The Treaty Principles debate on Tuesday’s ‘The Working Group’ – the first with David Seymour – was a runaway success by any standard: 43,000+ views on Youtube so far (as of last night 12/10/2024 – and a live audience over 6,000). Combined with simulcast on the Waatea network, on the NZ Herald site, SkyTV 83, Tik Tok, Facebook etc. the audience on the night may have been many tens of thousands. Even mainstream network television would have struggled to attain that magnitude of viewership.
Interestingly it had just been the ten year anniversary of “The Moment of Truth” where Kim Dotcom and his Internet Party had streamed online their election campaign gotcha of US spying revelations live from the Auckland Town Hall in 2014. A little known fact, but that event was the first time in New Zealand a broadcast standard TV quality programme had ever been streamed successfully to a large mainstream audience. Mr Bradbury, editor of The Daily Blog, was working behind the scenes on that ground-breaking media event and he was very much – this time – in front of the cameras a decade later for this similarly momentous media spectacle of the moment of Treaty.
I had written a column for Metro magazine last year on the Treaty (that no-one read because… it’s Metro!) and was keen to cajole Mr Bradbury into making certain points that I had made there. He heard me out – heard me out in disquieting silence. In particular the national (Pakeha) mythology that the Treaty of Waitangi was a unique document and that the British had never signed anything like that with native tribes before was a balloon I considered should be popped. It was always framed as the context but it was complete nonsense. The British signed hundreds of treaties in the Indian sub-continent, dozens in Africa, scores in Asia, the Canadians had dozens, the US had 535 – and most were better for the natives than what the Waitangi Treaty provided. I was ranting. Him: silence. He assured me, confidently, he had more than enough ammunition – atomic scholars coming out his ears without needing my B-B pallets. The only input he accepted was my contribution from Twitter the day before of branding it “Iwi v. Peewee.” Glad to help even if it was not quite three words. (As it turned out Modlik did raise the US example of Indian tribes having recognised sovereignty without it ever being a contentious political or administrative issue).
It was the least likely venue for the first serious debate on the Treaty principles Bill. A live podcast hosted by a Socialist and a Libertarian, known for inflammatory rhetoric and Matthew Hooton’s *allegedly* defamatory outbursts. What could go wrong?
The Bill’s sponsor, the catalyst, and Ngapuhi’s least favourite son, Hon David “please stop referring to me as Rimmer” Seymour was in a suit and tie. His adversary, Ngati Toa’s Iwi corporate CEO and German passport-holder, Herr Helmut “don’t mention the war (musket or the world ones)” Modlik was sporting a large bone carving necklace. The regular panellist and professional liquidator, Damien “all my credit card transactions in the ‘80s were theft” Grant was also in suit and tie. The nation’s most immoderate moderator, Martyn “all tax is love” ‘Bomber’ Bradbury sporting a Karl Marx beard to go with his Marxian ideology was in a black suit. They had all made an extra effort – it is usually more casual attire. Pleasingly for this important moment the usual anarchic cacophony gave way to ordered and sober reasoning, for the most part.
Their introductory remarks with their one word to describe the week set the scene.
Modlik: “Inspiring”: inundated with thoughts, impressions, information.
Seymour: “Equality”: equal rights. Worth coming just for the intro, he refers to Bradbury as “my socialist tormentor.”
Grant: “Gratitude”: donated to Act “going on two decades”, legalise heroine etc. all Seymour can do is give us pseudoephedrine over the counter – “I’m dosed up on it now!” (He was untypically subdued, maybe he had taken too many?)
The rules: 3 minute opening statement, 2 minute closing statement from Seymour, Modlik and Bradbury, 1 minute from Grant. In between would be questions from Bradbury but he made it clear he would encourage free-wheeling exchanges.
Rather than traverse the backward and forwards during the debate – and because neither of them moved their position as a result – I will give the verbatim opening statements from both of them and then make my comments regarding the debate in reference to these statements.
While I must credit them both with precise and succinct statements which outline their general views it is also fair to say not all matters could be addressed in the hour they had.
