Treaty Principles Bill: Thousands Of Submissions To Be Excluded From Parliamentary Record, Labour Says

Russell
Palmer, Political Reporter

Labour’s
Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb says thousands of
submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill are set to be
excluded from the Parliamentary record.

He said it was
not a matter of submissions arriving after deadline, but
that the committee staff do not have enough time to process
the unprecedented number of written submissions – including
more than 200,000 online and 12,000 hand-written.

“The
committee’s working but they’ve made it very clear that
there’s no way that they can process all of the submissions
by the time the committee is due to report back, and if
they’re not processed … they kind of fall off the end and
don’t become part of the record,” he told RNZ.

“This
is an unprecedented number of submissions, but it’s also
unprecedented that submissions that people have made don’t
form part of the parliamentary record.”

He said the
hard-copy submissions not being considered would be
particularly “heart-rending”.

“There’s pictures drawn
by kids and there’s handwritten letters written by people
from all around the country of all ages who have put their
heart and souls into those submissions,” he
said.

“They should absolutely form part of the record
so that we can look back and say ‘when we resolved on this
Bill what we were going to do, here’s what people had to
say’ – and every single person who had something to say
deserves to have that recorded forever.”

Prime
Minister Christopher Luxon on Friday told reporters it was
up to the opposition whether they wanted to stall the
progression of the bill or not.

“We want the bill to
come back to the House to be able to vote it down,
ultimately Labour and the Greens have got to determine
whether they’re going to just carry on with it through a
select committee process or whether they want to just end
the Bill,” he said.

“I think the select committee’s
done the very best it can to make sure it hears the
sentiments expressed on all sides of that debate, but you
know – now is the time to move on… It’s up to the
committee and it’s frankly up to Labour and the Greens as to
whether they want to extend the process and play politics or
whether they actually want to end the bill. And we’re ready
to vote the bill down.”

Webb said he did not believe
giving every New Zealander who wanted a say on the matter
that opportunity was slowing up the process.

“I call
it good parliamentary procedure, and I can understand that
the Prime Minister is embarrassed by what’s going on,
because he’s been made to look like a fool,” he
said.

“If he wanted to go out and allow the ACT Party
to go out with this Bill and ask the public what they
thought, he’s got to pay the consequences and listen. And
truncating the process so that you can’t have a proper
Parliamentary record is appalling process.”

Webb
raised the matter in Parliament on Thursday, asking Justice
Committee chairperson James Meager if the bill would be
reported back to Parliament “before all submissions have
been processed and considered by members”.

Meager
responded those decisions were made by the committee, not
the chairperson.

Webb further asked why Meager did not
himself “propose seeking an extension of time to report back
to the House or support my motion to do so in light of the
fact that members will not be able to consider all of the
submissions made by the public”.

However, the Deputy
Speaker Barbara Kuriger intervened, noting Meager had
already stated it was not his responsibility but that of the
committee.

In a response to RNZ’s requests for
comment, Meager said everything remained confidential to the
Committee until the Bill was reported back, and making any
comments could be a breach of privilege.

“Changing the
date for reporting back is ultimately a decision for the
Business Committee or the House to make, not the Justice
Committee,” he said.

He did not offer further
comment.

Webb was adamant, however, that it was not a
breach of privilege, and said the usual process was for a
committee to request an extension which would then go to the
Business Committee to approve.

“Normal procedure is if
a select committee asks for more time, they’ll usually get
it unless there’s some something odd going on,” he
said.

“I don’t consider it to be a breach of privilege
because the committee itself has talked about how many
submissions there are. We put out press releases, so talking
about how many submissions there are and the challenges that
are ahead of us is entirely appropriate.

“To talk
about a motion that has been considered and disposed of –
that’s no longer before the committee – it’s not live
business.

“James Meager voted against asking the
Business Committee for an extension of time. He did not want
an extension of time. So it’s disingenuous of him to suggest
‘it’s not my problem’ because he voted against getting an
extension of time.”

Correction: This story
was corrected on Saturday 29 March to reflect James Meager
said “making any comments could be a breach of privilege”,
not “would
be”.

© Scoop Media