The ACT Party has used its election campaign launch on Sunday to hammer home its policy of a referendum on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
But National's said it doesn't support it, potentially setting up some difficult negotiations between David Seymour and Christopher Luxon if the two are in positions of power after the October 14 election.
Seymour earlier this month suggested ACT could only provide 'confidence' to National if the two parties can't fully share power. He has since said he doubts that will be needed as he expects National and ACT to be able to work together.
The ACT Party campaign launch drew a crowd at Auckland's Civic Theatre on Sunday afternoon. While the party boasted it was the "biggest event in the party's history", there were a number of seats empty in the stalls.
It's the last of the political parties currently in Parliament to hold an election campaign launch and comes just under four weeks from polling day. Like at other campaign events, there were hecklers in the crowd who were eventually man-handled out.
After a hype-video promoting ACT's candidates and views, Seymour turned up on stage in a puff of smoke.
Seymour said on Sunday that New Zealand is "at a constitutional crossroad", pulled between being a liberal democracy and elements of co-governance, which he describes as being "power-sharing between one ethnic group and all others".
"The current government is presenting New Zealanders with a false choice," Seymour claimed.
"It says that if we want to right the wrongs of the past, cherish Māori language and culture, and give all New Zealanders equal opportunity, then we must throw out universal human rights in favour of co-government.
"We can ensure Māori language and culture are preserved, that every child has equal opportunity, and that the wrongs of the past are put right. Attributing separate rights through co-government will never achieve this, it only causes more division."
Seymour has rallied against what he's deemed co-governance elements in Government programmes like the affordable water reforms, previously known as Three Waters. This involves a partnership between territorial authorities and mana whenua in groups overseeing water services.
"There is nothing in any of the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above other New Zealanders," he said on Sunday.
"The Treaty itself guarantees that "all the ordinary people of New Zealand...have the same rights and duties of citizenship." All New Zealanders have a basic human right to be treated equally under the law and with equal political worth. One person, one vote."
ACT proposes to legislate the principles of the treaty "based on what the treaty actually says". The legislation would then go to the public to ratify.
The party would also repeal any laws "that give different rights based on ethnicity" and make sure the public services focused on "equal opportunity and need according to robust statistical evidence instead of racial targeting, along with devolution and choice for all".
Luxon has previously said National doesn't support the treaty principles referendum idea.
On Sunday, he said he hadn't looked at ACT's policies "in great detail", but National opposes the co-governance "of nationalised public services".
"We think we are one country. We don't want two seperate systems emerging. That is why we said we would scrap the Maori Health Authority. We want to make sure public services are national public goods and they are made available to all New Zealanders on the basis of their needs, not their ethnicity.
"I do think there has been really good examples, when I look at the local management of natural resources with iwi, local iwi, often working in conjunction with local district councils. We have been very supportive of that and we will continue to be supportive of that in the context of treaty settlements."
On the latest Newshub-Reid Research poll this week, National and ACT could form a Government should they be able to work together.
The cat was thrown amongst the pigeons when Seymour floated the idea of just a confidence (not automatically including supply) governing arrangement. That would mean National would need to gain ACT's support on every individual spending decision.
Luxon told AM last week that he didn't believe that would happen, noting he had a "good relationship" with the ACT leader.
Seymour went on to say he also didn't think such a governing arrangement would be needed because both parties would be able to work together.
"Our strong preference is a tight working relationship and so is his," he told Newshub.
"The realpolitik is we could still end up in an arms-length relationship if we can't agree on a tight working platform. But I think now what you are seeing is Chris Luxon and me is saying no, no, no, this country has real challenges and we are going to work together cohesively to solve them. That is exactly what ACT has always wanted."
Seymour hasn't laid out specific bottom lines for negotiations, but issues around the treaty as well as regulation appear to be a priority.
He's previously told Newshub that he acknowledges who defines the treaty principles could be a point of contention.
"It would go through the normal lawmaking process. A Government would have to get advice. Obviously, that would be quite contested. I imagine it would consult first," he said in February.
He's also said ACT would continue campaigning on the policy despite National's resistance.
At a debate earlier on the election campaign, he said there was a need for an "honest and open conversation".
"The way the Treaty has been interpreted by the tribunal and the courts over the last 50 years is incompatible not only with the Treaty itself and the events surrounding its signing, but incompatible with the values of liberal democracy and one person, one vote that have made society succeed."
Labour MP Willie Jackson said Seymour was suggesting "he knows more than all the judges of the last 50 years" and was taking a different approach to former Prime Ministers.
"You are without a doubt the Donald Trump of New Zealand politics. Trump did the same thing, 'the judges don't know anything.'"
Seymour later hit back at that "silly argument".
