spinofflive
Christopher Luxon and David Seymour at Waitangi on February 5, 2023. Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images
Christopher Luxon and David Seymour at Waitangi on February 5, 2023. Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images

PoliticsNovember 20, 2024

How has Luxon’s position on the Treaty Principles Bill changed over time?

Christopher Luxon and David Seymour at Waitangi on February 5, 2023. Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images
Christopher Luxon and David Seymour at Waitangi on February 5, 2023. Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images

The prime minister has never supported David Seymour’s bill in principle, or beyond first reading in practice, but his language has certainly changed.

The National Party has spent a large amount of time in this parliamentary term talking about a bill it doesn’t like. Which is not much fun. In the Herald, Claire Trevett put it like this: “If you want to watch joy die in a National MP’s eyes these days, it only takes three words: Treaty Principles Bill.”

That applies as much to Christopher Luxon – who negotiated the deal with David Seymour whereby National would support the bill to select committee – as anyone. Rarely has a day gone by when the prime minister hasn’t been asked about the legislation. Like an exasperated dad trying to snuff out one of those reigniting candles, he has consistently said he couldn’t be clearer. But could he? Certainly, his responses have evolved over time. Let’s chart it out. 

March 29 2022: Luxon says NZ not ready for a referendum

The Act Party proposes a Treaty Principles Bill, framing it as providing for a “referendum on co-governance”. Christopher Luxon says: “Our view is that we’re not ready for a referendum now.” After David Seymour urges the prime minister not to “run away at the first sign of controversy”, Luxon retorts: “We’re not ready for a referendum right now because we’re not clear about what we’re actually talking about.”

October 10 2022: Still opposed 

David Seymour says a referendum on Treaty principles is a bottom line for any future government negotiations. Luxon says his position is unchanged: he opposes such a referendum. 

August 22 2023: Don’t support but not ruling out

After the Act Party reasserts the importance of its policy to hold a referendum to redefine the principles of the Treaty, Luxon responds, “It’s not our policy and we don’t support it.” But he will not conduct coalition negotiations ahead of the election, he says.

September 20 2023: Not the time to negotiate

A few weeks out from the election, with David Seymour saying a Treaty referendum is a bottom line, Christopher Luxon dismisses invitations to rule it out, saying, “I am not negotiating a coalition agreement with the media this side of an election.” 

October 10 2023: Divisive and unhelpful 

Luxon is asked on The Hui if he could promise that no such referendum would be held under his prime ministership. He says: “That’s our position … That’s what I believe. I don’t think that [approach] is helpful. I think it’s divisive and it’s not something we’re supportive of.” From here, Luxon routinely uses the words divisive and unhelpful to describe the Act plan.

October 16 2023: Not negotiating through media

A couple of days after the election, with coalition negotiations yet to get properly under way, Luxon is once more invited to say whether he’d rule out a Treaty referendum. “Well, again, I’m just not going to play the rule-in, rule-out game,” he says. “Our position is really clear on that, we’ve felt very strongly that a referendum would be divisive but again, I’m not wanting to negotiate through the media.” 

November 6 2023: Divisive and unhelpful, contd

From the depths of negotiation, Luxon emerges to tell Morning Report: “Our view, through the campaign, is well understood. We think it is – a referendum would be divisive and unhelpful.”

November 23 2023: The deal, explained – at this stage

The National-Act coalition agreement pledges to “introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing Act policy and support it to a select committee as soon as practicable”. Asked about the commitment, Luxon says: “Our government is to support the passing of that bill through the first reading and to select committee. And that is the extent of our commitment at this stage.”

December 7 2023: As far as it will go

In his first appearance as prime minister for parliamentary question time, Luxon goes further than he has before, saying, “we will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee, and that’s as far as it will go.”

December 11 2023: No commitment beyond first reading

“It’s very clear in our coalition agreement. We’re supporting it at the first reading and to select committee,” Luxon says. “There’s no commitment beyond that point.” From here, the no commitment language becomes Luxon’s go-to.

