Democracy Briefing: NZ's populist moment
Will David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill become New Zealand’s version of Brexit and Donald Trump? Currently, there’s a strong coalition against Seymour’s Bill, especially amongst MPs and elites, which means the legislation will soon die. Yet, a populist mood might still carry the ethos of Seymour’s reforms to a more significant effect at the next election. Some form of a “Trexit” could eventually result.
Understanding the growth of populism
The 2010s and 2020s have seen a populist moment recur in democracies worldwide. The Brexit debate in the UK, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Narendra Modi in India and Donald Trump in the US all typify populist politicians.
They adopt anti-elite, pro-nationalist positions and are adept at using social and alternative media to bypass traditional media gatekeepers. They campaign against positions that enjoy cross-party consensus among establishment elites while being opposed by sizable constituencies of voters, and they deliberately provoke elites, whose attacks demonstrate to voters that the populists represent them.
They offer simple solutions to complex problems which makes them formidable campaigners, but they often struggle to govern competently once they acquire power. Voters regard populists as a means of registering their complaints about elite performance.
Navigating the Treaty Principles Bill
Act leader David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament yesterday. There was considerable disorder during the proceedings. Labour MP Willie Jackson was suspended from the House. Te Pati Māori Party MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and her fellow Te Pati Māori MPs performed a haka. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee was forced to evacuate the public gallery and suspended Maipi-Clarke from the House for twenty-four hours.
Neither the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or either of National’s senior Māori ministers were in attendance. Supporting the bill to select committee was a coalition commitment for National and New Zealand First. Both have confirmed they will not vote for it in its second reading, meaning it will not be passed into law.
Christopher Luxon has repeatedly attacked Seymour’s bill, stating on the day of the reading “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.”
But having passed first reading, Seymour will now have a six month-long select committee process to make his case for the legislation. He has signalled his intention to conduct an extensive public relations campaign, holding town-hall meetings and public debates.
Many political commentators have observed that Seymour is already conducting his 2026 election campaign, which will pitch to National voters that Seymour displayed more courage standing up for rightwing values than Christopher Luxon.
Friendly fire is also coming from the other direction – Luxon has come under heavy criticism for agreeing to even limited support for Seymour’s bill. Chris Finlayson, former Attorney-General and Treaty Minister in the John Key government has warned that the bill will damage National’s relationship with Māori and observed “We were on such a good path in a bipartisan way, over many years we've been working toward trying to undo the burdens of the past so that we could move to the future together as one, and a lot of that's being undone now.”
Liberal over-reach?
Defenders of populism argue that these movements represent democratic reaction to liberal overreach, the hollowing out of traditional political parties and soft censorship of Establishment filters that constrain genuine public debate. Disrupting such forms of bipartisanship is the goal of populist movements, not a drawback.
Seymour will welcome the criticism he’s receiving from state broadcasters. Act’s communications team are promoting clips of Seymour’s confrontations with journalists on their digital channels.
It is predictable that the legal sector is the most robust critics of this bill. Kings Councils and High Court judges are the nobility of the liberal establishment, and their ability to interpret the nation’s laws based on constitutional principles that remain undefined grants the judiciary considerable political power. So, it’s unsurprising that they are closing ranks against Seymour’s bill.
The Act leader will also appreciate attacks from agencies like the Waitangi Tribunal and Crown Law, and the letter to the Prime Minister and Attorney General signed by forty-two members of the Kings Counsel calling on the government to abandon his bill. Seymour replied “These guys oppose the Treaty Principles Bill because it gives everyone a say, even if you’re not a King's Counsel. Until now, unelected judges, lawyers and public servants have decided what the Treaty means. That's how we've ended up with divisive policies focused on ancestry.”
What do the public think?
Many voters may reason that if the nation’s top lawyers are against something, it is in their own self-interest to support it. Recent findings from the 2023 General Social Survey found that the public’s trust in New Zealand’s institutions has declined significantly since 2021.
Last month, Curia pollster David Farrar released a survey result suggesting widespread public support for the principles in Seymour’s bill. 46% were in support, versus 25% opposed and 29% unsure. If the numbers hold, a referendum on the Treaty principles would probably win.
Seymour might lose in the short term but win eventually
Seymour has compared his current campaign to the End-of-Life movement. Michael Laws first announced a member’s bill promoting assisted dying in 1995, but it took until 2021 for the law established by Seymour’s referendum on the issue to take effect.
His long-term success may depend on the nature of the next leftwing government and its relationship to the treaty. It’s likely that a Labour-Green-Te Pati Māori coalition would see the expansive return of co-governance-based policies, which could easily provoke a backlash for Seymour to capitalise on.
