Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations,and State Enterprises

One of the Crown entities reviewed by the Māori Affairs Committee was Te Māngai Pāho. That Crown entity was established under the Broadcasting Act to promote Māori language and Māori culture by making funds available for Māori broadcasting and the production of Māori programmes. The Greens want to make clear their support for the purpose of Te Māngai Pāho—that is, to fund Māori programmes and broadcasting—and to say that we are very pleased with, for example, its mission statement, which is: “Tuhia te hā o te reo Māori ki te rangi, e kaha ai te mapu o te manawa ora, kia rekareka ai te taringā whakarongo, kia waiwai ai ngā karu mātakitaki.” That is translated as: “Let the language be heard on the airwaves, thereby causing the heart to leap with joy, the ear to appreciate its eloquence, and the eyes to moisten at its impact.” Te Māngai Pāho’s vision is: “Ahakoa ki whea, ahakoa āwhea, ahakoa pēwhea, kōrero Māori.” That is translated as: “Speak Māori every day, every way, and everywhere.” Who could possibly disagree with that?

It is true that the organisation has had some troubles recently. The recent report concerning Tame Te Rangi highlighted very serious problems in the management of conflicts of interest and monitoring of contracts. The report found that, in general, the systems in place were sound, but that individuals with specific responsibilities failed to act appropriately. It is clear that governance structures were lacking, and that management systems failed to deal with the problems effectively and efficiently. It is also clear that the responsible Minister did not have sufficient oversight of Te Māngai Pāho and its management. Both the Minister and Te Māngai Pāho are being held to account for those failures. Te Māngai Pāho has already lost its chairman as a result, and the Minister is certainly undergoing extensive criticism for his role. We do not doubt that the organisation will act swiftly to put in measures to identify conflicts and deal with them expeditiously.

But I repeat that the Greens are supportive of the purpose of the organisation. Hence, we entirely oppose any suggestion that Te Māngai Pāho be absorbed into New Zealand On Air. We consider the current debate on the integration of Te Māngai Pāho to be little more than an exercise in colonial, assimilationist, gutter politics. Nothing in the report, or subsequently, has called into question the purpose of Te Māngai Pāho as an independent funder of Māori broadcasting. The necessity for this organisation is highlighted even more by the introduction of a Māori Television Service on New Zealand’s airwaves, and we are very concerned that the success of that station is not undermined by an entirely unnecessary reform of the Māori broadcasting funder. There is no case for its assimilation into New Zealand On Air. Kia ora.

I would like to begin by saying that the Government is committed to ensuring that Crown entities and State-owned enterprises are working together with communities for the benefit of New Zealand. In that regard, the Housing New Zealand Corporation provides access to decent homes, helping New Zealanders to manage their own circumstances and contribute to community life.

The 2003 Budget contains nearly $260 million in extra funding for housing low-income people and those at risk. Minister Steve Maharey, who is very good at securing that kind of funding, says it covers a 4-year period, and that it consists of nearly $100 million to be spent on providing another 318 State homes, as well as extending 80 houses to better suit larger families. That is on top of the State houses that were already planned. There is about $60 million to accelerate the modernisation programme for State houses, on top of $30.5 million already planned over the next 3 years; $63 million to encourage greater involvement in housing by local government and third sector groups, such as churches, non-governmental organisations, and Māori; about $26 million to provide an extra 77 community houses to be used by a range of community groups offering residential services, such as Women’s Refuge and community health services; $5.3 million for a 2-year pilot home ownership mortgage insurance scheme. That scheme is scheduled to begin later this year, but the details are still being developed. A million dollars is also to be spent on expanding Ministry of Housing tenancy information and education services, with the focus particularly on at-risk groups.

Housing New Zealand has had numerous achievements, and I would like to highlight some more of them. At the second anniversary of the implementation of income-related rents, nearly 53,200 low-income State house tenants were paying an income-related rent, saving on average about $35 every week—and in some areas of Auckland, between $50 and $60 a week. Those kinds of savings have got to be a plus for low-income people, and hopefully they will give those families extra money to spend in other areas of their budgets. Housing New Zealand Corporation has established new community renewal projects in five regions. Those regions are Fordlands in Rotorua, Clendon in south Auckland, Talbot Park in Glen Innes, eastern Porirua, and Aranui in Christchurch. That programme is designed to rejuvenate specific communities and address social issues affecting residents in areas where there is a high concentration of State housing.

We are building up our State housing stock, and have already added an extra 3,200 homes since becoming the Government in December 1999. The National Government sold 11,500 State houses during the 1990s—and I might just digress from my notes and remind that National Party that the Wairarapa electorate is virtually devoid of State housing. The stock of about 300 in that area was completely sold off, and, if my memory serves me correctly, at an average price of about $18,000. That was a fire sale, and, unfortunately, at this stage we are unable to provide State housing for people on low incomes in the Wairarapa area. I am hoping that we will be able to address those issues when the housing needs of other areas of the country, which are severe, have been met. Finally there was the launch of the Healthy Housing project in March 2001 to improve the living conditions of hundreds of State house tenants. That project focuses on reducing diseases associated with overcrowding—such as meningococcal disease, rheumatic fever, and tuberculosis—and on generally improving conditions for Housing New Zealand properties. The project began as a pilot in Otara, Mangere, and Onehunga, and this year it will expand to Glen Innes, Whangarei, Clendon, Manurewa, and Fordlands in Rotorua.

