ANALYSIS: The Treaty debate between Ngāti Toa’s Helmut Modlik and Act’s David Seymour was hotly anticipated. But whichever way anyone felt by the end of it, it’s impossible to deny Helmut Modlik had one major advantage, Te Ao Māori News digital editor Isaac Gunson writes.

If you haven’t watched or listened to a Working Group podcast before, things probably got off to a weird start for you.

Host Martyn Bradbury introduced Ngāti Toa chief executive Helmut Modlik as “proof positive that the house of Gryffindor is Māori”, before introducing David Seymour by labelling his twerking on Dancing with the Stars “a crime against movement”.

But, after some quick debate about whether David Seymour was a true libertarian, Seymour got things underway with his opening statement.

He started out calling te Tiriti o Waitangi “a beautiful document” before getting to the crunch of his issue: He thinks too few people have had a say in the Treaty’s principles or the way in which it’s interpreted in modern Aotearoa.

‘Name check’

Long recited lines, like holding infrastructure up because of iwi and hapū consultation, as well as co-governance, all got a name check as Seymour outlined the “divisive” interpretation he thinks te Tiriti gets.

That recitation was squarely in Modlik’s aim when it was his turn, as well as mistranslations between reo Māori and reo Pākehā versions of the Treaty.

Watch the full debate here:

Modlik reiterated Māori never ceded sovereignty, and that the reo Māori version of the Treaty said that.

This point was at the heart of the first question when opening statements were done.

Seymour agreed people had worked towards pragmatic ways to work towards living together but that a society “based on race” had never worked anywhere in the world.

Modlik then asked a question that would pretty much set the tone for the rest of the debate: “Logically, why would 100,000 fiercely independent Māori in 1840 cede sovereignty?”

As the minutes ticked by, it was clear the debate would be lingering on the point of Māori sovereignty for a little while.

As the debate moved shockingly swiftly over the 20-minute mark, Modlik’s semi-obscurity started to pay dividends.

That’s not to suggest Helmut Modlik is an obscure man. It’s more to point out that, for the past decade, Seymour has had multiple media cameras in his face on a near-daily basis.

So his responses to questions were well-trodden points covered repeatedly in mainstream media.

Modlik’s, however, were not.

And that’s where his advantage lay.

Did anyone win?

There will no doubt be a school of thought that David Seymour relying on rhetoric he had used to justify the Treaty Principles Bill for over a year now was precisely why he was the clear winner.

Whoever you are, the person you came to support is probably the person you walked away thinking won – but it’s possible Modlik did a better job winning some over.

It all boils down to one off-handed quip he made to Seymour: “You’re just ripping your slogans, bro.”

Modlik’s points, cast against the backdrop of a debate format, felt like a breath of fresh air. Rarely has Seymour had to publicly contend with these points, and it worked to Modlik’s advantage.

For many, Modlik would have been the first person to inject new points into the conversation in a long time, contextualising the Treaty principles in the original Treaty articles.

Damien Grant, who initially felt like a bit of a third wheel in this debate, ended up being pivotal in demonstrating this point.

Discussions on the 1835 Declaration of Independence, He Hakaputanga, how it informed te Tiriti, and explaining the meaning of kāwanatanga offered an unusually deep dive into the ancillary issues feeding into the interpretation of the Treaty.

Seymour was insistent Māori ceded sovereignty. Modlik was insistent Māori didn’t.

Grant, however, seemed to be able to balance both points of view, and to that end, he worried about how Aotearoa would reconcile the two vastly different constitutional worldviews.

Frustratingly, the debate largely stalled on this point, and not a lot of new ground was made.

At one point, Modlik invited Seymour to lay out the evidence that Māori ceded sovereignty, saying “There is no evidence… to the proposition that those chiefs ceded their mana motuhake,”

In return, Seymour asserted Modlik agrees with him about liberal democracy,

Judging by the comments on the screen when I looked up, Modlik either had more supporters watching or was genuinely winning over the audience.

They were coming in thick and fast on-screen while Seymour was talking: “This is revisionist history,” “MAAORI NEVER CEDED SOVEREIGNTY” and “Toitū Te Tiriti”.

Seymour’s supporters were slightly fewer and further between on-screen, the odd “Go David Seymour” and “yess, a referendum”.

The comments were arguably the most entertaining part of the debate, given another comment pointed out how civil a debate was unfolding on screen.

And that it was – even Seymour said it was going quite well at one point.

My poor ability to watch a debate, take notes, and write an article all at once means this article, up to this point, has portrayed Modlik as the recipient of easy questions - if any at all – but he got some curly ones too.

Did he think tangata tiriti and tangata whenua should have equal rights? If Māori never ceded sovereignty, how would we reconcile that with modern-day Aotearoa?

The answer, according to Modlik, was simple: the principles by which we interpret the Treaty.

Modlik’s advantage in this particular facet of the debate shouldn’t be surprising; It was the entire premise for why he wanted to debate David Seymour publicly.

He agreed with Seymour that a conversation on how the Treaty was interpreted was worthwhile but criticised Seymour for dominating that conversation.

And if tonight made anything clear, it was that Seymour’s voice has had a lot of airtime on this issue, and has rarely been publicly challenged by someone in the same room as him and broadcast for Aotearoa to see.

But is there any worth in this debate, ultimately?

National says it won’t support the Treaty Principles Bill past the select committee stage, and neither will New Zealand First.

That leaves Act as the sole parliamentary supporter of this policy.

And the debate itself went around and around in circles, barely managing to pry itself from the relevant but separate conversation about Māori sovereignty.

But perhaps that’s the lesson to be learned.

Perhaps there is conversation needed in some form, not because of the variety of views on the issue, but the depth of them, and how much the past informs the future.

And what does the future hold for te Tiriti and the way its principles are interpreted?

Host Martyn Bradbury, who talked about his daughter’s path to accessing te ao Māori, and the vitriol for the coalition he had personally seen, ended the debate.

“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.”

Isaac Gunson is Te Ao Māori News‘ Kaituruki Matihiko | Digital Editor, and has reported for TVNZ’s Breakfast, 1News at Six and Fair Go, and co-presented the 1 Climate Special and the 2023 Young Voters’ Debate. He also worked in two senior digital producer roles with 1News before joining Whakaata Māori.