January 23 2024: A great deal of no commitment, plus aeration 

Asked at a post-cabinet press conference if he will rule out any prospect of the legislation living on beyond select committee hearings, Luxon says: “Our coalition government commitment is that we will support Act’s Treaty Principles Bill to first reading, but there is no commitment to take it beyond that.” So he won’t rule it out? “There is no commitment to take it beyond that and I’d just say, as the National leader, our position has been well understood for a long period of time and, you know, we have no intention or no commitment to support it beyond first reading.”

Luxon also stresses the compromise is a feature of MMP and at least allows “an aeration of the issues”. He’ll invoke this phrase – aeration of the issues – numerously over the following months.

Over the course of the press conference, Luxon uses the words “no commitment” 14 times.

PM Christopher Luxon at a post-cab press conference (Photo: Getty Images)

January 24 2024: Yes there is no commitment

Asked at Rātana Pā if he can rule out supporting the bill past first reading, Luxon says: “I’ve been really clear about it. As a coalition government, we don’t have a commitment beyond first reading. As you know, as a National Party, we’ve had a long-standing position that we have no intention and no commitment to progressing a referendum, so it’s pretty straightforward for us.”

January 30 2024: No intention, no support

More of the same. “We’ve said that we will actually support that bill through the first reading and there’s no commitment, no intention, no support beyond that.” 

February 2 2024: The bottom line is no commitment

Questioned after a meeting with the Iwi Chairs Forum, Luxon says: “I don’t know how many times I have to mention this but the bottom line is that there is no commitment, no intention, and no support to take the bill beyond the first reading. It’s part of our coalition agreement and that’s been our position.”

February 7 2024 (morning): We will not support the bill beyond first reading

With the questions mounting up before and during Waitangi commemorations, we detect a shift, a palpable shift. In an interview on The AM Show, Luxon’s language moves from “no intention” to a more definitive, “We are not supporting it beyond first reading,” he says. “We will not be supporting that bill.” That is echoed on Morning Report. “We will not support it beyond first reading.”

February 7 2024 (afternoon): Never been open-minded

Luxon dismisses the suggestion he has moved away from an open-minded stance on, for example, amendments to the bill. “We’ve never been open-minded. We’ve always said there’s no intention, no commitment, no support for it beyond first reading.” He adds: it was a bottom line for them. We came to a compromise … There’ll be an aeration of the issues through a select committee. But there is no intention to support it beyond that. I appreciate for the Act Party and for its supporters it was a very important thing. But the reality is we won’t be supporting it beyond that.” 

He goes on to explicitly rule out – for the first time – changing that position if there was a surge in public support for the bill.

He’s optimistic, however, about the timetable: “There will be a first reading, there will be a select committee process, people will be able to participate, it’ll be opened and, hopefully, closed before the end of the year.”

February 8 2024: I can’t see us supporting it

In a media standup Luxon returns to the “no commitment, no intention” language, before firming to, “The National Party will not be supporting it”. After batting away invitations to issue a “guarantee” or stake his leadership on the matter, he appears to wobble, stating: “I’m saying, I can’t see us supporting it. As it is, as I understand it today, I cannot see us supporting it.”

If that sounds like muddying the waters, please stand corrected: “What I would 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 and will not support it.”

February 12 2024: No support beyond that

The questions, they keep coming. “Our position’s really clear,” Luxon tells another post-cabinet press conference. “So I don’t plan to keep rehashing the ground that we’ve covered over the last few weeks.”

He says: “We’ve got a coalition agreement, as we’ve talked about before, where we’re going to have an airing of that issue through a select committee process. We’re going to support it to first reading. As I’ve said, there’s no support from our side beyond that.”