Housing New Zealand and housing for low-income people is within the ambit of the Social Services Committee, and that is why I chose to concentrate on that particular area today.

In rising to speak in this debate on State-owned enterprises, Crown-owned companies, and Crown entities, I would like to speak today about a former State-owned enterprise very dear to New Zealanders that is now a Crown-owned company, also known as a “CROC”. I refer, of course, to Television New Zealand. I suppose that because many people, or most New Zealanders, have a television sitting in their lounges, they feel they have a greater sense of a relationship with that organisation than perhaps with a large number of other organisations that the Government has an involvement with.

I have read Bill Ralston’s article this week, and he made the comment that one of the major report-card comments that no Minister wants to get is an “FTD”—a failed to deliver comment. I think that is a fair comment, aimed first at the previous Minister, Marian Hobbs, but now at the present Minister, Steve Maharey. If one looks at some of the changes that have been imposed on TVNZ over the last 3 years, one sees they have been very much driven by the Ministers involved and not driven by the organisation itself or by officials. In fact, the changes made to TVNZ do not make sense. I recall having Treasury officials in front of our select committee to talk about some of the changes being made to TVNZ, and they pointed out quite reasonably that the structural changes being imposed on TVNZ were unique. Rather euphemistically, the officials said the changes were quite unlike any changes that had been made anywhere else, not only in the State sector but in the private sector. But the changes were made, and while initially the Government was looking at an unusual three-board structure, which would have been both administratively cumbersome as well as expensive, it was finally decided to split BCL from TVNZ.

Rather optimistically, I had thought that the work would have been done on that particular restructuring, but we found out at the eleventh hour that the Minister had not taken into account the fact that there would be implications for the Australian business. I wonder what the Minister was thinking or what advice he had been given, particularly when one considers the Arthur Andersen report, which members will recall cost the taxpayer $400,000 and dealt with the wide range of issues to do with splitting BCL from TVNZ. One wonders how the Minister could have overlooked something as fundamental as the tax implications of that in Australia. If one looks at the Television New Zealand Act itself, one sees it is a bit like a panzer tank—it rolls on until December 31. Unless the Minister wants to change that legislation there is provision for the split to take place between BCL and TVNZ. If that split is not to take place the Minister has to bring that back to the House, because as I have said there is provision for the split to take place.

An estimate has been made that the potential cost to the taxpayer could be—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very sorry to interrupt the member. I wonder whether it might be possible to check the sound system. Members on the Government side of the House are having some difficulty in hearing the member’s wise words.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. The engineer will have heard that point of order.

We have seen, of course, a great divide between the rhetoric that the Government has used to describe what it has done to TVNZ and what has actually occurred. This was supposed to be a sea change in the approach to broadcasting, and yet the Government has stumped up with a mere $12 million to pay for additional programming. That is hardly enough to pay for one drama, with a few documentaries thrown in for good measure. That is not even one-third of what the Government has offered for an America’s Cup challenge.

The next point that the Government made was that there would be a huge increase in local content. If one looks at the celebration that this Government made of the announcement of local-content increases, one sees there, too, an overstatement of what has actually occurred. Pretty much all the increase in local content in the last year can be attributed to coverage of the America’s Cup. If one actually looks in the figures and looks particularly at the genres that we thought we would see more of as a result of the TVNZ charter, one sees there has been a reduction in first-run documentaries and current affairs. So once again the rhetoric does not match was has actually occurred with regard to TVNZ.

We need to remember that when this Government took over TVNZ, it was a jewel in the Government’s crown. TVNZ was one of the most valuable organisations that the New Zealand taxpayer owned. One valuation had been set at a level of $1.2 billion. Now we have an organisation that would be lucky to be valued at half that, as a result of the changes the Government has made to what was once a valuable organisation. It is aptly named a “CROC”, which most members would argue is a pretty unfortunate abbreviation.

We need to look at where TVNZ is to go to from here. If it is to have any relevance as a public broadcaster within New Zealander, then it needs to be able to be a successful one. At the moment it has been pretty much hamstrung by the changes the Government has made, not the least being the uncertainty created as a result of this latest stuff-up of monumental proportions. I am referring to the failure to see the tax implications of the split wanted by the Minister. Once again, taxpayers are to be asked to put their hands into their pockets to pay for a mistake that has been made. Can members imagine what would have happened if that $20 million had been put straight into local content? We could have funded a large number of documentaries with $20 million.

If we look at all the reports that have been done by officials about the split, we cannot find any comments that support the split or any comments that show that there are to be some long-term benefits for the company as a result of those changes being made. Quite clearly, the Minister is driving those changes for the sake of wanting to look as though he is doing something that will make a difference. Let us remember that the Minister said that the legislation was required because none of the charter could be implemented under the previous legislation. That turned out to be absolute rubbish, because when delay followed delay when it came to the implementation of the charter, we saw that TVNZ was able to conduct its business as a State-owned enterprise, plus achieve a number of socially responsible objectives at the same time.

