It was a really good show, deserving of a wider audience.
It was “The Working Group” live debate on David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. It was a show that either TV 1 or TV 3 should have shown live.
But they lack the courage to do so.
Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury is not everyone’s cup of tea. He was once even banned from RNZ’s “The Panel” for being too radical!
He operates a ranting left-wing blog called “The Daily Blog” and in recent years has broadened his portfolio to a weekly podcast which is now broadcast live through various outlets, including Face TV where I watched it from the comfort of my couch.
Kudos then to Bradbury for arranging Seymour – who is never shy of boxing his corner even among the most radical excesses of the New Zealand media – to be in the same studio with Ngati Toa iwi CEO Helmut Modlik, who told us he has a German father and consequently holds dual citizenship.
Libertarian columnist Damian Grant was also present as a moderator.
The debate was civilized and reasoned. Modlik even seemed to agree with Seymour’s second and third principles, namely that everybody has rights over their property and that all New Zealanders are equal before the law.
Where there was disagreement was over the first principle – that the government has the right to govern New Zealand.
Modlik came clutching Ned Fletcher’s weighty tome “The English Version of the Treaty of Waitangi” which lays out the case for the Māori chiefs of 1840 not ceding sovereignty to the British Crown.
Therefore, he seemed to ascertain that because sovereignty was not ceded, the government of New Zealand does not have the right to govern all New Zealanders.
Which obviously creates a slight problem or two.
I was disappointed Seymour didn’t have some historical evidence to counter Modlik on this point.
There is plenty about. In more recent times Waitangi Tribunal member Sir Hugh Kawharu’s 1989 back translation of the Treaty from te reo to English, still posted on the Tribunal’s website, says unequivocally:
“The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.”
What could be clearer? Sure, the English version used the word “sovereignty” but any student of history and politics will know that “complete government over their land” means the same thing.
There’s plenty more evidence too such as the speeches given by the likes of Tamati Waka Nene at Waitangi the day before the Treaty was signed.
To his credit Seymour remained reasoned throughout. Modlik consistently maintained the “kawanatanga” or governorship from the Treaty’s First Article only applied to the British residents here at the time, and not Maori.
“My point being” he said “to think the Rangatira would surrender their mana to a couple of blokes and some missionaries is preposterous, culturally and psychologically impossible.”
He asked Seymour for evidence that the chiefs ceded mana motuhake.
“It didn’t happen, David.”
That was Seymour’s weakest moment of the night. A couple of quotes from Hugh Kawharu’s translation and Tamati Waka Nene’s speech at Waitangi on February 5th 1840 would have provided the evidence that Modlik believes doesn’t exist.
Nevertheless, as a debater I thought Seymour was by far the more polished. He had a wonderful dig at 1 News telling the story of being asked by a reporter for his reaction to a poll which showed 46 percent of voters said racial tensions have worsened due to the coalition government’s policies.
He said last year’s poll on the topic showed the number was 47 percent. Therefore racial tensions were improving!
“It’s not hard to get one over a 1 News reporter these days” he quipped. “Maybe that’s why this debate is on this channel.”
Modlik was capable but failed to mount any convincing arguments against the bill, apart from saying Article One of the Treaty does not include cession by Maori chiefs to the Crown. He often read from a prepared script and seemed unable to debate logically with the smoothness of Seymour.
Remember Seymour’s bill is not re-writing the Treaty. It is to define these things called principles which have been written into legislation for fifty years, but never defined.
What thinking New Zealander could possibly disagree with any of the broad principles being laid out in Seymour’s legislation?
Bradbury, as the host of the show and owner of the podcast/broadcast was entitled to the last word and he took it, although I struggled to see his point.
He told the story of his fully pakeha daughter attending a total immersion Maori language school (just as my own fully pakeha grandchildren do in Christchurch) and how he went to a kapa haka performance that his daughter was part of.
The crowd at the concert cheered when the Maori sovereignty flag was raised and there was “fury and outrage” when images of Luxon, Peters or Seymour were flashed up.
That, he said, was a sign “the next generation of kiwis will not accept Maori being treated as second-class citizens in their own country.”
“The future is younger and browner and it doesn’t matter what stunt you pull with the Treaty Principles Bill, David, you’ve already lost.”
It was an extraordinary conflation of emotion and reality by Bradbury. If there is such a negative reaction to images of our political leaders at a kapa haka concert, one wonders just what level of indoctrination is taking place during school hours.
Bradbury has his demographics somewhat askew as well. The future is not actually younger.