But there are reasons to doubt David Seymour’s credentials as an authentic threat to the established order. Most populist movements have a strong working-class voter-base. Some political theorists suggest “populism is the new socialism” and populists generally oppose mass-migration, globalisation and free trade, all issues that David Seymour strongly supports.
It’s also possible that voters will regard Treaty issues as a distraction now that the government has changed and they’d prefer politicians to focus on economic and cost-of-living issues. If demonstrations against the bill lead to political violence, civic disorder, or both, then Seymour will come under severe attack from his establishment critics.
The winners of the Treaty Principles Bill debate, so far, seem to be those parties with clear and confident stances on it – Act, Te Pati Māori, and the Greens. By contrast, National and Labour are the most uncomfortable about the Bill – they publicly oppose it but are also wary of alienating the 46% of the public who are in favour of it. It’s, therefore, going to be a difficult six months for both parties as they navigate the populist mood but cling to the status quo.
Finally, Seymour’s bill is not the only Treaty-principles related work underway. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is proceeding with the agreement between National and New Zealand First to remove provisions to the principles of the Treaty in twenty-eight key pieces of legislation. Goldsmith has indicated that some may have their relevance to the Treaty made explicit, others might be scrapped altogether.
Seymour’s bill will not pass this term. New Zealand First’s work is already in progress.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington
Key Sources
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Treaty of Waitangi: Christopher Luxon cannot stop voters having their say on Act’s bill (paywalled)
The Facts: ~2:1 voters support the reworded Treaty Principles Bill
Matthew Hooton (Herald): How Christopher Luxon can clean up the Treaty Principles Bill mess (paywalled)
Moana Maniapoto (E-tangata): Be very careful what you wish for, Mr Seymour
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): Act’s David Seymour follows in Trump’s footsteps by saying things politicians are not supposed to (paywalled)
It's hard to take this essay seriously when it uses the right wing term "elites" as representative of those who disagree with the Bill, and suggest the best legal minds in our country opine as they do for self-interest.
Rather, they opine because constitutional and legal interpretation is their bread and butter.
Just as medical doctors might opine on smokefree repeal or on the merits of health policies.
It's ludicruous to say otherwise.
As to Curia, an organisation which was due to be expelled/suspended from the polling industry body before David Farrar jumped - it's hardly worth the paper it's written on.
Chris Trotter claims he's from the left while he appears to support libertarian interests which are ironically driven by true elites and oligarchs, and this piece is masked as objectivity when it can't help but leak out the talking points of ACT and David Seymour and concealing others.
PS I agree that ACT / National could succeed one day - they have the money and the resources behind it. And the cultivation of 6 months is nothing but a brute force publicity campaign for a contrived problem that has nothing to do with advancing the welfare of NZ.
All round, a very disappointing article for the bias it can't help but show, as well as insufficient analysis on the rhetoric.
The "elites" are opposed to the Treaty Principles Bill largely for pragmatic reasons. They quite properly fear that the Bill threatens to undermine the New Zealand state which depends for its survival on a collaborative relationship between Maori and the Crown. Although generally unremarked, this has been the case since kupapa troops tipped the balance in the war between Maori and colonialist forces in the nineteenth century wars of resistance, and it is as true in 2024 as it has ever been.
The movement fronted by the ACT party is not a simple US or European style populist revolt against the elites. The key difference is the existence of Maori, an existence which the TPB seeks to deny ("Maori are nothing more than citizens") and which Bryce manages to pretty well ignore in his analysis of the conflict.
Pakeha, on the other hand, for the most part have a symbiotic relationship with Maori and are rightly uneasy about the intentions of the Treaty Principles Bill.
In Europe and the US, right wing demagogues have worked towards inciting "citizens" (predominately ethnic Europeans) against "immigrants" (who happen to be mainly colored) and foreigners. To apply that same "populist" strategy against an indigenous minority such as Maori who have strong positive connections to other ethnic groups is to display a serious lack of political nous.
Over the past week we have seen thousands of tino rangatiratanga, whakaminenga and hapu flags flying in the streets and parks with the colonialist flag nowhere to be seen. This signifies a watershed moment in the history of the nation. The "elites" in Wellington have taken notice. They can see which way the wind blows and know that they must change tack. That is why the National Party in particular are most unlikely to risk allowing the Bill to proceed into law.
It has become clear over recent weeks that if Maori come into renewed conflict with the Crown there will be unity, and not just among iwi. This time around kotahitanga will extend deep into Pakeha and other ethnic communities putting the survival of the colonialist system in doubt for the first time in over a century.