Seymour:
“Look it’s a beautiful document. It is the foundation of our country and if it was just left at that I think would be in a very good place if you actually look at it. It says the Government has the right to govern, that everybody’s basic rights will be protected – not just their property but their taonga – all of their rights to live as they’d like to live and that everyone has the same rights and duties.
“You know you can read it in a page – it’s a fabulous piece of work. But we’ve got a problem which is that over the past 50 years since Parliament said that there was such thing as ‘Treaty Principles’ and that’s how we should view it that’s the lens through which we should see the Treaty from the present day. Parliament forgot to do something – it forgot to say what those principles actually are and into that void has rushed, you know, jurists from the courts – the Waitangi Tribunal – whose job it is to define the principles but doesn’t want to have this Bill despite not having done it themselves for 50 years. You’ve seen the public service, you’ve seen the academics, you’ve seen a relatively small group of New Zealanders have come up with an idea of what Parliament meant by the principles.
“And the problem is that that definition says that there’s a partnership a ‘partnership between races’ – that means that we are seen primarily as a race rather than as human beings with equal rights in this country and the result of that is that all sorts of other things that we need to be able to solve – like how do we build more houses for the next generation, how do we consent and build and fund the infrastructure to connect those houses together and connect them to jobs and opportunity, come to that how do we grow the economy, how do we ensure that people get along to school and get an education – has been distracted and sidelined by this constant obsession with division under the so-called ‘Principles of the Treaty’.
“They’ve said that it’s a ‘partnership between races’ and therefore there had to be a separate Maori health authority, ‘Three Waters’ had to be co-governed, that if you have a public department there might be a Maori CEO and a non-Maori CEO, that you can have infrastructure projects held up by the need to consult local Iwi and on and on it goes. So many of the problems that we need to solve together – we actually can’t do because of this divisive interpretation of the Treaty that Parliament left open to a small group of people to have a say that is different from how most New Zealanders would like to live.
“And I believe the Treaty Principles Bill is the solution to that problem. It says that the Treaty means what it says and says what it means: Government has the right to govern, everyone has their basic rights protected and everyone has the same rights and duties. And I think if Parliament was to finally answer the question it posed 50 years ago with the Treaty of Waitangi Act – that there are principles without saying what they are – then I think we could actually go forward together and solve so many of the other challenges that we face. But the challenge for people who disagree with that is simply: where in the world as a society that has succeeded by dividing people the way that this ‘partnership between races’ construct seeks to divide New Zealanders?”
Modlik:
“Well when I was a little boy I used to enjoy reading fiction and it was not until I grew up that I actually learned that there are actual facts in life that you have to get your head around and so I just enjoyed listening to a recitation of the fiction of the constitutional legitimacy of the sovereignty and democracy of this land so here’s my intro. Two years ago the protest at Parliament reminded us that democracy is a fiction only made real by the consent of the governed; it reminded us that for democracy to work ideals like truth fairness and Justice have to be real. We were also reminded what happens when that consent is withdrawn when citizens no longer believe that ideas like truth and justice and fairness are actually being upheld the fiction breaks down, consent is withdrawn in chaos and shows now.
“I start with those ideas gentlemen – those observations – because truth, fairness, justice what’s at stake for us here tonight and for our nation – it is a historical fact. Listen to this: it’s a historical fact that every non-Maori person, every democratic or civil institution in this land is only here because the sovereign tribes of Aotearoa and the British Empire reached agreement on the terms of their existence here in 1840. And what were those terms? Act would have us believe those Rangatira in 1840 surrendered their authority to Hobson and his Queen. In exchange they were permitted to keep their lands and treasures; were granted the rights of British citizenship, and that total surrender of chiefly tribal mana and power was obtained over 100,000 fiercely independent warlike people by a few officials, some missionaries without military support or compensation.
