Estimates Debate — Vote Māori Affairs

Before I launch into this particular portfolio area, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Parekura Horomia, in what we can describe as a very difficult portfolio. He has been under considerable pressure over a number of weeks, but he has come through it with a big smile on his face, and that is something that the Committee needs to appreciate.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that reviewed these estimates, I am pleased to recommend them to the Committee—[Interruption] I welcome into the Chamber Mr Rodney Hide, who, in his absence, took a considerable battering from both sides of the Chamber. In 2003-04 the increases in Vote Māori Affairs primarily relate to the non-departmental output classes in the area of Māori broadcasting—in other words, Māori television and Te Māngai Pāho—organisations that have been subject to considerable scrutiny in this House. The appropriation sought for Māori Television Broadcasting increases from $30.5 million in 2002-03 to $37.9 million in this current financial round. The appropriation sought for the Māori Television Service increases from $5.9 million in 2002-03 to $12.9 million in this financial year. This level of funding is to be maintained in the out-years, and I am sure that both sides of the Chamber are very pleased to hear that. This funding builds on the work already undertaken towards the establishment of the Māori Television Service. It includes the passing of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act earlier this year, which marked a new era in New Zealand broadcasting and, more important, in Māori broadcasting. That legislation established the Māori Television Service as a statutory corporation, providing it with full powers and abilities to proceed with the development of a Māori television channel.

This channel, as we know, has been a long time coming, and has been eagerly awaited by Māori and non-Māori around the country. I look forward to sitting in front of my television and viewing, with the rest of my family, some of the wonderful work that we can expect from Māori television. I was fortunate enough to get a glimpse of some of the material that Aotearoa Television produced, and I have to admit that it was well beyond my expectation of what can be achieved in Māori broadcasting. This channel will provide us, as Māori, with a vehicle to tell our own stories in the way that we have traditionally told them, in our own language, and in a manner that will educate, inform, and entertain our young people—although there are members on the Opposition benches who do not appreciate quality broadcasting.

These estimates also provide an increase in the appropriation to local Māori broadcasting. By that, I refer to iwi radio. Funding for iwi radio is appropriated through the non-departmental output class 04, Māori radio broadcasting. That output class increases from $10.3 million in 2002-03 to $10.5 million in this current financial round. The additional funding of $250,000 will be allocated to Te Māngai Pāho for training and upskilling staff employed by iwi radio stations, including technical, managerial, and governance training. I am sure that Mr Rodney Hide will appreciate that.

These iwi radio stations are a part of the Māori communities that they provide coverage to, and are at the very heart of the work this Government is doing to promote and revitalise the Māori language. The Government’s primary interest in Māori radio is in the role it can play in regenerating te reo Māori. It also has a major influence on increasing the amount of popular music in Māori, further heightening interest of rangatahi in learning their language. Currently, there are 21 iwi radio stations, which provide Māori with the opportunity to tell stories about what is happening in their communities. Those stories might cover the swimming sports at the local school, or events at the marae. That is what public broadcasting is all about.

Speaking of local initiatives, I can say that I was recently visited by the manager of Moana AM, the Māori station in Tauranga, which, throughout the day, has a component by which it educates the public—not just Māori, but non-Māori as well—in local Māori history. It also provides classes in Māori language. Some innovative projects are currently taking place at the local level, and I am sure they will be applauded throughout the country.

In this particular portfolio, I also want to touch on the subject of building the capacity of Māori organisations. My colleague the Hon John Tamihere and myself were fortunate to receive a delegation from East Africa yesterday, and its mentors were present in the House today. One thing delegation members were interested in was learning about Māori structures, both traditional and contemporary. They themselves are going through changes, and want to learn from other indigenous peoples. I was very impressed with the quality of their presentation to us, and the intensity of their inquiries. They were surprised to learn that after so many decades of colonisation, traditional Māori structures still existed. We were pleased to advise them that, by and large, they existed partly because this Government, and the previous Government, were committed to building their capacity, and that new structures were being designed to accommodate contemporary organisations. In that case, we were referring to urban Māori authorities, which play a major and important role in providing services and opportunities to urban Māori populations. The delegation also drew comparisons between the roles that their leaders and many Māori leaders play in the development of their people. There is not a great difference in how those leadership roles operate, but it was good to see that there were some comparisons.

In relation to capacity-building funds, we heard criticisms in the Māori Affairs Committee that a lot of the organisations receiving assistance were conducting programmes that were considered to lack credibility. I think those criticisms were made only to gain political points at the select committee level, because I was well aware of the programmes referred to. In fact, those programmes are targeted at young people in high-risk communities whose opportunities in life are pretty limited, or do not exist. The communities they belong to have a very high gang involvement.

I recall the questions asked in this House by the Hon Murray McCully in relation to a capacity-building grant given to a skateboarding organisation in Gisborne. He considered it to be a waste of taxpayers’ funds. I can tell the member that that organisation looked for ways to work alongside a lot of the young people from a very high-risk community where gangs are active on a daily basis. It was an innovative programme that gave young people—even children of pre-school age—the opportunity to experience a lot of what the children of members in this House experience on a day-to-day basis. Whilst we might think that skateboarding is probably a waste of time, it is, in fact, a highly skilled international sport.

