1. Very interested to see how this plays out.
   Seymour must be confident because his own, his party and the coalitions reputation is on the line
   Modlik needs to do well as he is apparently representing all of Maoridom
   Will the debate be decisive or indecisive?
   Hope we get real answers not just more questions.

   • Seymour just got a hiding and an education all rolled into one …

     His ignorance is breathtaking and his lack of any coherent argument was just plain weird. It’s like he hadn’t advanced from the intermediate school debating team…if he was ever in one.

     That’s what happens when you don’t eat a proper lunch!

     Modlik was brilliant …highly intelligent, extremely well read, knowledgeable, articulate, across all the subject matter and always on point in relation to the posed questions.

     Martin Bradbury’s last word was all class…such a great real story …well told with a very pertinent, telling message/ warning!!

2. The MC is a tosser

   • Not a nice thing to say about Damien Grant Janice.

3. David Seymour argued his case clearly.
   We have only to look at Israel/Palestine to see the horror that comes from the insistence on special rights for people claiming particular ancestry.
   One law for all: who would want anything else?

   • https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X10001478

     Funny because that’s exactly what the Europeans did. You only have to look at the history to realise the horror Europeans brought upon Maori with their special rights in claiming this country.
     One law for all was forced upon them.
     The most significant part of war is the involvement of religion.
     Oh and whilst Seymour argued his case clearly, he was on the wrong side of the debate outcome.

   • THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW FOR ALL IN NZ ! These stupid people who keep reciting BS# quotes from the unhinged racists.

     Mind you , there’s NOT EQUAL punishment for whites and browns for the same crime is there John ? Where’s the hue and cry now ?

     However, Don’t give us the BS# either that Māori  have more. For near 150 years laws were continually created to ELIMINATE , stymie, steal from and disempower Māori; they did not have the same pakeha rights in law ! And for evidence you racist Pakeha recorded it all.

     This Treaty Principle Bill hilariously written by one person Little Dave is just another of many over near 200 years because you just want more of that tiny amount left to Maori now.

     How about for the next 150 years we give pakeha equal laws…. barred from public toilets, segregated at the cinema & swimming baths, refused alcohol, haircuts & taxi rides, paid lower rates even as soldiers.. not allowed to attend school with other students. ( It happened in the South Auckland town of Pukekohe.) Forced from their own land and killed later in 1925 to the early 1960s, hundreds of Māori infants and children died in the  slums where they were forced to live in shacks away from pakeha. During the influenza pandemic only Māori had a “do not move” law.
     Inheritance laws , land ownership laws only for  Māori … and on it went because the greedy  Pakeha wanted more and more and more …

     Pakeha wrote the evidence down ! Degradation and racial intolerance across the country still into the modern days. In Hamilton, stores refused to let them try on pants. On K Road in Auckland, shops signs read ‘No Credit for Maori’. Councils jacked up prices for state houses to keep them out of ‘white’ neighbourhoods. Hospitals had segregated maternity wards. Banks and shops had official policies of not hiring ‘coloureds’.

     I propose there John that a new Bill goes to Parliament that for the next 150 years ALL the plethora of Laws that were forced on Maori to annihilate them now should be EQUALLY lived by Pakeha.

     How’s that for hands on learning about equality and when your economic base has all but been lost see how you fare then too .

   • The pragmatic way the treaty principles have been wrangled in Aotearoa New Zealand is why this country didn’t end up with terrorists in the hills and conflict like in Israel Palestine or Northland become a semi-separate state like Aceh in Indo.

     On the other hand Nationals Ben Couch after a visit to South Africa in 1981 returned to NZ to state that apartheid was a good system he would like to see here – minority rule with separate development.

4. Was disappointed not to have a chat. Had wanted to ask Seymour about his good mate Tim Jago.

   • Name suppression should expire next month–unless there are more appeals possible.

5. How has Little Dave and his ilk evolved from this MP in their underlying intentions ?

   ” MP Robert Bruce declared that ‘we could not devise a more ingenious method of destroying the whole of the Maori race than by these land courts. The natives come from the villages in the interior, and have to hang about for months in our centres of population … They are brought into contact with the lowest classes of society, and are exposed to temptation, the result is that a great number contract our diseases and die.”

