Cullen Michael: General Debates 
Cullen Michael: General Debates 
[Volume:606;Page:3788] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I know that the member is terrified that Dr Brash will challenge him for the leadership but attacking the monetary policy settings that Dr Brash left as loose seems to me to be going a little bit far in trying to pre-empt that strike upon his leadership. The present interest rate level was set by Dr Brash. Since then monetary policy conditions have tightened as the exchange rate has gone up and the Government is running a surplus of probably more than $3 billion a year. We have now learnt that National Party policy is higher interest rates a higher exchange rate and an even higher surplus presumably in that for the future. But then interestingly this afternoon Mr English sought a debate on Iraq and then got up in the general debate and did not talk about Iraq but droned on proving that he actually knew what the Prime Minister said after all as opposed to pretending in his question this afternoon that he did not know what the Prime Minister had said.  
I want to know why he has suddenly gone off the Treaty of Waitangi. That was supposed to be his big issue. That was the way to climb back to the top. Do members remember the 1990s? About the only good thing National did was carry on with the treaty settlement process. It can claim a good record on that. But as soon as it got into Opposition it reverted to type. As National’s polls went down and down it started saying: “Our core vote is middle-aged middle-class and very very white and we’re going to appeal to that vote by mentioning every possible day: Maori Treaty of Waitangi and on and on.” Mr Williamson nods his head in approval because he approves of that strategy.  
This was the man who said: “We’ve got to attract brown young voters to the National Party.” When he was trying to unseat Mrs Shipley when he had the dagger in his hand it was young brown voters he wanted behind him. Now he is sitting there quivering with 26 pretenders to the leadership the middle-aged middle-class Pakeha are the only people he is interested in. For a start his whole campaign depends upon misrepresenting the treaty. First he only ever seems to know that there is an English version of the treaty. There is a Maori version that is very very different in articles 1 and 2. But all his interpretation is based on the English version. He should read the Privy Council decisions— 
Hon Bill English 
: What’s yours based on? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Both. He should read the Privy Council decisions and when there is a doubt according to the legal opinions from here the UK the US and elsewhere the Maori version takes precedence in terms of interpretation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Oh no. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes it does. That is what the Privy Council has said. Why? Because it was Maori who were giving away rights and therefore their understanding of what was being given away must take precedence over Governor Hobson’s understanding of what he was demanding. He cannot say on the basis of that therefore that Maori totally surrendered sovereignty. That is not what the treaty says in article 1. Sovereignty depends on the Crown assuming it some months later and unchallenged exercise to that sovereignty since does not depend upon Maori surrendering that sovereignty in article 1 of the treaty.  
But equally in article 2 it is simply not true as that member claims that Maori simply had protected their lands fisheries forests etc. That is the English text. If he reads further and understands the Maori text a great deal more than that is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi and that protection duty is owned by the Crown as signatory to the treaty. Thirdly yes we all are the common citizens but not one people. We are many peoples in this country not one people; many peoples in one nation with one citizenship under the treaty. There is no article 4. He made it up himself. Oh yes one health discussion document not even seen by the director-general or the Minister mentions an article 4 and he believes it. He invents a claim to the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal says it is Government policy tries to frighten people—and he nods his head in agreement. He could not avoid the body language then. He nodded his head in agreement.  
The purpose of that is to frighten people—and frighten people with what? Freedom of religion that may be guaranteed is what we are to be frightened about. Here is a man whose co-religionists in 1840 did not have freedom of religion in England. Does he know that? [ 
Interruption 
] He does know that. Does he know the National Party was an Orange Party when it was first founded? If he knows that then he ought to be interested in freedom of religion.