Before the end of the decade there will be more people aged 65 and over than children 14 and under. By 2038 twenty percent of us will be on the pension and by 2060 that number will be up to 26 percent.
That’s not necessarily a prediction of political persuasions but don’t we need a few guarantees in life no matter our age and ethnicity?
Like - we need a government with a right to govern, we need to have rights over our own property and we must all have the same rights and duties as everyone else.
That’s what the Treaty Principles Bill is about.
It’s very simple really. But the German Maori Helmut Modlik and many of his ilk just don’t seem to get it.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
Kudos then to Bradbury for arranging Seymour – who is never shy of boxing his corner even among the most radical excesses of the New Zealand media – to be in the same studio with Ngati Toa iwi CEO Helmut Modlik, who told us he has a German father and consequently holds dual citizenship.
Libertarian columnist Damian Grant was also present as a moderator.
The debate was civilized and reasoned. Modlik even seemed to agree with Seymour’s second and third principles, namely that everybody has rights over their property and that all New Zealanders are equal before the law.
Where there was disagreement was over the first principle – that the government has the right to govern New Zealand.
Modlik came clutching Ned Fletcher’s weighty tome “The English Version of the Treaty of Waitangi” which lays out the case for the Māori chiefs of 1840 not ceding sovereignty to the British Crown.
Therefore, he seemed to ascertain that because sovereignty was not ceded, the government of New Zealand does not have the right to govern all New Zealanders.
Which obviously creates a slight problem or two.
I was disappointed Seymour didn’t have some historical evidence to counter Modlik on this point.
There is plenty about. In more recent times Waitangi Tribunal member Sir Hugh Kawharu’s 1989 back translation of the Treaty from te reo to English, still posted on the Tribunal’s website, says unequivocally:
“The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.”
What could be clearer? Sure, the English version used the word “sovereignty” but any student of history and politics will know that “complete government over their land” means the same thing.
There’s plenty more evidence too such as the speeches given by the likes of Tamati Waka Nene at Waitangi the day before the Treaty was signed.
To his credit Seymour remained reasoned throughout. Modlik consistently maintained the “kawanatanga” or governorship from the Treaty’s First Article only applied to the British residents here at the time, and not Maori.
“My point being” he said “to think the Rangatira would surrender their mana to a couple of blokes and some missionaries is preposterous, culturally and psychologically impossible.”
He asked Seymour for evidence that the chiefs ceded mana motuhake.
“It didn’t happen, David.”
That was Seymour’s weakest moment of the night. A couple of quotes from Hugh Kawharu’s translation and Tamati Waka Nene’s speech at Waitangi on February 5th 1840 would have provided the evidence that Modlik believes doesn’t exist.
Nevertheless, as a debater I thought Seymour was by far the more polished. He had a wonderful dig at 1 News telling the story of being asked by a reporter for his reaction to a poll which showed 46 percent of voters said racial tensions have worsened due to the coalition government’s policies.
He said last year’s poll on the topic showed the number was 47 percent. Therefore racial tensions were improving!
“It’s not hard to get one over a 1 News reporter these days” he quipped. “Maybe that’s why this debate is on this channel.”
Modlik was capable but failed to mount any convincing arguments against the bill, apart from saying Article One of the Treaty does not include cession by Maori chiefs to the Crown. He often read from a prepared script and seemed unable to debate logically with the smoothness of Seymour.
Remember Seymour’s bill is not re-writing the Treaty. It is to define these things called principles which have been written into legislation for fifty years, but never defined.
What thinking New Zealander could possibly disagree with any of the broad principles being laid out in Seymour’s legislation?
Bradbury, as the host of the show and owner of the podcast/broadcast was entitled to the last word and he took it, although I struggled to see his point.
He told the story of his fully pakeha daughter attending a total immersion Maori language school (just as my own fully pakeha grandchildren do in Christchurch) and how he went to a kapa haka performance that his daughter was part of.
The crowd at the concert cheered when the Maori sovereignty flag was raised and there was “fury and outrage” when images of Luxon, Peters or Seymour were flashed up.
That, he said, was a sign “the next generation of kiwis will not accept Maori being treated as second-class citizens in their own country.”
“The future is younger and browner and it doesn’t matter what stunt you pull with the Treaty Principles Bill, David, you’ve already lost.”
It was an extraordinary conflation of emotion and reality by Bradbury. If there is such a negative reaction to images of our political leaders at a kapa haka concert, one wonders just what level of indoctrination is taking place during school hours.
Bradbury has his demographics somewhat askew as well. The future is not actually younger.