What has happened to TVNZ is a national scandal and a monumental stuff-up of huge proportions. All New Zealanders should be concerned that what was once a very fine and successful organisation that screened a huge amount of local content is now in the position of having been severely weakened, to the point that if it is weakened any further it become irrelevant within the broadcasting environment. We need to get Steve Maharey down here into the House to explain to the New Zealand public how something as fundamental as a $20 million tax implication could have been overlooked. He has glossed over a huge mistake. We will watch very carefully to see what happens with the legislation. At the moment there is no provision for a split not to take place. If Mr Maharey does not go ahead and do that, then he has to explain to the New Zealand public the reasons for those mistakes.

There is nothing more important to the tangata whenua of this land than the survival and flourishing of our reo. There are two Crown entities charged with responsibility for protecting and promoting te reo Māori. They are the Māori Language Commission, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori and Te Māngai Pāho.

The furore in this House over Te Māngai Pāho has reached fever speech. It began with conflicts of interest that involved an employee with a past conviction for fraud. I would have thought that that was a management matter. It became an investigation of who did or did not know certain things, and who did or did not act. It has now become an issue of when things were known and who did or did not tell. That is nothing to do with te reo Māori, which is the important issue for tangata whenua. The chairman of Te Māngai Pāho has taken responsibility for the issues raised and he has resigned. The chief executive officer is still under investigation, and my colleague the Minister is facing calls to sack him, as well. The outrage of the Opposition is way out of proportion to the issues. However, those members are baying for blood. Their noses are so close to the ground that they cannot see the bigger picture—that is, the performance of Te Māngai Pāho.

Te Māngai Pāho was set up to promote Māori language by funding the production and broadcasting of radio and television programmes. For this financial year, Te Māngai Pāho paid $29 million for 640 hours of television programmes. They include Pūkana, the top children’s programme at the Qantas Media Awards, Gang Girls, the top documentary, and Marae, a finalist in the current affairs section. Top quality programmes cost Te Māngai Pāho, on average, just half per episode what mainstream programmes cost. Over 3 years Te Māngai Pāho has awarded 229 programme-making contracts, of which three defaulted. Over that time it has received excellent audit reports from Audit New Zealand.

💬 Rodney Hide: So what Tame Te Rangi did was OK?

Is Mr Hide listening? Te Māngai Pāho also funds a network of 21 iwi radio stations. Around half the Māori population regularly listens to the iwi radio. Together the stations receive $6 million per year, compared with $22 million for National Radio. By those measures, Te Māngai Pāho is a very successful Crown entity.

Both Te Māngai Pāho and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori were born out of litigation and conflict. They are widely seen as giving Māori control over te reo Māori, but in reality they are agents of the Crown and are accountable only to the Crown. Tangata whenua warned that those vehicles were not adequate, but their warnings were not heeded. So there is tension built into the very structure of those organisations. It is not easy for them to maintain faith with Māori broadcasters and communities while they operate under the constraints of Crown agencies.

Despite that, people of great integrity and commitment venture into that minefield in order to secure some benefit for our people. They put their careers at risk, and they deserve our thanks. If there is a scandal in Māori broadcasting, it is the endless attacks on the work and integrity of Māori broadcasters and on the staff of Te Māngai Pāho, who are helping to keep te reo Māori alive for our future generations.

I want to take the opportunity to talk in this debate, because there are some things that do need to be discussed—

💬 Hon Paul Swain: So much for researching your speech.

Well, I have probably done as much research on it as the Minister of Māori Affairs has done on some of the questions he has got wrong. In fact, I have probably done more research on this speech than he supposedly did on reading the report he said he had read several times.

💬 Rodney Hide: The Minister of Māori Affairs is a Crown entity.

I am not sure whether one could regard him as a Crown entity. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to get this right. This is a fixed-time debate, and no one else rose for the call. National is set down to have two calls, but I do not want our second call to go to me, because we are scheduled to have the last speaking slot on the list.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am sure it will not. The member has the call.

💬 Dail Jones: Mr Speaker, can you confirm for me that we are now up to the fifteenth speaker in the debate?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I could probably confirm that for you, but it is not relevant.

💬 Dail Jones: It may not be relevant to you, Mr Speaker, but it is to us.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): We are on the fifteenth call.

💬 Dail Jones: New Zealand First has the seventeenth call. Hopefully, I have been able to assist Mr Carter in the meantime.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would also like some clarification of the point that Mr Carter has raised, if I may. His assessment, in my view, was quite correct. Ms Turia’s call was call 14. She spoke for a short time and sat down. Mr Carter took the call, and I would assume, given that there is an agreed roster that reflects the proportionality of the House, that that is the equivalent of call 19—the one that the party would otherwise have had.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I actually thought the debate had come to an end, because no one wanted to take the call. Mr Carter took the initiative. The next call would have been an ACT call. Its members were unable to take it. The following one was to be a Labour call. Mr Carter was the member who was alert.