August 20 2024: We’ll vote against it

As the prospect of a draft bill emerges, Seymour chides National as disrespectful for its decision not to support the Treaty Principles Bill into law even before the bill takes that form, adding that the party had “taken several positions on the bill”. Luxon responds: “The National Party has a long-standing position and we will not support it beyond first reading.” He says it will return from select committee for a second reading, at which point, “we’ll vote against it as the National Party”.

A sign at the hīkoi pays tribute to Gerry Brownlee (Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

October 22 2024: Not beyond first reading

“We’ve talked about this before,” Luxon notes, correctly, in response to a question about the Treaty Principles Bill. “It’s a coalition commitment. As you know, we’ll support it at first reading, but not beyond that … We made a commitment in our coalition agreements. I didn’t get what I wanted; David Seymour didn’t get what he wanted. We came to a compromise and, you know, we’ll support it at first reading but not beyond that.”

November 11 2024: A disservice to the Treaty, we will not change our minds

“There isn’t anything I like,” says Luxon, in response to a press conference question about whether there is nothing he likes in the bill. “Our party didn’t support it in opposition. As I’ve said many, many times we’ve come to a compromise.” He adds, in a press conference that features his toughest language on the legislation to date: “I think some [Māori] are fearful we will be changing our mind. We will not be changing our mind. We will not be supporting it at second reading.”

He goes on to say: “We don’t support this bill because we think it is divisive and we’re proud of the Treaty of Waitangi. It’s a very simplistic interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, that has served us, I think, incredibly well, and to simplify it down in that way ‒ for a piece of legislation like this ‒ I think is a disservice to the Treaty.”

November 14 2024: A reductive, simplistic bill

On the day the bill goes to first reading (and an MP’s haka steals its thunder) and his MPs vote for it by way of compromise, Luxon takes his rhetoric up a gear. “You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion, with a bill that I think is very simplistic,” he says before departing for Apec. “It’s not helping us get New Zealand back on track.”

November 19 2024: Luxon says position unchanged

As the hīkoi winds up on the grounds outside parliament, Luxon and his ministers face numerous questions in parliament related to the Treaty Principles Bill. At least half a dozen times, Luxon says his party is “not supporting the bill beyond first reading”, and as such it will “not become law”. His final response to the final question: “We are not supporting the bill beyond first reading, and it will not become law. I’ve been clear from day one. That is exactly our position and it remains unchanged.”

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large
Keep going!
A collage of three people whose faces are obscured by question marks. Each person is surrounded by various signatures on a grid paper background.
(Image: Tina Tiller)

PoliticsNovember 19, 2024

What our politicians’ signatures tell us about their personalities

A collage of three people whose faces are obscured by question marks. Each person is surrounded by various signatures on a grid paper background.
(Image: Tina Tiller)

We asked a handwriting expert to analyse the scrawls of our elected officials. Here’s what they said.

Recently I received a press release from the trio of ministers – Simeon Brown, Shane Jones and Chris Bishop – tasked with overseeing the government’s controversial fast-track consenting bill. The press release itself was about as interesting as a statement about consenting could be, but it was the final detail that really piqued my interest: the signatures of the three ministers. Much like the ministers themselves, they couldn’t be more different. It made me think about what a signature means, beyond its literal purpose in signing important documents. What can it tell us about a person?

Every signature is different: the choice of style, whether to write your full name or just your initials, whether you include your middle name even if you wouldn’t normally sign off with that. I remember toying with many different signatures well before I would ever need to sign a document, and have maintained the same dramatic sign off since I was a teenager without thinking much about it.

Mike Maran is an Auckland-based handwriting analyst and a member of the Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners. He has experience examining the signatures of powerful people, once telling Newshub that former/future president Donald Trump’s “angular” autograph showed he was “quick-tempered, highly critical and tense” while “the ascending strokes” of Kim Jong Un’s showed he was “optimistic and… an intuitive thinker”.

