Act leader David Seymour will publicly debate his contentious Treaty Principles Bill for the first time tonight with iwi leader Helmut Modlik.
In his first public debate on his contentious Treaty Principles Bill, Act leader David Seymour drew comparisons between the “division” facing New Zealand today – and that seen during the 1981 Springboks tour, when thousands of anti-apartheid protesters mobilised to disrupt the tour.
“We have become a divided society.We have never been so focused on race. The last time we were this focused on race was during the Springboks tour when New Zealanders were united against apartheid.
“Today, we are divided by something awfully like it, which is the idea that people have a different role to play in our society because of who their ancestors were.”
But his debating partner, iwi leader Helmut Modlik, tumu Whakarae (chief executive) of Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira, said what was really at stake with the bill – which proposes replacing the many Treaty principles that have been developed over decades with three new ones decided on by Cabinet – were the democratic values of truth, justice and fairness.
“Truth, fairness and justice are what is at stake for us tonight – and for our nation.”
Seymour’s coalition partners, National and NZ First, have already said they will not support the Treaty Principles Bill past first reading. The bill will, however, go to select committee for six months from November to May.
There has been strong opposition to Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill – more than 400 church leaders – including all three Anglican archbishops; the Catholic Archbishop and a Catholic Cardinal, the Methodist Church president and the Salvation Army commissioner – signed an open letter outlining how the bill would drive more divisiveness within Aotearoa.
The Waitangi Tribunal released its report on the bill in August, describing it as unfair, discriminatory and “a solution to a problem that does not exist”, and recommended it be abandoned.
“It is a historical fact that every non-Māori 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.
“The opportunity for that democracy to be here in the very first instance is because of the terms of the agreement reached between those chiefs and the representatives of the Queen’s Government that were here. That is the only reason democracy is here.”
Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira chief executive Helmut Modlik. Photo / Supplied
In response to a question line asked on behalf of respected lawyer Annette Sykes, Seymour said his bill was not a political stunt and confirmed he would not seek a citizens-initiated referendum because it was not binding.
Any New Zealand citizen can kick off a referendum – known as a “citizens initiated referendum” - but this requires at least 10% of eligible voters to sign a petition supporting the proposed referendum question.
The issue of sovereignty was threaded throughout the debate. Seymour said he believed Māori did cede sovereignty in 1840 while Modlik stressed throughout the debate Māori did not and any suggestion they did was “preposterous”.
To make his point, Modlik used the Māori value of mana – and “mana-diminishing behaviour”. He explained how to Māori, continuous “mana-diminishing behaviour” was so serious it diminished one’s life.
“My point being, to think that the rangatira of 1840 would totally surrender their mana to a couple of blokes and some missionaries, it’s preposterous, culturally and psychologically impossible.”
Seymour said what was preposterous was suggesting “Queen Victoria, arguably the most powerful superpower at the time, would enter into a partnership with 100,000 Māori on the other side of the world”.
Modlik said in 1840 the chiefs granted the British the right to apply British law and governance in Aotearoa New Zealand – not sovereignty.
“That’s literally what kāwanatanga means – not sovereignty, governance. “Kāwana” is a transliteration of governor, kāwanatanga denotes the role governance, not sovereignty.
“Governance over who? The 2000-odd British citizens that were in this land and those that would follow.”
He said in return the rights of total chiefly authority – tino rangatiratanga – over tribes and resources were guaranteed, as well as protection and citizenship.
Act leader David Seymour in the House in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Modlik said: “There is no evidence – not linguistic, not cultural, not historical at all – that those chiefs ceded their mana motuhake – if there is, lay it out for me.”
Seymour often brought his argument back to the current Treaty principles, which include concepts such as “partnership”.
Cabinet has recently released what it wants to be included in the Treaty Principles Bill.
Seymour has long said his bill is about ensuring all New Zealanders have equal rights. He called the Treaty of Waitangi a “beautiful” document, but said it had been interpreted in a way (through principles that have been developed over decades) that was “divisive” and “inconsistent with human rights”.
“What I’m against is precisely that interpretation – that interpretation of the Treaty [as] a partnership between races is what is so caustic and toxic ... you’ve had this interpretation that the Treaty is a partnership.”
He said the principles needed to be rewritten to reflect that everyone had “equal rights”.
During the debate he also said: “It is also important to recognise that we are now 180 years later in a society of different people of different backgrounds and challenges and choices is to allow people that equal right, that equal chance to flourish in their own way.”
Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.