I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to have some clarification. I understand that Mr Hide has already taken a call, but there was a 5-minute slot. So basically there is a bit of spare time, and I just want clarification that that is the time I am filling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is the slot the member is filling.

So the next speaker who follows me is likely to be a Labour speaker. I will get back to the debate. I want to take just 2 or 3 short minutes to take up the spare time that has been allocated in this debate to talk about some of the events that have happened in respect of State-owned enterprises.

One of the things that worries me about this debate is the standards that are being set. We have seen issues around incorrect information being given when questions have been asked of State-owned enterprises. Indeed, we have had to bring State-owned enterprises before the Privileges Committee, for example. That worries me when we tie that in with some of the answers we now see being incorrectly given by Ministers in this House, who then have to come back to correct them. I must say that the standards that are being set by this Government are not to be accepted.

I would have thought that David Benson-Pope, the senior Government whip who certainly does a good job, would want his colleagues to set a good standard. I imagine that quite often he goes home disappointed with what he sees; in fact, he probably does so every day. I know he will be out there insisting that they get on and do the job—

💬 Rodney Hide: No.

Well, maybe he is not, but I would like to think he would be. I would like to think David Benson-Pope is out there saying the standards the Government is setting are not good enough, that the Government expects its Ministers and its State-owned enterprises to perform much better than they are, that the Government expects Ministers to give the correct answers when they are asked questions, and that Government members are not prepared to be made fools of like they have been. I wonder whether the senior Government whip is giving that message to his Ministers and to his caucus. If he is not, then he is not doing his job properly, because that message certainly needs to be given to the Government.

I was absolutely overawed by that presentation. It sort of added to my literary knowledge of how to say nothing in 3 or 4 minutes.

Ā, e te iwi kua whakarongo mai i ngā rarurarutanga o roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, mai rā anō, kua mōhio koutou i ngā tāngata e whakararuraru i a mātau te iwi Māori. Engari e te iwi, ka tū tonu mātau nei ki te hāpai tika i te kaupapa o tātau katoa. Ngā kaupapa e whakatiaki mai i te reo me ngā mahi o te pouaka tango whakaahua, me ērā atu o ngā taonga o ō koro, a kui mā.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Those of you listening in to the problems in this House of Parliament are aware that people have always found faults with us, the Māori. But let me remind you, we have always continued to take up matters that concern us all, in a proper manner—matters relating to the protection of the language and to Māori television, and those relating to the old people.]

The recent debate surrounding the issues of Te Māngai Pāho and, to some extent, Te Puni Kōkiri, gives light to the total preoccupation of some members of this House in scoring brownie points. For example, I remind the Hon Murray McCully, who is loudly declaring that separate funding for Māori broadcasting should stop, that not only was he part of the National Government that established Te Māngai Pāho in 1994, he was also a member of the Cabinet that agreed in 1997 that Te Māngai Pāho should be strengthened in its present form, rather than abolished or merged with another organisation.

I do not credit that honourable member with having the gift of prophecy. However, the issue for me is that for some, politics is about being a chameleon. We all understand the ability of the chameleon to change its colours to suit its environment. Because those members are now sitting in the Opposition benches, another world view is being promoted. The motivation for that is entirely about gathering votes at the expense of Māori who, as the Hon Tariana Turia has said, have dedicated their total lives to filling the gaps left by the assimilation policies of previous Governments. That is an absolutely honest attempt. As a Government, we are committed to increasing the capacities of our people, and a failure at a managerial level should in no way encourage the kind of deluge that our people have been submitted to—both outside and inside this House.

💬 Rodney Hide: I’m not attacking your people.

That is a matter of perception. Mr Rodney Hide would appear to be totally intoxicated with getting political brownie points—cheap brownie points.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take grave exception—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I know what was said.

💬 Rodney Hide: I would like the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It was a figure of speech, and in no way related to the member’s sobriety.

💬 Rodney Hide: You might rule that it was a figure of speech—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has taken it the other way. He takes exception. Would the member please withdraw it.

I withdraw that statement. Speaking to the point of order, the comment was not meant in the sense that the member probably interpreted it.

The Minister made an attempt to clarify the issue and give a personal statement to the House. Of course, the Opposition denied him leave to do so. We have acted—a Treasury report has taken place, and an interim chair is currently working through the concerns raised by that report.

💬 Rodney Hide: Getting out the crooks!

I hope the member does a good job of that.

💬 Rodney Hide: I’ve done all right so far.

Let us forget about Tuku’s undies. An excellent article by John Tamihere states: “Māori broadcasting fronting agency Te Māngai Pāho is audited by the Audit Office, as with any other taxpayer-funded organisation, yet it does not appear to be widely known that in its last audit the Audit Office rated Te Māngai Pāho’s performance as ‘excellent’ in four of the five financial and service performance measures, and ‘very good’ in the fifth. Te Māngai Pāho is subject to the financial review process of the Māori Affairs select committee.” He also writes: “Suggestions that Māori are getting special treatment, while not being required to meet the same standards and scrutiny as the rest of the population, can be easily flung by politicians with an eye for easy point-scoring, whatever the reality may be.” Māori normally endure double the scrutiny.

