Transcript: Helen Clark talks to the Herald

Prime Minister Helen Clark raises the prospect of race riots in Sydney's Redfern as she reflects on Don Brash's race debate in an interview this week with political editor AUDREY YOUNG and political correspondent JOHN ARMSTRONG.


Are you surprised National leader Don Brash got the reaction he did from the Orewa speech given that Bill English had been saying the same thing?

No. For two reasons. One Bill English never went that far. And I think in his experience as a minister, he had gone to a great deal of trouble to try and understand different communities' health needs. Secondly I think that Don Brash came into the job from having held obviously a very senior statutory position [Reserve Bank Governor]. And so people were used to hearing him utter. I think that meant that the message that emanated from him was received in a different way from the way it would have been received from, say, Bill English or the leader of a minor party on the right.

Did you under-estimate Dr Brash?

No. What I didn't foresee was the huge amount of attention it would get because having been Leader of the Opposition for six years, I can on no occasion remember a speech I ever gave getting such attention. That was something I hadn't foreseen.

Has the Brash speech made racism respectable?

No. But if we refer back to what I said about him having come into politics having held a senior statutory position where people were used to hearing him utter, the fact that such a person utters does appear to open up a debate for others to express whatever concerns they had. I think that as a result there has been quite a lot letting off steam.

Did Labour fail to take the country with it on the emphasis it has given to targeted Maori policies and the Treaty of Waitangi?

The irony of such a question is that in substance the Government isn't doing anything particularly different from what Governments have done for years in these areas. We may have been more generous and actually more successful in a number of areas but in substance it isn't different from what's happened before. That's why I referred to an informal consensus across Governments abut the way these issues have been handled. What I have never said is that consensus applied across the community because I think Governments got on and did certain things in the national interest without there necessarily being a great deal of interest in what was happening elsewhere in the community.

Why do we need the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation?

Well, that's a question that I suppose should have been asked in 1987 when [former Prime Minister] Geoffrey Palmer wrote the SOE [State Owned Enterprises] Act and the principles were not defined in that act. What has happened since is that the courts have clearly developed a body of jurisprudence about what the principles are and it is now commonly understood and it is now commonly understood that they are the principles of partnership, protection and redress.

Does the principle of partnership give Maori co-management rights at any level of society?

Not as a matter of course, no. I think if you start to delve into the notion of partnership, it has inherent in it concepts of citizenship. And in concepts of citizenship you have concepts of participation. And then you look at areas where participation hasn't been that effective and some of the areas where there have been purpose-designed clauses put in like the RMA [Resource Management Act] in 1991 or the more recent Local Government Act or the health legislation three years ago where there has been clearly a much lower level of participation and the clauses are designed to try and improve that without detracting from anybody else's rights. It is a matter of record that with the RMA, the Local Government Act, with the health legislation three years ago these pieces of legislation put heavy requirements on local government and district health boards to consult with communities generally, very heavy commitments to consult.

A fundamental difference has emerged between Labour and National's stated view of the Treaty of Waitangi; you believe it is a partnership and they believe it is not. Should you attempt to reconcile that difference in any way?

As I said at a press conference a couple of weeks ago when I was asked if it was a partnership, I said 'how am I to interpret a treaty which is signed by two parties if there wasn't an implicit understanding of partnership from the beginning as a matter of historical fact.' There seems to be a view now abroad in the National Party - and I say 'now' because throughout the 90s they have made speeches which are quite different - that the treaty is only of historical relevance and that once historical claims are settled that will an end to "all this nonsense." That's the implication. I don't think that is possible. I'd like to see an end to the nonsense, obviously, as manifested at, say, Waitangi or around a range of hui last year. But I think the treaty will continue to have a modern-day relevance - and so do they deep down.

So they will have to change?

If they wish to at any point in the future preside over a society which is trying to hang together, I think it will have to change.

United Future wants an inquiry into New Zealand's constitutional arrangements including the place of the Treaty of the Waitangi. Author Michael King this week supported a similar process. Isn't that a sensible idea?

United's press statement talked about a royal commission. I don't think at this stage I favour that. The question is whether the proposal on the select committee report on the Supreme court Bill should be followed up, which was for there to be a select committee inquiry hearing the issues. That's a possibility. I'm prepared to consider it.

