English Bill: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
English Bill: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10887] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Can I start by saying how pleased I was that my colleague Mr Gerry Brownlee apologised to the House for the language that was used here yesterday. That kind of language is no part of the tradition of my party nor should it be any part of the tradition of debate in this House and I hope never to hear it again. But I think it does reflect a profound disappointment in the speech we heard yesterday which is after all what this debate is about and that is the speech made by the Prime Minister. 
New Zealand’s recent history in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi can be viewed very simply. National sought and obtained a mandate from the public for treaty settlements. When the Government changed Labour continued very slowly with those treaty settlements but moved into a post-settlement phase. It has never sought a mandate for what it is doing and Helen Clark has never explained to the people of New Zealand what the Labour Government’s policy is in respect of the treaty and its role in New Zealand and certainly she has never explained to the public what she believes New Zealand will look like in the future if we go down the path she is going down. 
I therefore offer her a challenge. I challenge her to do what Don Brash is going to do. He will be going around the country talking to the public as I did myself when I was in that role explaining to them the implications of what is happening now and the choices that New Zealand faces. I believe that Helen Clark should do the same. I believe she should run a public meeting in Invercargill and get up and explain what she means by “partnership” and “principles” and the various policies that her Government is following. I find that she is much keener to turn up to the openings of art exhibitions using Air Force One to fly to out-of-the-way airports like Gore than she is to explain to the public this matter that lies at the heart of our nation. 
The issues are complicated but they are vital. In the end it is not so much about the amount of Government expenditure involved but the fact they are constitutional issues. What does it mean when we say there is a partnership in the Government of New Zealand? What is the role of iwi— who are now assuming a semi-constitutional status? What will be the role of the courts particularly the new Supreme Court? I warned this House about this last year because the judges are full of international indigenous law precedents many of which I believe have no place in New Zealand. What does it mean to have a big proportion of our citizens having their rights determined by their genetic ancestry? So Helen Clark has more than enough to do in providing the answers to those questions let alone the foreshore and seabed issue. 
It has been somewhat satisfying to see that Helen Clark’s tactic of name-calling—a tactic that is several years old now—has been overwhelmed by the tide of public opinion on this issue. The same has happened with the media. They have generally dealt with these issues in a glib and ill-informed way but the tide of public opinion which has been apparent even to the media—even to them!—is forcing them to take the issue seriously. Frustration is at the base of that public feeling. Frustration is felt by 80 to 90 percent of New Zealanders who have never felt part of the treaty debate—and technically they never have been because it has been between the Crown and Maori. 
But today as we speak—in the ivory towers of Wellington—the politicians civil servants and judges are nattering away to each other about “treatyology”. It has its own secret little language that no one else understands but it will never stand the light of day. That is what I want to say to the Labour Party. I have always believed that if Labour members were to go out there and try to explain what they are doing the public would reject it. I believe that no matter what credibility Helen Clark has and no matter what economic conditions apply the public would reject it. I suspect that is why Labour members will stay behind closed doors heads down whispering to each other about how terrible it all is. 
That is why we end up with the kind of Waitangi Day we had this year. I have probably attended at Waitangi more often than most politicians. I have been there 13 times. 
Jill Pettis 
: Unlucky for some. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes unlucky for some—including me sometimes. What I see there is a basic problem of respect. It is a group of people who show no respect for their own customs and their own culture. It is a family who think they can hold a whole nation’s celebration to ransom. That is ridiculous. If Nga Puhi thinks that that earns them the respect of the public they have to be joking. It is a rabble; it is a shambles. Even the best-intentioned people like myself who have persevered year after year have given up because there is no respect shown for the nation of New Zealand. 
If Nga Puhi cannot deal with the Harawiras then we should not have to be paraded in front of Nga Puhi and its shambles and its disrespect every year. In fact the marae could be a useful metaphor for this debate. People greet each other form a bond of respect then dispute as vigorously as possible. But at Waitangi there is no respect. 
I now hold the job of Opposition spokesperson on education and just as the whole public sector is soaked in “treatyology” so is education. Steve Maharey has written a letter saying the treaty is at the heart of tertiary sector reforms. Did anyone know that the treaty is at the heart of what the Government is trying to do to tertiary education? Those tens of thousands of students who are borrowing money to get an education have now found out that what the Minister believes he is doing to reshape tertiary education is all about the treaty. I intend to find out what he means. I suspect I will get a whole lot of sociological hogwash from someone who could not even cut it as a sociologist. 
I have came across another little beauty which shows how we sometimes get ourselves wound into knots over this stuff when it is actually quite simple. Listen to this. I have here a piece of research about the education of Maori in our schools. I must say it is an excellent example and I am referring to Te Kotahitanga project led by Russell Bishop at Waikato University. This is an extract: “The research process used in this exercise is based on a kaupapa Maori theoretical and methodological approach in that it seeks to operationalise the tino rangatiratanga of the research participants by using a sequence of semi-structured in-depth interviews as conversations in order to produce narratives of experience.” 
Do members know that that simply means: “We asked the kids”! How clever is that! That is what parents do every day to find out any problems with the teacher and with education. They ask the kids because the kids know. Well at Waikato University—the alma mater of the Attorney-General—this bit of the research stretches out to about 40 words and it is all about rangatiratanga and treaty relationships. Why not just say: “Let’s ask the kids.”? It works. The kids told Mr Bishop the problem with the teachers and that too has a great name to describe it—“deficit theorisation”. It simply means: “Teachers do not expect Maori kids to learn and if we can change those expectations it makes a big difference.” My 10-year-old told me that is the case with some of the kids in his classroom and he did not need to go to university to find that out. So education is going to be a battleground just as many other portfolios are over this issue of what direction the Government is going to take. 
I want to finish by talking about school closures. Today the Minister of Education lost his closest ally. He had done a dirty little deal with the New Zealand Educational Institute to the effect that it would not oppose any change. As of yesterday the president of the educational institute said that he wants the network reviews to stop and I agree. They are savage. They are unnecessary. They are taking away from families something they treasure—that is an education in a community they know from a teacher they know. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis who is trying to interject is going to lose her seat over this. The member for Invercargill has already lost his seat. So will the member for Aoraki. Destroying good schools makes parents angry and they are going to stop it. And I am going to help them.