“Now I don’t know about you but that sounds like a damn good trick to me! The actual terms were that the Rangatira granted the British the right to apply British law and governance. That’s actually what, literally what, Tino Rangatiratanga means – not sovereignty – governance. Kawanatanga is a transliteration of Governorship – denotes the role of governance not sovereignty. Governance over who the 2,000 odd British citizens that were in this land and those that would follow. In return the existing rights of total chiefly authority literally what means over tribes and resources were guaranteed as well as protection and rights of citizenship – that’s it! Now you don’t have to be a genius to know which one of those scenarios makes more sense or is true. The good news as too is that our ancestors had a vision for the creating together here in this beautiful land something new, something better than they had previously enjoyed, Te Tiriti still holds that promise for us today: respectful coexistence of Kawanatanga and as outlined in has already been agreed the only way forward for us is if truth and justice are to be involved is with the retention of that coexistence.
“Tonight we’ve got to answer two key questions. Question One, first: what did Te Tiriti mean to its signatories in 1840? We’ve got to answer that. We got to nail that. And second: what does it mean to us today and to our mokopuna tomorrow? The eyes of our tupuna are upon us gentlemen – let’s not let them down.”
The to and fro was respectful. The examples as illustrators both gave were good. I do agree the principles were a fudge – Michael Basset said as much in a recent blog post and he was there in that Labour caucus in 1975. The courts offer a self-serving construction. My view is it is an abrogation and therefore wrong. It is problematic because the only way out to date is the individual Treaty settlements that are hugely flawed in themselves and endorse the principles but let the NZ Government and their legal system define it. The only thing more unsatisfactory would be what Seymour proposes!
Bradbury asked a direct question to Seymour if his Bill was just a precursor to a citizens initiated referendum? An unequivocal “no” from Seymour. He said getting 350,000 signatures would be a logistical stretch and that there were other ways to advance the idea (whatever that means, maybe his best hope is a backdoor legislative or regulatory or policy intervention). My view on his answer – having pondered it – is that Seymour himself doesn’t believe that they would win a Treaty referendum. Seymour essentially concurs with Bradbury’s brutally damning dénouement below – there has been a generational superseding of the reactionary Boomers. The shift towards Modlik’s Maori sovereignty plane is an unalterable trajectory that Seymour and his phobic following can only hope to defuse, or deflect, by skirting around a popular vote. Seymour’s scenario is therefore – take your pick – either richly ironic, or deeply hypocritical.
Seymour’s objective is to sustain racial antagonism to keep the Act vote share bouyant and in particular propagandise to the immigrant communities who are necessarily ignorant to convince them that the natives are the enemy and Act is their protector, the Bill their cudgel. It serves his purpose not to resolve it and to keep stoking the fire. The debate turned out to be a dumping of a very large bucket of cold water on that fire. Judging from the hundreds of comments on the Youtube clip and from Twitter unsurprisingly the polarised camps each side did not shift, however the more undecided viewers would have seen that Modlik’s Maori prespective is rooted in the tribe’s inherent and guaranteed autonomy and that Seymour’s Pakeha perspective is simply rooted. Seymour had glib slogans that Modlik was able to unpick but Seymour offered little coherent rebuttal to that.
Both may have agreed the Treaty is worthwhile and valid and that the future needed to be negotiated peacefully and in good faith, but this gave the ground to Modlik. Seymour could not erect a countervailing story of how Maori could not have those guaranteed rights given he had accepted the underlying credibility of the Treaty.
According to Shane Te Pou (and others) who were present observing, Seymour was livid and basically stormed off afterwards. Given only a few minutes before the hour was up Seymour was saying that the debate had been constructive and going well, my guess is that his ire could only have been triggered by something in those last few minutes. He was still pretty cocky up until then.
It was Bradbury’s summing up that really penetrated. As a Pakeha father he gave a first hand account of his daughter’s involvement with kapa haka and the visceral negative reaction of the parents at his daughter’s school’s performance when Seymour and Luxon (and Winston) appeared on screen – it was game over for the Treaty “deniers” from what he had witnessed. The next generation were intolerant of the pro-Springbok tour grandparents and their ilk. Bastion Point and the foreshore and seabed furor and Treaty diminution would not be tolerated in their lifetime. Read the room. The rednecks had lost the argument and lost the audience.