If we want to be critical and raise issues of the same nature as those being raised by members of the ACT party, we need to ask ourselves why ACT is happy for Donna Awatere-Huata to be still a member, and for taxpayers to pay her $90,000 a year, plus allowances, yet it denies her the vote. As to the cost of principles, should ACT expel Donna Awatere-Huata, she would be free to cast her own vote, but ACT would lose $111,000 in parliamentary funding for the year. That is real principle!

💬 Rodney Hide: I know how Parekura feels now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): In any reference to members, please use the proper form of address.

Our Government has a long-term commitment to working in partnership with whānau, hapū, and iwi Māori communities so that they reach their full potential. Budget 2003 demonstrated that the Government is committed to managing the country’s finances responsibly and lifting New Zealand’s economic performance. We have a strong, stable Government, and a responsible and cautious fiscal manager. Budget 2003 is about fiscal certainty and stability in an uncertain environment, and balanced policies. Surpluses will be used to ensure long-term stability.

I commend the Minister of Māori Affairs on the speed with which he has moved to address outstanding issues related to Te Māngai Pāho. Māori are a small community in which kinship ties are tribally very close—for example, when the previous chair resigned—and there are a whole set of issues surrounding that. It took courage, and the Minister should be acknowledged for that. I am not standing here defending Mr Te Rangi in whatever form—not at all.

💬 Rodney Hide: What about Hemana Waaka?

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: Who is he?

💬 Rodney Hide: He’s the guy who was paying them off.

Is that member giving the speech, or am I?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, the floor is yours.

In that regard, the Minister said Mr Te Rangi’s resignation came far too late, and that the management and board of Te Māngai Pāho must therefore take a share of the responsibility. That is absolutely about accountability. Although I consider the resignation of Mr Curtis to be the appropriate action, I want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution Toby has made to Te Māngai Pāho over the last 8 years. He is another Māori person who has committed himself to bringing reality to Māori needs in respect of our care for our language, and how we want to determine what broadcasting and television can do for us.

In conclusion, I will quote once more from John Tamihere: “There is a growing demand from both Māori and non-Māori for Māori-orientated programmes that are relevant and accessible. The international success of the film Whale Rider demonstrates how taking themes and ideas that are undeniably Māori and making them accessible to all has huge potential benefits—not only for Māori, but for New Zealand as a whole.” Let me broaden that from the perspective of our national interest to that of our international interest. That film has promoted Māori cosmology, beliefs, and mythology to the world.

Ā tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakawā, engari i mua i te haere tonu i waku kōrero i te ahiahi nei, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou. Ahau nei, horekau i whakahē wō kōrero e te mema mai i Te Tai Tonga. Engari, māku e mea atu ki a koe, te nuinga o ngā taumahatanga i taka mai kei runga i tō tātou whanaunga a Parekura, ehara i taka ana kei runga ki a ia anahe, engari aua taumahatanga i taka mai kei runga i a tātou ngā mema Māori katoa. Nā reira māku e meatia ki a koutou, kia maumahara ki ngā kōrero o ō tātou matoa, o ō tātou tūpuna, kia tika, kia pono. Mehemea i whakarere kē i a mātau ēnā kupu kōrero, nā, ka puta mai nga hua, ote ra nei mo tonu atu.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you Mr Speaker, and before continuing with my address this afternoon may I extend a greeting to you people. I personally did not find fault with what you, the member for Te Tai Tonga, said, but let me say this to you: the majority of the burdens on our relative, Parekura, are not just with him but are on all of us as Māori members. Therefore, let me say to you, remember what our parents and our ancestors used to say: be truthful, be honest. If we were to change those statements, then the results of today will continue.]

That is not the tenor of the speech I will make in the brief time given to me. I want to add my contribution to this debate on the operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State-owned enterprises. In that regard, I will make reference to the Housing New Zealand Corporation, and I do so only because in terms of the community in which I was born and raised, the issue of poor housing is certainly not being addressed in the way we would expect it to be in New Zealand. Given the poor housing conditions that are evident in the far North, I think it only proper that I comment on that particular enterprise.

I will touch on a number of areas where the operations of that entity are probably to be found wanting. For instance, I am talking about what is commonly known as the State rental. I am sure the Rt Hon Michael Savage is probably turning in his grave, given that he was responsible for the initial State housing programme that was introduced into this country. I am sure he would be very disappointed that there are a number of New Zealanders whose housing standards would certainly match those of Third World countries. Why do we continue to have waiting lists? Why do we continue to have people living in conditions that some Third World countries would even be embarrassed by?

In that regard, I will make reference to the condition of some of the current State rental housing that Housing New Zealand is responsible for. Why has the maintenance of such stock been ignored? As a consequence, there is a need to introduce what is called the Healthy Housing project. Although Housing New Zealand should be commended for introducing that project, I note that it is being limited to State housing. I heard the chairman of the select committee make reference to Whangarei and Mangere, but when will that project be extended to other parts of Auckland?