You retreated on Closing the Gaps when Labour's polling dipped in 2000; you are retreating now that your polling has declined. Do you think Maori have a right to be cynical about you, them and the polls?

At the end of 2000 I decided that the slogan 'Closing the Gaps' had too many problems. Ironically it was a slogan inherited from a previous National Government which had issued reports on closing the gaps the lack of progress therein. But it had the connotation of only being interested in gaps between Maori and Pakeha, not social inequality generally. This Government is very interested in issues of equality of opportunity generally. The issue with respect to Maori is how to make sure that with your mainstream strategies you then have delivery that can lift every community. I think that after time, the message did get through to Maoridom that the Government was still on about equality of opportunity but that the slogan as such had become divisive. There was also a feeling that it focused on disparities when people wanted to focus on opportunity and capability building. I think that was a fair point and one that we should have taken on board at the beginning. I actually object to the kind of headline screaming "U Turn" because no U-turn has been signalled. What I signalled was that given that a lot everyday Kiwis are raising a lot of issues, we would be irresponsible and insensitive not to be listening and endeavouring to discern what the real concern is, that I am prepared to go back and see that the policies are looked to ensure that we are meeting need. But I would be pretty confident that at the end of that when we say that overwhelmingly they are meeting need, we'll be saying 'and by the way, the brutal fact is that some communities are just needier than others.' You see that coming through in that research that [showed] that even if you compare high income Maori with high income Pakeha, the death rates are far higher. And how do you deal with that?

You have offended some of your own Maori MPs through lack of consultation at the initial stages of the foreshore and seabed policy and the latest initiatives, including Trevor Mallard's appointment as race relations minister. Shouldn't you practise what you preach on consultation?

Well sometimes leadership requires action and you can't sit around for consultation for weeks on it. That's my judgment and I'll take that on the chin. I work with a small group of senior colleagues on the decisions I was going to take and there wasn't a lot fo time to sit around.

Why does New Zealand pay for Maori elders to lift the tapu on Government buildings such as embassies when New Zealand is a secular state.

Good question. As you know, I don't do dawn ceremonies myself. I imagine it's the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade endeavouring to be sensitive to the indigenous culture and good on them for trying but as I say, I don't do dawn ceremonies myself - except for Anzac Day at Gallipoli which I've done twice in my life.

What do you think about Marlborough Girls' College allowing girls to display greenstone pendants but not crucifixes?

I think it is ridiculous. I think you are either allowed to wear something around your neck or you're allowed to wear nothing around your neck.

Can Pakeha have as deep an attachment to the land and sea as Maori? Do you?

I would find it hard to measure whether my attachment is "as deep" as anybody elses. But what I know is that I have a very attachment to the land where I grew up. When I was a child on a farm in the Waikato, we felt like we'd been there forever. That's where our people were from. I've never identified with my great grandfather being born on the edge of the Yorkshire dales and my grandfather being born somewhere in Lancashire where they shifted for factory work before coming to New Zealand. As far as I was concerned as a child, my attachment was to that particular piece of land at Te Pahu in the western Waikato and I feel a very deep attachment to it as I feel a very deep attachment to Waihi beach where I have been on holiday virtually every summer for 54 years of my life.

Do you think your actions of the last couple of weeks will recover Labour's popularity?

I don't think the election [2005] is going to be fought on the single issue of race. I think a lot of issues come into play and already as we have seen in the last 24 hours, superannuation is one of them. Nobody trusts the National Party on superannuation. Why would you? The clear message to everyone under 50 is they can have no certainty about the arrangements. So that's just one of the many areas which will come into play.

What do you think would be the consequences for society if Dr Brash wiped away the so-called special treatment given to Maori in Government policies?

If he wiped away the so-called special treatment which in virtually every case would be found to be needs-based policy, we could only expect the position of Maori in New Zealand to be more marginalised and more disadvantaged.[It would be] a very divided society with everything that flows from that. I looked at the headlines last week from a ghetto at Redfern in Sydney. I didn't like the look of it.


Herald Feature: Sharing a Country