   Put all the swift recent moves by the CoC under the microscope …undermining health , natural resources, environmental health, housing , land and sea grabs, laws and punishment, employment….
   same shit , we’re still bashing Maori.

6. I do agree with Seymour in a sense.
   He states we have never been so divided as a country since the springbok tour. Unfortunately what he fails to add is that it is his and this governments right wing rhetoric that has created it. He has little historical knowledge of the treaty and the culture of Maori and his age and naivety clearly showing.

7. Great intro Martyn, you had me hooked right there.

   Debates such as this are exactly what we need to get through this. All done in good humour. How come mainstream media can’t organize similar?

   As for the topic discussed regardless of what people think today, the chiefs did in fact cede sovereignty: The evidence is there in the letters the chiefs wrote to each other and the minutes of the Conference of Kohimarama in 1860.
   They did it because they recognized the British offered a far superior level of civilization, they did it to end the musket wars and they did it to end slavery. In 1860, the chiefs reported just how satisfied they were with the outcome. Pax Britannia.

   (If as was suggested that Maori didn’t cede sovereignty, then they were conquered. So now they need to get over it.)

   • Get over what Andrew your people stealing our land by making up your own laws and now making up more laws to steal what little we have left cause you’ve already stolen and sold most of it. You need to get over yourself cause our people aren’t going anywhere Andrew.

     • Life is full of these bumps in the road mate. Life isn’t fair. My ancestor’s land was stolen was stolen by the Normans in 1066, but I don’t bang on about it.

       Regardless of the historic fairness of the Treaty and what came after, everyone in this country has benefitted greatly from living in a modern liberal democracy.

8. Seymour obviously lives in lala land, he keeps claiming equality yet ignores that wealth gives huge advantages that overpower the “right” of those without wealth to get a fair go.
   Lots of talk about equal rights yet nothing about responsibilities. While our religions are among the worst offenders with their favouritism to the wealthy any objective study of scripture shows that those with ability are obligated to care for those in need.
   Seymour has created an alternative view in that following the treaty is somehow bad if it stops people from exploiting resources and claims that it is racist (apartheid) instead while ignoring the increasing wealth division that his ideas will create.

9. What’s a toanga??

   • https://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&histLoanWords=&keywords=toanga

10. I wonder when the Evil Pakeha Criminal Queen Victoria will have her sorry arse retrospectively dragged through the courts for her part in the illegal White invasion by the third Nations people .

    • Mmmmmmm. You are not talking sense. Your comments get more ridiculous by the day.

11. What about perpetual leases then John is that one law for all, can you tell me how come Māori land is subject to these leases that are detrimental to us.

12. Very good debate but, there was a clear contrast.
    Helmut Modlik and presumably his supporters focused on the past. Namely 1840.
    David Seymour focused on taking New Zealand and New Zealanders into the future.
    Seymours points were compelling and Modliks were not.
    I hope Christopher Luxon was watching and learning.

    • David’s future results in the wealthy having all the resources and most Maori (and all poor people) being their slaves. Wealth and power is all that is required to overturn an agreement made almost two hundred years ago when the Maori agreed to peaceful cooperation as they agreed to share their country with the invader. See the comments above for how they have been treated over the years and that’s all the explanation you need to explain while some Maori get into trouble with the law. If people start life in poverty/subjection it is incredibly difficult for them to get education and jobs that prepare them for a prosperous future, society once felt an obligation to care for those in difficult situations and had progressive tax rates, estate duty etc so that the rich paid their share which contributed to a stable society however the selfish Friedman type of economic reforms that looked at the amount of tax people paid as being more important than tax to income ratios has resulted in increasing inequality and an increasingly dangerous society.
      You might be naive enough to think that those at the bottom of the population will meekly accept their fate but Ge 6:5 & Mt 24:37 present what will happen.

    • What in the treaty triggers David so much that 95 % of our country don’t have an issue with? Perhaps it’s Davids own survival, perhaps it’s Hobsons Pledge.

13. Funny how you Pakeha pdm can flush the past down the toilet when it suits you and then use it to your advantage when you need it for you own gains.

14. Was a good debate. Both sides argued their case without shrieking at each other. It certainly gave me a lot to think about.

Comments are closed.