When will it be extended to other parts of New Zealand and, more important, when will it be extended to other housing outside the State rental sector? I can confirm that there are a number of people living in accommodation that would certainly require the benefits of that scheme. I want to ask this House—when?

Another issue I want to raise is the poor insulation in some of the present housing stock. Again, that is an indication of how the level of maintenance has been allowed to drop to the state it is in now. Unfortunately, a lot of my relatives are living in those conditions. Although people might think that the energy crisis has been averted, it still hangs over us. But there is a need to keep our people in warm conditions, so why has this issue of insulation not been extended? I want to ask the House that.

The other thing is the question of home ownership. The one dream that most New Zealanders aspire to—apart from full employment—is home ownership. We have heard often during this parliamentary term about how the employment rate has dropped, but why is the home ownership rate not commensurate with that drop in unemployment? If I, and a number of members of this House, am able to enjoy home ownership, why cannot the rest of New Zealand enjoy it also? A number of people currently living in State rental housing have been there for quite a long time—some of them in excess of 20 years. I am asking the Government to consider selling those assets to the present tenants, and from the proceeds build more available stock. But no, that seems too logical and too simple.

I note that there is a proposal to introduce what is called a mortgage insurance scheme. The scheme aims to facilitate access to home ownership for segments of the population that are potentially able to afford home ownership, but face difficulty in accessing finance. I want to ask some pretty simple questions: how many mortgage-holders are likely to be provided with the benefits of that scheme during the forthcoming year? Will the mortgage insurance scheme apply only to new lending, or will existing mortgage-holders be eligible also? Will the mortgage insurance scheme offer low-deposit mortgages? And while I am talking about that, a number of courses are being conducted around the country to identify the conditions people need to fulfil to qualify for home ownership. That is fine, but once those people know what they need to qualify, how many will actually acquire their own homes?

In the far North, there is a group called Kia Ora Ngapuhi Housing that has a target of identifying 90 families who are possible homeowners. That is fine, but although they might be identified, will those people actually acquire their own homes through this entity? I would like to leave those questions with the House.

I rise to speak about the state of health in this country. I am seriously worried about it. The other day I was reading in one of the community papers in Auckland about the mental health services in this country provided through the district health boards. The psychiatric nurses, who were also Public Service Association delegates, described the conditions they worked in as “beyond crisis”. I have frequently said that parts of our health system are in crisis, and in particular the mental health system, but they described it as “beyond crisis” and this is why. They are seriously understaffed. In the past year, 33 staff members have left, of whom only 13 have been replaced. Yet they are expected by the Minister of Health to provide top-notch services. They do not have enough acute mental health beds, and they are frequently confronted with visiting their patients in prison cells. This is unacceptable, because prison and police cells are no place for the mentally ill, yet every weekend, somewhere in this country, mental health patients are detained in prison cells while they await a bed in an acute mental health facility. This is shameful.

These union delegates and psychiatric nurses described how patients were frequently in tears because they did not know which way to turn. They have no beds and they are understaffed, yet the pressure is on them. They know that if something goes wrong, they will be the ones who will be held accountable. We have a mental health system that is failing the truly vulnerable in our society. It is a fragmented system that provides no continuity of care and it does not flow. The patients are not able to enter and exit the system where they need to, and it is failing the truly vulnerable. This Government should be truly ashamed of that system.

That is just a part of the district health board system that I have great concerns about. District health boards are now responsible for everything. The Minister has devolved just about every single thing that is possible to be devolved on to them, except for disability support services’ health for the elderly funding, which is set to be devolved to the district health boards. They are now these huge umbrellas that are expected to cope with everything, and the Minister has devolved responsibility for everything to everybody. Why has she done that? So that she is not accountable for anything—not one single thing about this issue.

So we have a health system in which some parts are beyond crisis, and other parts are in crisis. We have the primary health strategy, which was discussed in question time today, and which we discovered was based on race-based funding. We have an access formula for primary health organisations, by which 50 percent of the population covered is Māori or Pacific Island. We have access funding that is much more generous in funding for other primary health organisations, but the problem with that funding is that it is not needs-based. It is based entirely on where one lives, or whether one is a Māori or Pacific Island patient. It is not based on the needs of the population. Other primary health organisations are expected to get by on interim funding, which is no better than what they currently have. However, we have general practitioners who have elected not to go into primary health organisations yet, or who are trying to get into them, who are severely disadvantaged in terms of funding, and the patients are leaving in droves to go to where they can get the cheaper care—whether they have the need for that or not.

Hospitals too should be looked at. Much of the money at the moment is poured into the primary sector in health, leaving the secondary sector in dire straits. It is all very well, and we all agree, that money needs to be spent more at the primary edge and on prevention, but just because we are doing that today does not mean that the need suddenly goes from the hospital system. We still have patients with heart attacks. We could get on to the subject of waiting lists in that regard, and go on and on about those for ever. But, when money is being taken from hospitals and being poured into primary care, we are seeing crises happening now in our hospitals.

