Te Tautohe Tiriti a Modlik rāua ko Seymour and three things the Moderators must do to ensure the debate grasps + grapples with the subject matter

This article previews TE TAUTOHETOHE TIRITI a Modlik rāua ko Seymour, aiming to traverse what the parties bring to the debate and the angles they are likely to pursue based on what we've already heard and already know.

It presents a range of possible dynamics that could mean after the debate we are left once again with a feeling of being divided and being pushed apart; a sense of two already distant parties and views neither hearing one another nor coming any closer together.

Whatever it might mean to come closer together, and whether or not that might be a good thing, and whether that is even some real over-arching societal goal or just rhetorical 'smooth the colonist's pillow' nonsense, are important questions. But I'm not sure they will be answered either.

While this debate might appear on the surface to present the opportunity for Modlik to challenge Seymour 'mono-a-mono' and maybe score points or even 'win' (whatever that might mean), and for Seymour to somehow prove the righteousness of his party's position, the notion of a debate would require something wholly different. A debate requires that there is some middle ground that can be contested, some core idea that can move one way or the other. While it might even appear to be offering 'us' something we want or need as a nation, my feeling is that this common ground or core shared idea simply doesn't exist in this subject, between these two individuals.

The result might be more like a that awful modern political nonsense called a 'Leaders Debate', where leaders just rant their stuff and be rude to one another. We don't need more of that.

In addition, this debate risks spreading anti-Tiriti views. This chances of this are high, but there are three things the Moderators (that should be a band name) can do to construct a discourse out of this event. The core requirement is that they require of their subjects more than words and much more than opinion: they must demand that statements are back filled with sources, that facts are checked, that statements of cultural depth are interrogated.

Challenge issued - the parties

The parties, Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira CE Helmut Modlik, and politician David Seymour, have agreed to engage in a debate.

According to Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira, CE Helmut Modlik publicly challenged the leader of the (ACT) party David Seymour to a "debate about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its role in the 21st century" (Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira press release 2 October 2024).?

The press release notes "[t]he debate challenge was issued in August after Modlik watched the ACT Party leader once again defend his Treaty Principles Bill. At the time, Seymour claimed he wanted a national conversation about Te Tiriti so Modlik immediately reached out to accept the opportunity to kōrero."?

According to The Post (2 October 2024) Seymour has said about the debate that "he hoped the debate would be the first of many conversations on what Kiwis want for their futures."

Seymour added "Helmut has the same right as anyone else to take part in this conversation and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.”

Seymour's idea that this is the first of many conversations on what Kiwis want for their futures/te Tiriti and its role in the 21st century is an extraordinary claim which I think should be confronted in this debate. Seymour should be asked if he beleives this subject has never been discussed before.

The debate - debate, or just talking and argument

It is likely this debate will be dominated by one thing: Seymour's unassailable lack of desire to debate his position. Rationale discussion and arguments regarding those positions will be met with Seymour's attitude of unassailability. Seymour, taking this position, has repeatedly shown that no argument matters a great deal to him: he will use any approach as a chance to reiterate and revoice.

As noted above, the Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira press release notes "[t]he debate challenge was issued in August after Modlik watched the ACT Party leader once again defend his Treaty Principles Bill."

But Seymour has never defended them - he'll simply restate the basics. In the process he will say things like 'you have a right to your own opinion' to make it sound like there is a process of debate, opinion up against opinion, mono-a-mono.

That's OK: he can play that role.

What it means for New Zealanders is that in the absence of rational discussion, we simply need to take sides - agree with and support Seymour, or disagree and distance from Seymour. This is where we find part of Seymour's weakness: his rhetoric is about one people, but his politicking can only nurture division.

As for Modlik, well he's a seasoned speaker and I don't have any allergic reaction to calling him politically skilled. He has a sharp mind and quick wit, and the charisma to warm an audience to him quickly. But there's a strong chance Modlik feels just as strongly that his position on te Tiriti is unassailable, as Seymour feels his views are.

What quarter will Modlik give, to make a gain against Seymour. None, I suspect.

A debate of this nature transforms into a popularity contest. This, again, is fine. Seymour will remain popular with those already on his side, for the most part. Modlik will be popular with those on his side, and those who consider te Tiriti as it is known today to have a role in Aotearoa today.

What I think could be exciting is the question of credibility. Who in this contest can establish some, and who can retain it?

At this point it is important to ask - will this (or even 'can this') be treated and convened as an debate?

Will this event be convened and moderated as a debate, or, are the two parties just coming together to argue their corner and try to beat the other? If it is the latter, how will it be scored, and by whom?

As I understand it, and I have never been in a debate, a proper debate would be set up by establishing a basic proposition, with the parties then required to argue for or against that proposition.

A "debate about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its role in the 21st century" is already not that. You can't argue the positive or negative of that proposition - it invites views... like personal views. Those often lead into anger and argument, not really debate.

The reason this point is important is that masterful and interesting debate happens when thinkers and debaters argue points they aren't inherently invested in.

