Act Party leader David Seymour is set to face-off against iwi leader Helmut Modlik in a debate on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Join us for live coverage from the debating chamber.
David Seymour has accepted an invitation to debate te Tiriti o Waitangi and his party’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which seeks to define the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. The invite was extended to Seymour in August by Helmut Modlik, chief executive of Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira. At the time, Modlik called for the bill to either be scrapped, or Seymour to front up for a debate on the issue. The soon-to-be deputy prime minister chose the latter.
The agenda
- Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles
- Whether or not Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown
- The Crown’s right to govern in Aotearoa
Read more
- The real reason behind Act’s push to redefine the Treaty principles
- The business community has no time for Seymour’s culture wars
- Understanding the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Treaty Principles Bill
- ‘Undoing years of progress’: How the Treaty Principles Bill breaches te Tiriti
- ‘Division and social disorder’: The Waitangi Tribunal on the Treaty Principles Bill
Labour MP Willie Jackson labels Seymour’s treatment of Māori ‘as bad as the Brash strategy’ in pre-debate
Earlier this afternoon, iwi radio station Waatea hosted its own pre-debate live show with a panel including Labour’s Willie Jackson, political commentator Shane Te Pou and Waatea owner Matthew Tukaki, with reporter Atereano Mateariki at the helm.
Jackson said his party is split down the middle on whether they should join the Treaty debate. The spokesperson for Māori development said his biggest fear with tonight’s Working Group debate is having Seymour provoke Māori while the level of antagonism is already so high
“Seymour is goading one of us to come out and attempt to pull him down like a Once Were Warriors theme park,” Jackson said. “He wants to perpetuate this myth that all Māori do is come out and bash you about a little bit … it’s as bad as the [Don] Brash strategy.”
When asked how he expected Seymour to approach his debate with Ngāti Toa leader Helmut Modlik, Jackson jokingly sang We Are The World. “‘Why do we have to have our racial lines? Why can’t we all have the same rights?’ That’s the line he’s been running. I don’t think it’s going to change too much.
“As I’ve said some time ago, he’s the most dangerous politician in New Zealand, and I think it’s come to pass.”
Just under an hour until David v a Goliath of Māoridom
There’s just under an hour to go until Act Party leader David Seymour faces off with Ngāti Toa chief executive Helmut Modlik on issues regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The pair will be hosted by Working Group’s Martyn Bradbury and Damien Grant, simulcasted across various platforms from 8pm.
The debate follows weeks of criticism against Seymour’s contentious Treaty Principles Bill, which prime minister Christopher Luxon has already said his party will not support beyond its first reading.
The Spinoff will be the only platform live blogging the debate from the Working Group studio – so why not stick around?
Everybody on the live chat is having a nice time*
With about 1,200 people tuned in for the final countdown, the livestream on The Working Group’s Youtube page is abuzz with live chat. Seemingly every viewer has Logged On and said hello. So far so cordial, with elevator music and a clock all there is to comment on.
The Working Group’s self-written chyron declares it “NZ’s best political podcast” which is in fact a lie. That title goes to The Spinoff’s Gone By Lunchtime podcast.
In the time it has taken to type these sentences, the live chat has sadly entered some shaky territory. The collegiality was fun while it lasted.
Seymour and Modlik are in the building
Modlik was mingling outside of the Mediaworks studio when David Seymour arrived.
“Here he is! Suppose I better shake your hand,” Modlik said, before walking over to Seymour and offering him a hongi.
Both men are now inside waiting for the debate to begin. They appear calm and ready for some robust discussion.
“I suspect it’ll be a pretty dry affair,” said political commentator Shane te Pou, who is part of the small crowd of press secretaries and journalists gathered outside to witness the spectacle.
Modlik and Seymour get grand openings
Martyn Bradbury, not one to describe something without using the entire dictionary, had very grand introductions for his guests.
Modlik was welcomed as “the Māori for all seasons” with “the dulcet tones of Sir Howard Morrison, and he is proof positive the house of Gryffindor is Māori.”