With regard to waiting lists, every area now is participating in the booking system, including Christchurch, which did not want to because the system was felt to be unfair, and that is quite right, too. This new booking system has the effect of hiding patients who were there previously on waiting lists. The system was not perfect, but now if people are not eligible for treatment in 6 months they are bumped into a position of active review so that they are being hidden by the system. Worse still—and I have asked parliamentary questions about this matter—is the case of patients who are transferred to general practitioner care, because those patients are not counted at all.

I am proud to speak in this State-owned enterprise debate, because this is a chance to demonstrate that this Government is committed to ensuring that Crown entities and State-owned enterprises are now working together with their communities for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I cannot believe the old hoary chestnuts being brought up by the Opposition.

I will cover today the issue of district health boards. They are complex, but I endorse that these entities are coming into their stride. They are getting into step now with leadership from the Minister of Health and the ministry on national standards such as the booking system, and we need to educate clinicians about how to use that system consistently. They have consistency of service delivery and strategic direction—which they have not had for the last decade—and now they are also moving into funding certainty.

I want to mention the national booking system, which seems to be confusing some in the Opposition. It is a nationally consistent guideline, and clinicians and hospitals need to understand how to interpret and allocate its points. Labour is committed to a vision for primary healthcare. Even the Opposition is not arguing with that. National is actually saying in the latest general practitioner journal that it supports putting more money into primary healthcare, and we all know that we have to front-end fund to keep people well. That is what we are committed to; we are not obsessing about the other end, because we are confident that district health boards are doing a good job. We are about keeping people well and keeping them in their communities, because prevention is better than cure. We are about reducing inequalities in health services. That is what it is about, but a model based on need, not on race. We are prepared to meet that need head-on, and target it.

I cannot believe the arguments used about population-based funding formulae. Ethnicity is only one criterion in this standard. We have rurality and deprivation in the formula, and, as the member knows, it is not race-based. This funding is going where it needs to be spent, to make the difference to the health status of all New Zealanders. The Opposition fails to understand that the indices of health are about poverty and its elimination, the treatment of poor housing, unemployment, and, also, the state of the environment. We are pouring money into those indices. They all impact on health services, particularly mental health status. It is not about more beds in hospitals; it is about keeping people well and out of hospital. On Tuesday there was a UMR Insight poll in New Zealand about whether New Zealanders really believe there is an improvement in health. It was not about the number of treatments in a hospital. Fifty-two percent of New Zealanders feel that the health status of New Zealanders is being improved.

I want to go on to discuss National’s policy—the Opposition’s policy. I ask whether there is any; we are seeking to find it. Will they sell hospitals? We are starting to hear flickers about that. Will they flick off the easy bits like the cherry-picking bits? Will they give surgery—especially heart surgery—to private hospitals, but still depend on secondary public hospitals and their purse for intensive care unit and critical care unit follow-up when things go wrong? There was a very, very weak attack by Lynda Scott in question time this week on the Capital and Coast District Health Board and its decision on heart surgery. I applaud that board for sticking to that approach to surgery. We need a robustly funded public health service.

Will they revert primary health organisations back to independent practitioner associations for their supporters? Here is a letter from Dr Lynda Scott on 6 May stating: “I say to GPs, retain your independent practitioner associations.” I say to Dr Scott that she will not be able to incite them for ever, and I want to let her know that we are moving on to more and more New Zealanders enrolling in primary health organisations. There are now 34 formed, with over a million New Zealanders enrolled, and everybody is starting to see that primary health organisations are not about medicine managed by independent practitioners associations only. They are about opportunities for pharmacists and other health practitioners to manage health out in that community, and they are starting to understand it and take that opportunity.

Will they cut benefits for parents who do not vaccinate? Yes, we have heard that already. I cannot believe how punitive that would be. Will the Opposition take away the democracy now being enjoyed by district health boards? Oh yes, I am sure we will go back to the appointment of old mates on to district health boards. When will Opposition members realise and stop carping on about secondary outputs instead of outcomes, and when will they realise that the market model failed? The performance of those district health boards and the focus on health gain is starting to build community confidence.

Let us look at that district health board sector, of which a large part is hospital-based. We have just completed six out of 21 financial audits of district health boards, and even though they received $137 million funding for smoothing the way towards a population-based funding formula, most boards will eliminate deficits by 2003-04, and that is a wonderful result. Most are tracking ahead of planned deficits. The net deficits at March of this year were $124 million, already a $5 million improvement, and 13 out of 21 district health boards are showing improvements in their deficit-tracking. That is something about which even the ministry has gone out and said that they are doing well, and that it will be working with them to make boards debt-free.

How can the Opposition keep carping on about the deplorable financial state of the operating arm of district health boards? Four were picked out as achievers by John Hazeldine of the ministry alone this month, and he said that there is more work to be done. This is a 10-year pathway from the last decade of privatisation of health. We are in year 3, and yes, we have a long, long way to go.

There are sensitivities in the operating arms of district health boards. Sometimes acute workload gets in the way of cardiac surgery. Staffing is a problem, especially in mental health. We have to do a lot more about that. There is the potential of risk in the winter months of things like severe acute respiratory syndrome, and there are industrial challenges. The funding in that sector is so finely tuned that some of those impacts can really disrupt their ability to work towards becoming debt-free.

