He was talking about the National Party’s position on the government’s own proposed Treaty principles Bill.
A Ministry of Justice draft report on the Bill was leaked just before the Kotahitanga Hui at Turangawaewae. The leaked report contained dire warnings about the rewritten Treaty principles in the draft Bill.
According to the official, the principles are not supported by either "the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty".
The proposed Act New Zealand policy rewrite re-interprets an internationally recognised agreement between two peoples into a proclamation of possession. It also overturns 180 years of New Zealand law.
So, it is wise for Mr Luxon to say he has "no commitment and no intention" of supporting the draft Bill past its first reading.
The prime minister doesn’t want to support the Bill and I believe him. It is a political disaster in the making.
The Bill is driving, and will continue to drive, disagreement and division among New Zealanders. The debate will mar his prime ministership for as long as he holds the role.
I believe Luxon when he says he does not want to support the Bill. But he is not being as clear as he could be. Or as he should be.
Knowing all the risks that such a Bill, let alone a referendum would raise, he has left himself wiggle-room.
If he needs an unequivocal statement, these are the words he needs to use: "While I am prime minister, there will be no legislation passed that rewrites the Treaty of Waitangi nor a referendum on the matter."
He need only look to his predecessors for a precedent for such a statement. Sir John Key staked his prime ministership on not raising the age of superannuation. Dame Jacinda Ardern did the same a few years later.
More recently, Chris Hipkins was prepared to lay his job on the line over a wealth tax, categorically ruling it out ahead of the election.
There are enough examples from previous prime ministers of what language to use to make an absolute commitment to a specific policy. Luxon surely knows what they are.
It is dancing on the head of a pin, yes, but language really matters in politics. It really matters especially when a government is looking for an escape clause. And "no commitment, no intention" is that escape clause.
There are scenarios where National may feel compelled to support the Bill into law. One scenario is Act or New Zealand First threatening to walk away from the coalition.
It is too early in the term for either coalition parties to do that this year, but if the select committee deliberately drags the process into the third year of the term, then yes, this scenario becomes a real possibility. Such a delay is not uncommon.
Delays are more likely if the Office of the Clerk, responsible for the secretariat support of select committees, has to slash its budget. That means fewer staff organising public submissions and even fewer public hearings outside of Wellington.
There will be fewer staff drafting the legislation, less advice on parliamentary procedure and longer delays in having select committee reports written.
A delay would be bad news for National. It would mean the coalition parties could campaign on it again in 2026, forcing National into a number of difficult positions.
Mr Luxon could be rolled over it, but the most likely option is he will need to use his escape clause and commit to the legislation or a referendum in order to keep his future coalition partners onside.
This is an important consideration for those opposing a Treaty principles Bill. Having it go through the select committee quickly might be a very good strategy to knock it on the head.
The select committee does need to process the submissions and hearings properly and without undue delay. Then the Bill would go back to the parliamentary chamber to fail at the second reading, as Mr Luxon is hoping it will.
Act could still campaign on it in 2026, but National could easily dismiss it as old news that had its day in the sun.
Luxon really needs some better strategists to help him avoid the potential disaster. The simplest and fastest way to do that is to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and make a truly unequivocal statement.
Failing that, and it is a big fail, he needs to make sure his people progress the Bill fairly but promptly through the select committee so they can vote it down and be done with it.
These are the only two options that will allow him to get ahead of his co-deputy prime ministers and actually govern for the good of the whole country.
■Metiria Stanton Turei is a law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