Meanwhile, Seymour had his dance moves described as “a white man trapped in a burning banjo. Anyone with that little amount of bass in their twerk has no business commentating on race relations. Tonight, he’s the Māori for no reason… my electorate MP, who helped me with my case against the cops when they breached my civil rights.”
Nice to know.
‘Not a true Libertarian’
The legalisation of heroin was mentioned twice in the opening minute of debate. The topic was brought up by self-proclaimed Libertarian Damien Grant, who is the fourth member of the panel, thanked Seymour for the legalisation of Pseudoephedrine. “It’s because you haven’t donated enough,” Seymour says in response to Grant’s complaints.
There were a few press secs in the crowd hoping that throwaway comment wasn’t picked up.
Both debaters start strong
The debate seems to be tracking as expected so far. Both men began with strong openings – Seymour focussing on race-based policies being unnecessary and begging for an example from around the world where policies based on ethnicities have worked. Modlik has focused on the cession of sovereignty from Māori and the term “kāwana”. Seymour says that he believes sovereignty was ceded through Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
It’s been a back-and-forth focussing on the cession of sovereignty. They can not agree on whether or not Māori ceded sovereignty through Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the debate is becoming hung up on the topic, as many suspected it would.
‘Well we’re back to square one’
After 20 minutes of debate on whether or not Māori ceded sovereignty in signing te tiriti, Seymour was convinced that Modlik had in fact come around to supporting his bill by acknowledging that the Crown has sovereignty. Modlik vehemently denied the stance, saying the Crown has no right to make that claim. “OK well we’re back to square one on that point,” said Seymour, aptly closing out the segment and describing much of the debate about the Treaty Principles Bill from the past 12 months.
Seymour and Modlik pull out the one-liners, things heating up
While debating, Seymour commented things were “getting a bit high school” and challenged that Modlik would actually support his Treaty Principles Bill. The pair have clashed so far over Seymour’s belief that Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, which Modlik argued against, and the Treaty Principles Bill.
“David, your democracy only exists because our chiefs said you could come here and establish it,” Modlik said.
Modlik: ‘It isn’t about race’
The debate began shifting onto the issue of race but is jumping between that and cession of sovereignty. Bradbury questions why Seymour is focused on making the debate around te Tiriti about race when it’s “not the kaupapa” of te Tiriti. Modlik says te Tiriti is an agreement between two sovereign entities.
Seymour keeps claiming Modlik should support the Treaty Principles Bill. He also says Modlik has agreed that the Crown is sovereign, which is contrary to everything Modlik has said so far.
Equal rights and the unfairness of race-based policies is what Seymour keeps defaulting to. Modlik is focussed on the constitutional foundations of Aotearoa. It’s clear this debate won’t get past the point around sovereignty, though Modlik is begging for the debate to turn to the future and focus on how Aotearoa deals with the fact the government is ultra vires.
Phrase of the day: ultra vires
Helmut Modlik has uttered two words a number of times tonight that viewers may not be familiar with. In describing the Crown and its claim to sovereignty, Modlik said it was “ultra vires”.
Ultra vires is a Latin phrase, meaning “beyond the powers”. It means an action taken (in this instance by the Crown and parliament, according to Modlik) that exceeds the legal scope of its authority. Ultra vires is now free for the taking next time you’re having an argument about literally anything. Co-worker eating your lunch that you clearly labelled? That’s ultra vires. Partner demanding that you do the laundry when you’ve done it the past four weekends in a row? That’s ultra vires.
Modlik: ‘Please stop saying just leave it in the past’
Modlik pleads for Seymour to “stop saying ‘just leave it in the past.'”
“Stare at those words. Be honest with what the historical record says, and just acknowledge that hapu did not cede their rangatiratanga, their sovereignty. Now the logical implication, David, is this, everything that flows, everything that goes out of it, is not legally or constitutionally valid,” Modlik said.
Grant asks Modlik to give the meaning of kawana, which Modlik had already described 20 minutes earlier. Thus ensues a back and forth again over whether Māori ceded sovereignty.
“It makes sense, bro,” Modlik said.
Seymour ruffles feathers by boasting about ‘Britain’s might’
Social media is rife with criticism of Seymour’s claims around the Crown’s might of the British Empire and stating it was “propestorous” te Tiriti was an agreement between “the world’s most powerful empire and 100,000 Māori”.
