Luxon his right. His party’s position on the subject of Act’s efforts to redefine the Treaty is clear: National believes an effort to redefine the Treaty is divisive, unhelpful, and a central part of its coalition deal with Act. It can’t rule out supporting Act’s Treaty Principles Bill, which it doesn’t support. Rest assured, the bill will fail unless it doesn’t. The Treaty is not changing. It’s sacrosanct. Our foundational document. But it could also be redefined to appease a party that won 8.64% of the vote in the October general election.

That’s as clear as the text of the English-language version of the Treaty at Te Papa. Journalists could’ve saved themselves a great deal of confusion by just crunching the data like The Spinoff.

At the press conference on Thursday though, Stuff’s Tova O’Brien had other ideas. “You could actually be clearer,” she told Luxon as he once again asserted the simplicity of National’s position. “You could say under no circumstances whatsoever will we be supporting this bill.”

Luxon sounded exasperated at the idea. “I think I’ve told you our position,” he retorted. And he has, over and over again, in a kaleidoscope of contradictory information. The conference ended with Luxon reaffirming that he doesn’t support the Treaty bill, and refusing to resign if it passed.

From the Greens to Act, MPs from across parliament are criticising the independent hearings panel’s restrictive recommendations for Wellington’s new District Plan.

Politicians from across the political spectrum have united to criticise Wellington’s independent panel reports on housing.

The first two reports from the independent hearings panel took a heavily restrictive view towards new housing; expanding character areas, reducing walking catchments and high density areas, and ruling that the Johnsonville train did not count as “mass rapid transit”. 

Experts have criticised the panel as economically illiterate for its claims higher density would not improve housing supply or affordability.

Greg O’Connor, the Labour MP for Ōhāriu, said some of the panel’s decisions “fly in the face of basic economics” and would fail “any third form economics class”.

“Echoing in my ears are the words of John Key in 2013 about Wellington being a dying city,” he said. “When I look at this report, I get concerned there isn’t much in there about ensuring the population growth we need to ensure Wellington survives.

“I’m not sure if any of the panellists have children, like I do, who are flatting in Wellington, but they would understand just how difficult the flatting situation is.” 

O’Connor said he was particularly concerned that expanded character areas would stifle development in the centre city and push growth into the outer northern suburbs.

Cameron Luxton, Act’s infrastructure spokesperson, said the panel “seemed to not even identify the basic economics 101 stuff that is causing a shortage of housing in Wellington”.

He said Act generally didn’t want to tell councils how to zone, but that “something needs to happen in Wellington”.

Green MP for Wellington Central Tamatha Paul, a former city councillor who holds a masters degree in planning, was particularly critical. 

“They’re not recommendations that I think appropriately respond to the scale of the housing crisis in Wellington,” she said. “The crisis demands us to build as much housing as we possibly can. That’s the only outcome I would find acceptable, and that’s not what this report is recommending.”

Wellington city councillors will be able change any of the panel’s recommendations via an amendment vote at a meeting on March 14, but Paul said that didn’t go far enough – she wants the council to reject the entire report and send it to the minister to be rewritten. “I don’t know that a piecemeal approach will get us the outcomes that we need,” she said. “We are monumentally failing right now, and the result will be homeless and poverty on a scale we have never seen before.”

National’s Chris Bishop said he was reading the panel’s reports. “Wellington has a housing crisis and restrictive zoning rules are a big part of the problem.”

“I will be making further announcements on this soon,” he said. The Spinoff understands Bishop is positioning himself to be involved in the sign-off process, which would typically go to environment minister Penny Simmonds. 

Stu Donovan, a housing economist for Motu, said the panel had “misread the room” on housing reform. “I genuinely don’t think they appreciate just how much their social licence to operate has changed in the last decade,” he said. “The planning profession in New Zealand has become extraordinarily politically and socially isolated.”

“My view is that the independent hearings panel is made up of commissioners who are stuck in the old mindset that we must only enable urban development where we can be absolutely certain that it doesn’t have negative effects. That’s the old framing, that development is a bad thing that must be managed. The NPS-UD replaced that framing with a positive approach to urban development that you must enable as much housing as you can unless you have very, very clear evidence of the negative effects.”

However, just because there is a consensus emerging in parliament doesn’t mean the same is true around the council table. There is a narrow split between pro and anti-density factions, and the vote could be decided by the winner of the Lambton ward by-election, voting for which closes on February 17. 

Wellington city councillors will get their first chance to question members of the panel about their decision at a briefing on Wednesday February 15. We got a little taste of what to expect at another briefing this week – no panel members were present, but council staff explained some of the panel’s decisions. A group of progressive councillors laughed when staff described the panel’s conclusion that census data didn’t prove how many people walked to work from each suburb, because it didn’t ask how people got home. 

Councillor Ben McNulty couldn’t resist an early dig at the panel’s ruling that enabling more housing wouldn’t lead to more housing, asking: “Is it the view of the panel that if there was a shortage of bread rolls at KFC Johnsonville, supplying more rolls at KFC would not have any impact on the shortage of bread rolls?”

Sean Audain, the council’s strategic planning manager, answered diplomatically: “Our job is to impartially put before you the advice of the panel, absent of the views of officers. Given the panel didn’t actively discuss KFC, we cannot possibly consider it.”

The independent hearings panel released its third report on Wednesday evening, focused on the centre city. It was less dramatic than the first two – the most significant recommendation was to replace the 42m central city height limit with a “height threshold”, which developers could go over if they met certain criteria, a potential win for housing supply. 

How to follow along

If you want to stay on top of everything that happens throughout this process, subscribe to The Spinoff’s War for Wellington newsletter. Every week, we’ll send a roundup of the most important stories about the District Plan process and the future of housing in Wellington. It will include highlights from our own coverage, perspectives from experts and activists, and the best reporting from other media around Wellington.