In light of that it would be genuinely interesting to hear Modlik placed in a position of needing to make his best possible case for the Treaty Principles Bill.

It would be at least equally interesting for Seymour to be placed in a position of arguing the position that te Tiriti o Waitangi has value as our constitution, or as our constitutional sun. It would be interested to hear Seymour debate that both te Tiriti in itself and the principles of te Tiriti and the judicial processes which have been relevant over the last 180 years have been legitimate and should be both respected and celebrated.

This, a true debate would make... and interesting watching. The desire of each party to bring the other more truly to their own intrinsic views means they'd have skin in the game, not just rolling out their usual comfort zone material.

One imagines, however that Modlik will argue his side, and Seymour, in turn, his. A tried and tested pathway - two peoples separated, always played up against one another, almost placed in conflict, always a portrayal in which what the world sees is an unfathomable and unavoidable difference.

Arguing for the Treaty Principles Bill is more than likely the task Seymour takes up, if not quite forcefully moderated. This would require moderation because the subject of the 'debate' is not the Treaty Principles Bill - it is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its role in the 21st century. The moderators must ask themselves: are we providing a new and novel policy platform and audience, or are we prepared to step in.

We have heard Seymour discuss the Principles Bill before, and as such, this affair risks failing to unearth new material, and entrenching what is already on record.

So, how to proceed?

The risk of merely elevating the policies Modlik seeks to challenge is basically unavoidable unless the moderators achieve three simple things.

1. Force both parties to bring evidence-based assertions and challenge in the debate all of assertions of fact and interpretation made in the debate;

2. Ensure the parties statements are based on legitimate sources, and the moderators must require sources for all claims made in the debate about anything to do with te Ao Maori or other relevant matters;

3. Ensure the parties behave appropriately in the debate, and if there are instances of disrespect or refusing to answer questions call those out in the debate and require the party to answer for those behaviours during the debate.

The debate - What do we know about what each party brings to the debate

David Seymour

In March, a review of Mihingarangi Forbes Waitangi Day interview with David Seymour identified 9 points of particular interest drawn from the interview.

The review asserted that during the interview, a careful listener could hear David Seymour doing the following things, which, impliedly, we might learn from or heed, or which illustrate and reveal his character.

They also reveal his approach to debate, and his approach to debating te Tiriti in the context in particular of the Treaty Principles Bill. In short, in this interview Seymour reveals, tests, and hones his long submerged arguments.

They were:

1. Asserting a false and unfounded interpretation of tino Rangatiratanga. Seymour asserts the right to define the meaning of 'tino Rangatiratanga'. His version is contrary to accepted, normative, customary use in te Reo and more broadly in Aotearoa. Strategically this is an attempt to co-opt the term to his agenda.

If either party assert false and unfounded interpretations of words or ideas the moderators are responsible for ensuring both parties to bring evidence-based assertions to the debate. They must challenge in the debate all of assertions of fact and interpretation made in the debate.

2. Asserting a false and deceitful interpretation of racism. In the interview Seymour asserts the right to define the meaning of the word 'racism', contrary to rich and accepted cultural and academic definitions. He also weaponises his interpretation against Forbes.

If either party assert false or deceitful interpretations of words or ideas the moderators are responsible for ensuring both parties to bring evidence-based assertions to the debate. They must challenge in the debate all of assertions of fact and interpretation made in the debate.

3. Dismissing and belittling the interviewer.

The moderators must ensure the parties are respectful, including answering questions asked of them, not answering questions with questions, or attacking the question itself in order to avoid answering.

4. Demonstrating using his own words how he feels he can treat women (that he feels at ease belittling and dismissing women).

5. Demonstrating using his own words how he feels he can treat Maori and his contempt for te Ao Maori.

6. Demonstrating in his own words how he feels he can treat those who disagree with him as insignificant and un-human.

7. Demonstrating in his own words his feeling that he is above the law.

8. Demonstrating using his own words his lack of accountability in his Ministerial role (when asked about a regulatory issue he said that it was not within his purview as the Minister of Regulation).

9. Infantilising himself. When Forbes refutes one of Seymour's interpretation of tino Rangatiratanga by listing normative te Reo meanings, he says "says who? Says you?". Innocuous on the surface, Seymour seemed in this moment to forget he was talking to te Ao Maori, to a woman, to a professional, to Aotearoa. His apparent disregard for her and the audience shaped the rest of the interview.

Helmut Modlik

Modlik is a seasoned leader and a seasoned speaker. Executive leadership of Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira is no small task, and one that requires leadership across a diverse portfolio.

He has a sharp mind and quick wit, and the charisma to warm an audience to him quickly.

But there's a strong chance Modlik feels just as strongly that his position on te Tiriti is unassailable, as Seymour feels his views are.

What quarter will Modlik give, to make a gain against Seymour. None, I suspect.

The outcome

Well moderated this debate could add to our understanding of the subject of the debate. Otherwise, it might simply add to Seymour's reach and Modlik's frustrations.