Reduce focus on treaty, says English

Bill English

National's Bill English says a better understanding of the distinct traditions of both Pakeha and Maori would provide a more constructive way forward for race relations than arguing about the Treaty of Waitangi.

He made the call in a speech on "treatyology", delivered at Auckland University last night.

It comes in the wake of criticism, both inside and outside National, of the hard-line stance leader Don Brash took on race and treaty issues, which some political commentators have argued cost his party the election.

Mr English's decision to give a speech on the subject so soon afterwards is likely to be considered provocative by some within National, especially as he is the party's spokesman on education, not Maori affairs.

He said a key focus of the speech was the need for universities to play a more active role in analysing and deconstructing the race relations debate.

Dr Brash had been shown the speech. Asked if it took a more moderate line than Dr Brash had, Mr English said that was not the question.

"The question is how do you move this debate forward."

He was interested in advocating a "more constructive way ahead than arguing about the significance of the treaty," which limited the depth of the debate and was constrained by rigid "ideological advocacy."

It was important to understand that Pakeha concern about "treatyology" - defined as the notion of divided citizenship - was not the product of ignorance or racism.

Rather, it was a product of their political history, which reached back hundreds of years into Europe and involved "wrestling religious and tribal differences to the ground and struggling towards a universal citizenship".

"Suspicion of defining people's right by ethnic, gender or religious orientation is deep in our cultural DNA."

A better understanding of the Pakeha "collective memory", the unspoken instincts underpinning a civil society, revealed the ability and desire to merge cultures - which accounted for New Zealand's relative success in doing so.

"Pakeha roots in Great Britain are a tangle of Picts, Danes, Norse, Viking, Celts, Normans plus all the escapees from continental intolerance over subsequent centuries. Our language is a fusion of of Germanic and Latin influences. This is a story that does not lend itself to notions of racial purity."

The treaty acknowledged the distinct histories of both parties to it, but did not embody them and was less powerful than each of those traditions.

To rest good relationships between future generations "on that document is to rest an office block on a pin head".

"Our respective traditions and our growing shared traditions represent far broader, stronger foundation.

"A genuine, mutual respect for Maori and Pakeha civil society will be a far better basis for any relationship than ever-more complex theories about the constitutional relationship between Maori and the Crown."

The Crown was as abstract a concept for many Maori as it was to Pakeha - and many Maori were fed up with "the Crown".

The future, which embraced different cultures, rested on civil and economic development rather than the debate about distinct rights.

The language of blame, debt, separation and guilt needed to be replaced by a new language built on the foundation of justice.

Conflict was integral to social cohesion, and mutual respect demanded engagement and negotiation - regardless of whether it was heated.

Educational institutions, particularly universities, should be leading the charge - not suspending their critical capacity on issues like the treaty, said Mr English.