A “reverse ferret” refers to someone suddenly taking a dramatically different position on a particular issue — as Erica Stanford did last week with her screeching u-turn over removing the most prominent of the Treaty clauses in the Education and Training Act (2020).
The term originated in London’s Fleet St, where the editor of a tabloid newspaper reduced the lofty ambition of “holding power to account” to an instruction to his journalists that their job was to “stick a ferret up the trousers” of public figures to make them squirm.
If the tide of public opinion turned firmly against an editorial position his newspaper had taken, he would reportedly emerge from his office and shout: “Reverse ferret!”
Stanford has performed an equally inelegant political manoeuvre after having initially declined to remove the requirement in section 127 of the 2020 act for school boards to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi — including by promoting mātauranga Māori, local tikanga and te Ao Māori.
Her backflip last week in finally removing the contentious Treaty clause has ignited a firestorm of criticism — but this time happily not from National supporters and others who voted for the Coalition government, as was the case in June.
The current furore from Māori activists and the left can only do her and the National Party a world of good.
In the wake of the law change, activists are drumming up and publicising the names of schools nationwide that are committed to continuing to “give effect to Te Tiriti” — in what will be seen by many as an attempt to indirectly shame those who aren’t on the list. So far, more than 400 schools from a total of around 2500 have publicly proclaimed their loyalty to the Treaty.
One of the organisers, lawyer Tania Waikato — who hopes to stand for the Green Party next year — warned Stanford on Face Book:
“Hey [Erica], we don’t like your decision to remove the requirement to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi from s127 of the Education and Training Act. So we’re putting together a list of all the schools that are going to continue to uphold Te Tiriti regardless. Just so you’re fully aware of how many people are about to vote you out at the next election. Enjoy your last 11 months as minister. You shouldn’t have listened to David [Seymour]. This was your call.”
In June, Stanford’s retention of the Treaty clause in her amendment bill — albeit slyly rejigged to give the impression of a significant change — sparked loud objections from the centre right. Leading the charge was lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, which mounted a campaign titled “Stop Stanford’s Sneaky Sell-out”.
Few were satisfied with her decision to leave the task to Justice minister Paul Goldsmith and his forthcoming review of Treaty clauses in selected pieces of legislation, including the 2020 act.
It simply made no sense for Stanford to retain the clauses in the new education law only for them to be possibly taken out later by her Cabinet colleague. In fact, the legislative double-handling involved led to widespread suspicion that Goldsmith’s review would not actually remove the Treaty clauses at all.
It was also suggested that Stanford was passing the buck to the minister so he could take the political heat from activists rather than her if he decided to remove them.
David Seymour took the chance amid the furore to grasp the electoral advantage. He made it clear that Act had argued in Cabinet for the Treaty clause to be removed immediately but had been overruled by his coalition partners.
Consequently, when the news of Stanford’s change of heart broke this month, the party was quick to advertise the change:
“This week, we delivered a correction to the way school boards operate.
“School boards will no longer be required to ‘give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori’.”
Act could also not resist pointing out that the clause was originally inserted into the 2020 law by the “Labour–New Zealand First government”.
Having been left in no doubt since June what many National — and coalition — supporters thought of her backsliding, Stanford has redeemed her reputation. Her Education and Training Amendment (No 2) Bill passed its third reading last Tuesday and is now law.
In a stroke of what might be deemed perverse good luck, the response from “progressive” teacher associations, activist educators and iwi leaders has been overwhelmingly hostile and vociferous.
In contrast, Paul Goldsmith’s momentous Marine and Coastal Area amendment bill which became law in October — including overturning court decisions and making it significantly harder for iwi and hapu to have customary marine title recognised — generated only a fraction of the opprobrium that Stanford has achieved.
In fact, she has sparked exactly what the National Party needs in the run-up to the election next year: a deafening roar of disapproval from many of the Māori activists and their allies embedded in our pre-schools, primary and secondary schools, and universities over a challenge to their relentless insertion of Treatyism into education.
Those centre-right supporters who didn’t have the time or inclination to follow the tortuous parliamentary process incorporating the last-minute amendments to Stanford’s bill will correctly assume from the uproar that National is delivering on a commitment the party made before 2023’s election — to rid the nation’s public institutions of mandatory co-governance.
That reaction alone will convince many on the centre-right that Stanford must be doing God’s work, even if belatedly. And given she has long been regarded as too “progressive” (aka “woke”) by grassroots National supporters to be an acceptable contender to lead the party, her own stocks on that count will undoubtedly have risen as well.
The fact school boards are still required to “seek equitable outcomes for Māori students” will be overlooked, at least for the moment.
The minister has been well-served by the low calibre of the majority of the objections. Alongside the shop-worn accusations of “racism” and “an attack on Māori”, critics have shown clearly that they care more about Treaty ideology than the educational achievements of students.
Exactly how allowing school boards to decide what emphasis teachers should give to the Treaty constitutes an “attack on Māori” remains unclear. The new law simply gives parents and their elected boards a choice. That is apparently an anathema to Stanford’s opponents.
When attacked for allegedly diminishing the role of the Treaty in the education system, Stanford’s ingenious defence has been to assert that the Crown’s Treaty obligations should not be foisted onto ill-prepared “volunteer” school boards and that the best way to honour the Treaty is by raising educational achievement among Māori.
In response to a question earlier this month in Parliament from Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asking whether she had “evidence that shows stripping Te Tiriti obligations will improve outcomes for Māori students or is this a purely ideological and anti-Māori policy?”, Stanford replied:
“Achievement data for tamariki Māori has been declining for decades; the gap is yawning. If we want to talk about a Treaty breach, that is it.”
It’s a winning argument. Certainly, the emphasis placed by the Ardern-Hipkins government on promoting the Treaty as a partnership — used as a way of justifying co-governance in education — did nothing to improve Māori pupils’ progress.
In contrast, Stanford’s success in rapidly raising educational achievement has established her as a formidably effective and determined politician holding a notoriously difficult portfolio.
The Education Review Office has reported that, over 20 weeks of schooling since Term One, the proportion of primary pupils meeting reading targets for phonics knowledge increased from 36 per cent to 58 per cent. The proportion of pupils exceeding expectations has more than doubled.
Teachers report that students are showing improvements in maths too after Stanford mandated an average of an hour a day of instruction.
Now she has further bolstered her reputation on the centre-right by having listened to the concerns of the Coalition’s base — and quite possibly discovering in the process that there is a far bigger silent majority than she guessed who are increasingly opposed to the hijacking of their children’s education by Māori nationalists, trans activists and climate-change warriors.
While Margaret Thatcher famously declared of herself “The lady’s not for turning,” Stanford is clearly willing to perform an impressive reverse ferret when persuaded of its necessity — and to defend it without even blushing.
She’ll go far.
ENDS