Before the end of the decade there will be more people aged 65 and over than children 14 and under. By 2038 twenty percent of us will be on the pension and by 2060 that number will be up to 26 percent.
That’s not necessarily a prediction of political persuasions but don’t we need a few guarantees in life no matter our age and ethnicity?
Like - we need a government with a right to govern, we need to have rights over our own property and we must all have the same rights and duties as everyone else.
That’s what the Treaty Principles Bill is about.
It’s very simple really. But the German Maori Helmut Modlik and many of his ilk just don’t seem to get it.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
If the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, German, Dutch, Dalmatian part-maoris, and any others with a trace of maori, but a large lump of another nationality want sovereignty of their own, then they will have to fund it themselves. They can keep my taxes out of their greedy hands and pay for their own ambitions. Also, if by sovereignty they mean the English definition I work from, then they’re dreaming: Supremacy in respect of power, domination or rank; supreme dominion, authority or rule. The supreme controlling power in communities not under monarchical government; absolute and independent authority. While this country operates under rule of law and holds free elections then the will of the democratically-elected majority says what goes and any attempt to overthrow or usurp that is termed sedition with treason not far behind.
We watched it and doubt we would bother watching anything else from Mr Bradbury, his brand of twisted logic is not for us but fair do's he did host this important debate. Very sad that Helmut considers Fletcher’s weighty tome worth carrying to the debate. This doorstop uses far too many words to twist what is very simply put and clear in the "Littlewood" draft, a document which is the real English Version of the TOW, since that was what the Maori version was translated from. Helmut spent a lot of waffle defending the indefensible on the point of whether or not sovereignty was ceded and I for one am utterly sick of the to and fro on this. It is the subject of so much indoctrination in this Country that the Government should step in and stop it dead. The level of indoctrination in our schools and Unis amounts to child cruelty and those guilty of doing this are frankly despicable. As for the Bill, I fully supported it but the changes made to the second point have killed it for me and I will be submitting that there are no principles. The only reasonable fall back is the NZ First stance of removing all reference to principles and the TOW from legislation and I'd include the original 1975 Act - as if that would happen with our current National stance on maorification and co-governance.
Looked like Seymour was drawing Helmut out ...without giving too many of his points away......
That the English Crown would agree to any sort of co-governance with maori as part of ToW is 'preposterous, culturally and psychologically impossible'.
Reality - Maori both wanted and needed what the Crown offered and they agreed to the terms offered ie full Crowm sovereignty.
No more part sovereignty than part pregnancy. It was and is a case of all or nothing.
I suggest you read the terms of reference/mandate given to Hobson. Nothing about split sovereignty there.if anyone is going to suggest Hobson disobeyed orders then the ToW is without mandate and ipso facto a nullity.
That leaves NZ with a big problem. Even bigger than the brown washed younger generations. None the less brown washing seems to be the future.
The Crown is sovereign.
Your lands are safe.
We are all equal.
That's the Treaty in simple terms.
German philosopher Schopenhauer said: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." We have such a situation here as our history is being re-written and taught in schools. More than 80 books pertaining to our history have been removed from libraries, universities, and schools. Why? Do they contain too many elements of truth? They should be pulled out and re-read!
Kevan
Modlik's arguments completely lack credibility.
Firstly, he ignores Article the First of every reputable version of the Treaty (be it a draft, the original Te Tiriti, or one of a number of back-translations) which all unequivocally acknowledge the ceding of sovereignty to the Crown or, the equivalent, its right to governance forever. Why would the Crown, arguably then the world's most powerful entity based on the other side of the planet, be interested in governing at best a few thousand expats at not insignificant cost and difficulty but, moreover, agree to protect a discordant cohort of largely uncivilised, warring Maori spread across the country and then bestow on them the equivalent of British citizenship - all at no cost? To enter into some novel form of 'partnership' or 'co-governance' where the former was never mentioned for 147 years and the latter not until even more recently and in both instances not practised anywhere successfully in the world, yet, miraculously, it's now claimed to be the original intent - all based on a conveniently expurgated interpretation of Article the Second. The latter containing the much vaunted "tino rangatiratanga", which the activist's are so quick to claim is a right to self-determination/sovereignty, but conveniently fail to mention that Te Tiriti conferred that right not only on the Chiefs and hapu, but on all the people of NZ.
In sum, what he proposes is implausible and he's twisting the Treaty to create two classes of citizenship. Those with 'special' privileges, because they can claim a smidgen of ancestral Maori dna, and those 'second class', being everyone else who can't. In times past such claims could have been said to have been treasonous but, either way, they still deserve our contempt.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.