So David Seymour’s argument is that Queen Victoria was the global leader at the time & because she was white & all powerful, the Treaty of Waitangi is nothing more than a drunken folly @actparty and white people shpuld own everything without protest. 🤔 #nzpol pic.twitter.com/eTAnprZU7j
— KIWIChar (@char_kiwi) October 8, 2024
Everyone is born EQUAL…..@dbseymour
Dude even YOU know that’s not true. 🤦♀️#nzpol #nz pic.twitter.com/spBjfOnyqO— KIWIChar (@char_kiwi) October 8, 2024
Seymour gives his last word
After taking digs at 1News reporters and The Post political reporter Andrea Vance, Seymour gave his closing statement after nearly an hour of back-and-forth.
“What use is a constitutional plan if it doesn’t allow people to overcome their problems and solve their dreams, no matter what their background?” Seymour said. “What we need to do is ensure that each of us have the ability to flourish in our own way, either if we have that under freedom, [or] under the law of equal rights.”
Seymour has ‘a few ways’ to progress the Treaty Principles Bill
Seymour was questioned twice about whether or not the Act Party will look to progress the Treaty Principles Bill through a citizens-initiated referendum. A citizens-initiated referendum would require at least 10% of registered voters, or around 350,000 people, to sign their names in support.
Seymour says he “has a few other ways” to progress the bill, instead of a citizens-initiated referendum. This will be alarming for opponents of the bill. He did not elaborate on what those plans were.
Modlik’s final plea
Modlik’s closing statement sounded more exasperated than Seymour’s.
“It’s hard to listen to two Libertarians ignore the black and white of a contract,” he said. “All over the country, you can see genuine, genuine relationships with local safety, government, communities, private sector, in a way they do not want to destroy it.”
For some reason, Grant got a closing statement too, but I’d already run out of transcription minutes on Otter.ai.
The winner is…everyone and no one
Well, they didn’t even seem to agree to disagree. The whole debate didn’t move past the technicalities of te Tiriti, or the issue of the cession of sovereignty.
Speaking after the debate, Modlik said the kōrero was held up from any meaningful progress due to the preprepared questions from the hosts, instead of allowing the debate to flow naturally. He also said he had weighed up whether or not it was best to discuss the topic, or ignore it, but had yet to see an instance of when choosing not to engage was the right choice.
Meanwhile, Seymour said he had not claimed he had ways to progress the bill beyond select committee. When questioned whether or not there were ways to progress the bill, Seymour simply said “no”.
At the end of the day, those who agree with Seymour will feel like he won the debate. Those who agree with Modlik, will feel like he won.
Bomber reflects: ‘I think David is completely wrong with the Principles Bill’
Martyn ‘The Bomber’ Bradbury is buzzing following the debate, with his daughter proudly watching on from outside the studio.
“I just think it’s so important that we have spaces where you can debate,” Bradbury told The Spinoff. “[We need to] have these difficult conversations, because if we ignore it and we don’t want to engage, I think things get dark real quick and people start believing some pretty crazy stuff.”
He says he philosophically disagrees with Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, and “if you don’t challenge it, you’re not prepared to go forward on the front foot.”
“I guess we’re the only place where a libertarian and a socialist can fight each week.”
Seymour doesn’t think the bill is wasteful
The Spinoff asked Seymour if he viewed the bill as being wasteful, given he has no way to progress it beyond select committee. Mostly, he thinks it’s a useful exercise because it’s forcing a debate on the Treaty principles. Some think it’s a vote winning move, or a push to allow for the privatisation of state-owned assets, while others believe it to be a miscalculated move that could cost Act. Seymour said parliament “debated bills all the time” and didn’t see why this bill should be treated any differently. When asked about the $4m cost of the bill that had been estimated by the Council of Trade Unions, Seymour said reporting the figure was “poor journalism”.
Mā te wā!
Well, Seymour and Modlik have left the building, and now we will too. Thanks for following along.
This is Public Interest Journalism funded by NZ On Air.