I sent him examples of signatures from several high-profile New Zealand MPs across the political spectrum. I didn’t include the names of the MPs, though some signatures are more instantly identifiable than others. For a more comprehensive analysis, Maran said the signatures would need to be compared with the handwriting. “With a graphology analysis, the traits are indicative only as human being are much too complicated creatures to get 100% accuracy,” he added. As an outsider, it’s also hard not to think that it’s a little bit like reading a star sign: you’re never going to be too wrong if you keep nice and broad. Nevertheless, it’s a fun exercise.


Chlöe Swarbrick (Green Party co-leader)

Swarbrick’s signature, says Maran, shows she is “self assertive”, confident, but impatient and with a need “to be recognised”.

“[She] may start a job or task with initial enthusiasm which then declines through lack of interest or energy,” suggests Maran, adding that it shows “persistence and tenacity”.

Shane Jones (NZ First, regional development minister)

Shane Jones’ powerful, swooping signature will adorn many fast-track documents through his role as regional development minister. According to Maran, it shows a “reasonable sense of humour” and that, at times, he “may avoid appointments and commitments”.

Hitting a surprising accurate nail on the head considering he was analysing an anonymous and unidentifiable signature, Maran adds that Jones may “[get] involved or entangled in complex situations or problems which may be difficult to resolve”, though caveats this by saying he is “generally cooperative”. 

Nicola Willis (National, finance minister)

Of all the signatures on this list, it is Nicola Willis’s that intrigues me the most. It is, in my opinion, impossible to see any of the letters of her full name and if I had to guess the writer it would be someone with the name Dean. Maran agrees the signature is “illegible” and suggests the writer “thinks his/her time is more important than the person with whom they are dealing”. They can “at times be rude” and like “being the centre of attention”, he claims.

Chris Hipkins (Labour leader)

This, in my humble and uninformed opinion, is a real doctors signature. You can lightly see the shape of “C Hipkins” but in a way that suggests (probably accurately) that the opposition leader has to sign things every single day. From this, Maran deduces that Hipkins is “extroverted” and “enjoys meeting and discussion with others”. He can be “friendly and generous”, though “at times… suspicious”.

Perhaps unsurprisingly for the leader of the opposition, Maran adds that “the author considers him/herself worthy of attention” and “could portray an air of authority when making an entrance”. To be fair: this exact signature was taken from a press release issued while Hipkins was the minister of education, so perhaps he did have more authority at the time it was put to paper.

Christopher Luxon (National, prime minister)

 

Such clean lines, such precise choice of a middle initial. It could only be Mr C. M Luxon, prime minister. Maran says this signature shows the PM to be “friendly and assertive” and reveals a sense of enthusiasm, ambition and optimism. He does – again, unsurprisingly – consider himself “with high self-importance” but is also “reliable” and “genuine in thought and action”. He can be “occasionally argumentative and quarrelsome if in disagreement,” adds Maran.

Simeon Brown (National, transport minister)

Another classic of the signature artform: big, clear letters that trail off into oblivion. The line after B shows absolute no consideration for the following R, O, W or N. According to Maran, this indicates the transport minister to be “distrustful” and “impatient”, adding that he may avoid or evade commitments. He keeps his public and private life confidential, and is secretive with a tendency not to reveal his “true personality”. In other words, much like his signature, there may be a lot more to “S—B—” than meets the eye.

Mark Mitchell (National, police minister)

I’m really into Mark Mitchel’s signature. That perfectly straight stroke through the last name is a work of art. Maran agrees, arguing that the signature shows the police minister to be energetic and enthusiastic, with “good capacity to get the job or task completed quickly”. He’s also extroverted and “looks forward to the future”, Maran claims.

Winston Peters (NZ First, deputy prime minister)

Instantly identifiable, New Zealand First minister Winston Peters is one of the few people on this list who has chosen to write out his full name. According to Maran, the signature shows Peters to be “reliable and sincere”, yet also “irritable” and with “little need to show off”. He is “consistent in work and personal habits” and, perhaps of no surprise, “argumentative if in dispute with his point of view”.

Some comments been edited for clarity. 

But wait there's more!