I want to talk about a previous 10 years of no workforce planning and poisonous staff relationships—staff who were dissatisfied and undervalued. Just this last week, one of New Zealand’s areas with five district health boards withdrew notice to strike. That is a working-group that is starting to say that it is on the pathway to recovery and being valued. That was huge for New Zealanders. It causes major damage when we go out on strike in the health sector. I congratulate those boards in the central North Island, and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, on working together to find a solution. We are on the pathway to recovery, and the pathology that the Opposition keeps carping on about in the health service certainly is not half as bad as it is making it out to be.

We have different formulae for those primary health organisations at the moment, and we are moving towards one formula for primary health organisations, but we will not get there until we have addressed the inequities that now exist in health, and until we are prepared to face those and keep targeting the funding for low access to general practitioners, interim access, and care plus. I am glad we have the flexibility of those different funding formulae to reflect the needs of all New Zealanders. We have 28 primary health organisations now where patients pay no more than $20 per visit, and they are loving it. They are going to their doctors, and that is about keeping well and not needing mental health beds or cardiac surgery. We are starting to work on the indices that keep people well, and I applaud the district health boards for the work they are doing.

This debate in the House this afternoon on Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises gives us the welcome opportunity to review recent events in Te Māngai Pāho. We have already seen one victim, in the form of the chairperson, leaving his post. In a matter of days, we will see the next victim, in the form of the chief executive, Mr Trevor Moeke, and we have seen in the House this week the quite amazing spectacle of the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is completely out of control and unable to account for the goings on in his portfolio.

Today, due to events at question time, we now have another victim lining up for the chop, in the form of the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, Mr Leith Comer. I can tell the House this afternoon that, as a consequence of the statements made in the Chamber today by Ministers Horomia, Cullen, and Mallard, if those statements are true—and we must accept them as such—the chief executive of the Ministry of Māori Affairs must be sacked. Mr Rodney Hide MP and I have written to the State Services Commissioner this afternoon, asking him to formally inquire into those matters. If the statements made by those ministers at question time today are correct, Mr Leith Comer must be sacked.

It is a matter of record that the matters that Mr Hide requested answers for by parliamentary questions over a period of months were proven to be most serious. In the Treasury report dated 28 May we saw a lengthy litany of inconsistencies exposed—and I use that term to get into a parliamentary format the document that Mr Hide and I released to the media the following day, 29 May—a very substantial litany of inconsistencies—[Interruption] Mr Horomia said “lies” yesterday, but I say “inconsistencies” because I was well brought up. What we then saw in response to this document, and in response to the Treasury report, was a media briefing conducted by the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri the following day, 30 May. That was reported widely on 31 May. I have here the Dominion Post—I am told this is an award winning newspaper—where the headline reads “Te Puni Kōkiri boss apologises”. The New Zealand Herald also covered this event: “Māori ministry chief apologises to Horomia”.

When we read these two articles it is quite clear what Mr Comer told the assembled media. He told them that the events detailed in the Treasury report exposed some inconsistencies with the answers that had been provided over the previous few weeks by his Minister. He said: “I am responsible, and we are responsible, for these answers being incorrect, for them being wrong. I have apologised to the Minister, and I take full responsibility.” If members read the Dominion Post it is absolutely clear from the reference to the detail in the report that that is the impression he gave to the nation’s media.

What we have been told by Mr Horomia, Dr Cullen, and Mr Mallard at question time today, is that indeed there was no such apology. They have said that, oh no, the apology was only about one question and it was not around or on 30 May, it was way back on 10 April. It was about something completely different.

💬 Rodney Hide: Are you allowed to say that he lied?

No, I am allowed to say that it exposed a terrible inconsistency. What is clear is that Mr Comer, for reasons that only he can explain, decided to call the nation’s media together and give them the impression that he was taking full responsibility for the report, and for the inconsistencies that it exposed. He said this of the Minister: “He has asked for an explanation, and I have been in front of him and accepted the fact that some of the information that we have given him was not correct.” What the Minister has said is that the only apology he has had was about one question way back on 10 April.

If that is correct, then Mr Comer cannot hold office as a senior public servant in this country. Any public servant who will call together the nation’s media for a briefing and tell them that there is a document that exposes inconsistencies—he has apologised for those inconsistencies to the Minister and taken full responsibility, in an attempt to get the heat from the public and the media off his Minister—such a public servant is engaging in a rather large enterprise in deceit. I question whether such a person, if those facts are true, can hold office in this country.

I say to the Minister, who answered the question this afternoon, that he had better come down to this Chamber and explain, because that is the only reasonable inference he has left in relation to his chief executive this afternoon. [Interruption] That is right. And the chief Government whip, who has presided over this façade of stupidity on the other side, knows that either the Minister has to go or the chief executive has to go, because they cannot both be right, and they cannot call together the nation’s media in this country and tell them one thing, knowing it to be totally untrue, and expect to live to tell the tale.