Te Tautohetohe a Modlik raua ko Seymour: some analysis

Here are the opening statements from both Seymour and Modlik.

(Badbury) … David Seymour's opening statement. What does the treaty mean to you and its place in New Zealand? You have 3 minutes starting now:

“Look it's a beautiful document, it is the foundation of our country and if it was just left at that I think would be in a very good place… if you actually look at it, it says the government has the right to govern (misinformation), that everybody's basic rights will be protected (misinformation), not just their property but their taonga (misinformation), all of their rights to live as they'd like to live (misinformation), and that everyone has the same rights and duties (misinformation). You know, you can read it in a page (misinformation) it's a fabulous piece of work.

But we've got a problem which is that over the past 50 years since Parliament said that there was such a thing as treaty principles, and that's how we should view it, that's the lens through which we should see the Treaty from the present day, Parliament forgot (misinformation) to do something: it forgot to say what those principles actually are.?

And into that void has rushed you know jurists from the courts the Waitangi Tribunal whose job it is to define the principles but doesn't want to have this bill (misinformation) despite not having done it themselves (misinformation) for 50 years.?

(We’ve) seen the public service, you've seen the academics, you've seen a relatively small group of New Zealanders have come up with an idea of what Parliament meant by the principles. The problem is that that definition says that there's a partnership (misinformation), a partnership between races (misinformation) that means that we are seen primarily as a race (misinformation) rather than as human beings with equal rights in this country.?

The result of that is that all sorts of other things that we need to be able to solve like how do we build more houses for the next generation how do we consent and build and fund the infrastructure to connect those houses together and connect them to jobs and opportunity, come to that, how do we grow the economy, how do we ensure that people get along to school and get an education… has been distracted and sidelined (misinformation) by this constant obsession with division (misinformation) under the so-called principles of the treaty.?

They've said that it's a partnership between races (misinformation) and therefore there had to be (misinformation) a separate Maori health authority, three waters had to be (misinformation) co-governed, that if you have a public department there might be a Māori CEO and a non-Māori CEO, that you can have infrastructure projects held up by the need to consult local iwi, and on and on it goes.

So many of the problems that we need to solve together we actually can't do because of this divisive interpretation of the treaty (misinformation) that parliament left open to a small group of people (misinformation) to have a say. That is different from how most New Zealanders would like to live and believe.?

The Treaty Principles Bill is the solution to that problem and says that the treaty means what it says and says what it means. Government has the right to govern (misinformation), everyone has their basic rights protected (misinformation), and everyone has the same rights and duties (misinformation).

I think if parliament was to finally answer the question that it posed 50 years ago with the Treaty of Waitangi Act, that there are principles without saying what they are, then I think we could actually go forward together and solve so many of the other challenges that we face.?

But the challenge for people who disagree with that, that's simply ‘where in the world is a society that has succeeded by dividing people the way that this partnership between racist constructs seeks to divide New Zealanders.’?

Bradbury: Helmet I'll ask you now for your opening statement what's the treaty mean to you and its place in New Zealand you have 3 minutes starting now.?

Modlik: Well, when I was a little boy I used to enjoy reading fiction, and it was not until I grew up that I actually learned that there are actual facts in life that you have to get your head around. So I just enjoyed listening to recitation of the fiction of the constitutional legitimacy of the sovereignty and democracy of this land.

So here's my intro - two years ago the protests at parliament reminded us that democracy is a fiction only made real by the consent of the governed. It reminded us that for democracy to work ideas like truth fairness and justice have to be real. We were also reminded of what happens when that consent is withdrawn. When citizens no longer believe their ideas like truth and justice and fairness are actually being upheld the fiction breaks down, consent is withdrawn, and chaos ensues.

Now I start with those ideas you know and those observations because truth, fairness and justice are what's at stake for us here tonight and for our nation. It is a historical fact - listen to this: it's 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.

What were those terms? ACT would have us believe those Rangatira in Aotearoa in 1840 surrendered their authority to Hobson and his Queen, in exchange they were permitted to keep their lands and treasures, were granted the rights of British citizenship, and that total surrender of chiefly tribal mana and power was obtained over 100,000 fiercely independent warlike people by a few officials, and some missionaries without military support or compensation. Now, I don't know about you but that sounds like a damn good trick to me.

The actual terms were that the Rangatira granted the British the right to apply British law and governance that's actually what, literally what, Kāwanatanga means: not sovereignty; governance. Kāwana is a transliteration of governor: Kāwanatanga denotes the role of governance, not sovereignty.

Governance over who? The 2000 odd British citizens that were in this land. It would follow in return the existing rights of total chiefly authority (literally what tino Rangatiratanga means) over tribes and resources were guaranteed as well as protection and rights of citizenship.

That's it. Now you don't have to be a genius to know which one of those scenarios makes more sense or is true.?

The good news is though whanau, is that our ancestors had a vision for the creating together here in this beautiful land something new, something better, than they had previously enjoyed.?

Te Tiriti still holds their promise for us today: respectful coexistence of Kāwana and Rangatira as outlined in te Tiriti has already been agreed. The only way forward for us is - if truth and justice are to be involved - is with the retention of that coexistence.?

Tonight we've got to answer two key questions finally.?

First: what did te Tiriti o Waitangi mean to its signatories in 1840? We've got to answer and we’ve got to nail that.?

Second: what does it mean to us today and to our mutual tomorrow, with the eyes of our tupuna upon us…?

But gentlemen: let's not let them down.

?

?