The air crackled with tension as Ngāti Toa leader Helmut Modlik and ACT Party leader David Seymour squared off on “The Working Group,” the popular podcast hosted by Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury and Damien Grant. The topic? The controversial Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal that has ignited a firestorm of debate in New Zealand’s political landscape.
Seymour, a vocal advocate for a re-evaluation of the Treaty of Waitangi’s role in modern New Zealand, laid out his case for the bill. He argued for a national conversation about the country’s constitutional future, emphasizing the need for a broad public voice in shaping the nation’s direction.
However, Modlik countered Seymour’s arguments with a passionate defense of Māori sovereignty. He pointed to the Treaty’s explicit statement that Māori did not cede sovereignty, challenging Seymour’s interpretation of the document. Modlik accused Seymour of using the debate to advance his own political agenda, alleging that he was exploiting a sensitive issue for personal gain.
The clash of ideologies was evident. Seymour advocated for a broader discussion, while Modlik stressed the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context of the Treaty, arguing that its true meaning has been distorted and misrepresented.
David Seymour has once again ignited controversy with his staunch libertarian views, arguing that the Treaty of Waitangi’s emphasis on Māori rights undermines the concept of universal human rights.
Seymour, known for his advocacy of individual liberty and limited government, contends that rights should be determined by individual merit, not ethnicity. He believes this approach aligns with the principles of universal human rights, suggesting that current interpretations of the Treaty, which include provisions for Māori co-governance and special rights, create divisions based on race rather than fostering a unified national identity.
By championing libertarian values, Seymour aims to shift the focus from collective indigenous rights to individual rights, effectively diluting the specific protections and promises made to Māori under the Treaty. This approach has sparked significant debate and controversy, with critics arguing that it overlooks the historical context and ongoing impacts of colonization on Māori communities.
Many argue that Seymour’s libertarian stance ignores the Treaty’s historical significance as a foundational document for addressing the injustices faced by Māori. They contend that the Treaty’s provisions for Māori co-governance and special rights are not about creating divisions, but about addressing historical wrongs and ensuring a more equitable future for Māori.
However, this argument has faced criticism for ignoring the crucial historical context: in 1840, when the Treaty was signed, Māori were the sole inhabitants of New Zealand. The Māori population at that time vastly outnumbered the European settlers, highlighting the Treaty’s original intent to protect Māori sovereignty and rights.
Critics argue that Seymour’s stance overlooks the unique historical and cultural significance of the Treaty. By advocating for a universal rights approach, they believe Seymour dilutes the specific protections and promises made to Māori, which were intended to safeguard their status and rights as the indigenous people of New Zealand.
The debate concluded with no clear resolution, leaving the audience with lingering questions and a sense of unresolved tension. The clash between Modlik and Seymour, a symbol of the deep divisions surrounding the Treaty Principles Bill, highlighted the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. This is a debate that will undoubtedly continue to shape New Zealand’s political landscape for years to come
