Turei Metiria: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Turei Metiria: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10823] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to discuss two issues that were raised by the Prime Minister in her speech today. The first of course is Trevor Mallard’s campaign to close schools throughout the country and the second is the very important issue of the foreshore and seabed. 
The Greens entirely oppose the Government’s current school network review process—not because we do not believe that some schools may need to close but because the process as practised by the ministry and by the Minister is an act of structural violence against our rural and provincial communities. The Prime Minister mentioned how the Government was working with the regions through the regional partnership programme but what partnership? How can the regional sector seriously engage with the Government in a partnership to develop economic strength when the heart of these communities is being ripped out through school closures and no-go areas? A region cannot develop with any degree of certainty and sustainability when essential public services like schools are taken from them. 
It is a fundamental problem at the heart of the Government’s approach that it does not see the well-being of a community in a holistic way. Social integrity and ecological wisdom as well as economic sustainability are all required for sustainable regional development. Keeping integrity with regional development is absolutely crucial if we want to help provincial and rural New Zealand thrive in ways that will relieve cities of the increased pressure on infrastructure from increased population growth. Dynamic thriving communities in economic social and cultural terms are essential for city people those in smaller towns and provincial areas and those in more isolated communities alike. Labour needs to have a heart as well as taking a whole-of-Government approach to rural and provincial New Zealand. There is a clear contradiction between the Government saying that it wants to foster regional development while continuing to rip out rural infrastructure. 
The Prime Minister’s own Government has found that lack of public transport is a major barrier to rural and provincial women entering the workforce. How exactly will increasing travel time to schools help rural and provincial women enter the workforce? The Minister of Education has said that falling rolls make this terrible process necessary. But many parents and educators have noted that falling rolls bring opportunities for reduced class sizes which are educationally beneficial. Reduced class sizes would have a huge impact on relieving teacher workloads enabling better class management and providing some individual time for each child. Those are good things which this Minister should be promoting but through his network review programme he is instead fuelling existing disparities. The network review is a full-scale determined attempt to rationalise all schools regardless of the quality of education or the community investment in the school itself. 
A board member of a school in Russell which has recently been through a review process—and this school in particular will thankfully remain open—has told the Greens about the extraordinarily abusive process it was put through as part of the review. This school spent thousands of dollars so that the community could work through the complex issues and devise strategies to keep its school open. That school had to respond to the ministry within an extremely short time frame of only a few months causing enormous expense and strain on the staff and volunteer board members. They also talked about how the process pits schools against each other in an essentially competitive and damaging process. 
The Greens would applaud any review that results in better opportunities for pupils better services for the community and a higher standard of education. However school closures must be based on research that takes into account both the social and financial costs involved and is genuinely supported by the local community. A process that could deliver real community empowerment and quality education is instead becoming a central government bulldozer through the heart of small communities. The school closure debate clearly shows that good process is everything. A high-handed approach can lead to lingering grievances and it is surprising how hard it is for Governments to learn that lesson. 
This brings me very pointedly to the second issue of the foreshore and the seabed. How Labour deals with the issue will be the most important decision this Government makes this term not just politically but as a fundamental issue of leadership and justice. I urge it to take serious care over its approach and in the things its members say and do. At the weekend I heard Prime Minister Helen Clark continue to say that Maori wanted exclusive rights to the foreshore and seabed. That is simply and patently untrue. It is a statement that echoes the divisive approach espoused by other political parties in this House. Fundamentally Maori want a dialogue grounded in respect and reciprocity. That is the part of the relationship that underpins Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Honouring that can be hard and is challenging but not honouring it will be disastrous for the whole of our nation. This Government must take considerable care where it places itself on the continuum from reconciliation and te tiriti - based relationships to the divisive hate-based politics that the right wing is now claiming for itself. 
I understand that the Government’s primary concern is for public access to the foreshore and seabed. It is this concern that is mentioned the most when the Government defends its proposal. The Greens too are deeply committed to public access to our natural environment. Our conservation policy sets out a whole raft of policies to enable ecologically responsible access use and enjoyment of our environment that does not disturb the fundamental connections of kaitiakitanga or customary title for Maori. But the Government’s proposal does not protect public access let alone customary rights. The proposal imposes a set of rules that on the one hand undermines kaitiakitanga and on the other fails to protect public access for all New Zealanders. Maori lose a collective customary right that has existed for centuries and does not hinder reasonable access. Other New Zealanders with much more recent freehold title get to keep their right to exclude people. 
I hold in my hand an advertisement from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 printed on 1 February this year. It shows a whole island in Mangonui Northland called Paewhenua. This island is being developed for sale. The advertisement states that there are riparian rights to this island and swipe-card access. Swipe-card access to the beaches foreshore and seabed of this beautiful amazing piece of New Zealand! Does this Government’s proposal protect the public’s access to that piece of foreshore and seabed? No it does not. It does not because the Government has failed to address the issue that our nation’s heritage remains open for sale to those with sufficient wealth. It is access for the wealthy not for the people. We are one of the few nations that allow the ready sale of our land to international interests. 
Access to the foreshore and seabed is not actually an issue between Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders. It is an issue about the protection of our environment from sale to the highest bidder. It is about consistent policy across private and public interests that puts the environment and the people of New Zealand Maori and Pakeha alike at the centre. 
If we are to progress to have a truly unified cohesive and tolerant te tiriti - based nation this Government needs to demonstrate true leadership—not by talking the language of separation and conflict but by working constructively and openly with Maori to build relationships instead of seeking short-term political gain.