Opinion: The National Party faces a dilemma over its coalition partner’s push for a Treaty Principles Bill, writes Liam Hehir.
All Star Trek fans know that the Kobayashi Maru is a training exercise designed to test how cadets respond in a no-win scenario.
The notional goal of the exercise is to rescue the civilian vessel in a simulated battle with the dreaded Klingons. The simulation is designed to guarantee the cadet's ship enters a situation they will find impossible to win.
At the moment, we are getting a glimpse into how Prime Minister Christopher Luxon would go as a cadet at Starfleet Academy.
Part of the price he had to pay for ACT’s support to form a new government was a promise to vote for a referendum on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as far as a first reading in Parliament.
After the first reading, the bill is sent to a select committee for consideration, including public submissions, with the committee then reporting back to the House.
Since National has not committed to supporting the bill beyond that point, chances are that’s as far as it will go.
A face-saving measure
While opponents of the Government may not see it this way, that promise was a significant concession by ACT. Prior to the election, the party had declared a referendum to be one of its bottom lines.
National had no intention of going along with that and so the promise to support to a first reading only was clearly a face-saving measure for ACT leader David Seymour more than anything else.
This is a common strategy for political parties.
For example, in 2008 National’s John Key and Bill English made a strategic promise to United Future to support a first vote on income splitting - a tax policy that would allow couples with different income levels to combine their incomes and split it equally for tax purposes.
It is clear that National had no intention of allowing this to become law, but it was a face-saving measure for both parties, with the smaller party in particular being able to claim it was making progress on their policy agenda, even if the outcome was not successful.
It hasn’t quite worked out that way this time, however. The issue is simply too explosive.
ACT has not been shy in its continued advocacy over the matter. And while junior coalition partners often feel the need to make their opinions known, this issue promises particular headaches for National.
There is a very strong constituency for what ACT wants. Polling before the election showed 60% of voters backing ACT’s proposal if a referendum was held. Only 18% were in opposition.
Fewer people supported having a vote on it, however.
This may be because voters understand the social chaos that would be unleashed and take the reasonable view that the juice would not be worth the squeeze. Still, 45% supported having a vote and only 25% were opposed.
There has been other polling, but those numbers should not reassure liberal New Zealanders. What they show is every possibility of a Brexit or Voice situation should the Government go to the voters on the principles of the Treaty.
It’s even more dangerous for National because that constituency includes hundreds of thousands of National voters.
Luxon cannot denounce Seymour’s position too loudly without alienating a good chunk of his own base, not to mention the man scheduled to become his deputy at some point next year.
What now for Luxon?
So, the National Party finds itself on the horns of a dilemma.
Whatever it does risks alienating populist voters on the one hand or liberals on the other. That’s the trouble of being a catch-all party that tries to appeal to all voters as the natural party of government rather than an ideological undertaking.
Luxon last week made Seymour an Associate Justice Minister with responsibility for the Treaty Principles Bill. This feels like a clear move aimed at distancing National from the potential fallout.
Maybe it will be effective, though there is no getting around the fact that this is all still happening under Luxon’s ministry.
Getting back to the Kobayashi Maru, only one person in the Star Trek universe ever “beat” the test. That was, of course, James T. Kirk. And he only passed because he cheated.
Real-life politics does not afford such liberties.
Any intervention Luxon makes, be it a big influential speech or a sit-down television interview, seems destined to falter in the face of the irreconcilable positions that his voters will take. And this will persist until the bill has been voted on in the first reading and likely defeated in the second.
There will still be fallout, but things will start to settle down in the months that follow.
The only thing for it, really, is to get the matter over and done with as soon as possible. There’s no saving this no-win situation.
Liam Hehir is a lawyer and political commentator. He is a National Party member.
SHARE ME