Given the major controversies that have surrounded the Māori Television Service and Te Māngai Pāho in the recent past, it is a pity that the major increases in funding to Vote Māori Affairs this year have gone into those areas. I say that because there are still so many areas where real impacts have yet to be made in the area of Māori moving forward. I am talking about the rise in obesity and diabetes, which are reaching epidemic proportions in Māori communities. While we might listen to the applause of members on the other side in relation to the money that is going into Māori television, there are many who would say, and I would be one, that they would rather see money being poured into improving the life chances of our little ones—mainly into their health, and into the basic things they need to learn to improve their opportunities in life.

As I say, it is a pity that the major increases in funding have gone into Māori broadcasting. There is an increase of approximately $7.3 million for the making of programmes, and $7.075 million for the operation of the Māori Television Service. We voted against the bill that set up the Māori Television Service. From my point of view, that was difficult, but the reason we voted against it was that its history has been so shambolic. We still have no date for that service coming on air. There is nothing yet to indicate to us that the people responsible for setting it up know what they are doing. They have gone quiet. Other than a massive advertisement in the newspapers calling for appointments to 140-odd positions, we have no idea whether the money that has gone in so far will have been worth spending. We say that, not on our own behalf, but on behalf of the taxpayers whose money it is.

I would like to see the Minister move to make some real progress on the health of our little ones and the well-being of our elderly. The recent report on mortality rates among Māori and Pacific Island people gives one great cause for concern. How much will a Māori television service help those issues? In my view, it is very doubtful that they will have any impact at all.

The other area I want to spend a little time on—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: They’re sick of watching Coronation Street.

I do not think they will stop watching Coronation Street, unfortunately. Like most New Zealanders, they are glued to it, just as they are glued to Shortland Street. However, people are entitled to spend their recreational time as they see fit, just as long as while they are doing so they think about the fact that we are all getting overweight in the process. That is looming as a major issue for health funding and health needs in the future.

The other aspect of the vote is a slight reduction in real development activities, which is to be regretted. There is less for facilitation and brokerage and more for State sector performance monitoring. That is a whole saga of its own, particularly when Te Puni Kōkiri has shown itself incapable of monitoring the body for which it is directly responsibility, Te Māngai Pāho. Te Puni Kōkiri was asked during the estimates process whether it had a robust process in place to avoid the kind of debacle of recent months, when members on this side of the House were telling the Minister what was going on in Te Māngai Pāho. That is an absolute disgrace.

In addition to that, we see money going into Te Puni Kōkiri annually to monitor the big State sector agencies. It cannot even monitor Te Māngai Pāho properly, so we are kidding ourselves that it is capable of monitoring big-spending agencies. After all, while we might review the spending that goes on in Te Puni Kōkiri, who will be accountable for that spending? Nobody seems to be chasing down the millions of dollars that are going to waste in big agencies on the closing the gaps programme, or reducing inequalities, or whatever one wants to call it. Whatever it is, nobody is monitoring that. It is time that some focus was put on the money being spent in those big agencies. If major health issues are looming for Māori people, we have to ask what was the purpose of “gaps” money going into, for instance, the Ministry of Health? Until some proper benchmarks are set, and some proper monitoring is going on, we will never know the purpose of it. We will only see the results, and the results are shameful, so on and on it goes.

In slight defence of Te Puni Kōkiri—and the committee certainly realised this—the issue of its ability to monitor the big spending agencies is a farce. Trevor Mallard announced a review of Te Puni Kōkiri following the debacle over Te Māngai Pāho, and as part of that review, I hope that the ministry’s “sheriff role”—it is like a sheriff riding without guns—will be reviewed. The committee expressed concerns about whether Te Puni Kōkiri was properly resourced to monitor the big agencies, particularly when it has had difficulty monitoring Te Māngai Pāho, and whether it gets cooperation from the big spending agencies, because they appear to be very clever at avoiding monitoring.

While I am mindful that Te Puni Kōkiri has a role in that area at the moment, I reiterate the concerns that members of the committee expressed about whether that role is appropriate for a ministry that calls itself—and would like to see itself—as a development ministry. In my view, somebody else should chase the big-spending agencies. Maybe Te Puni Kōkiri would like to see itself free of that role, anyway. There are other departments and agencies, including Audit New Zealand and the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. Why could they not monitor the big agencies? Why should taxpayers’ money be spent on a small agency like Te Puni Kōkiri that has difficulty monitoring another small agency like Te Māngai Pāho, so that it can chase down the big agencies? The Minister should take note of that issue, and if it is not included in the current review, it should be.

Lastly, I come to the issue of the Minister himself. I certainly saw the Minister in full force at the hui in Paeroa. Yes, he is right—on the marae, he is great, and I support him. He gave a great performance at the foreshore and seabed hui in Paeroa, but the fact of the matter is that when one takes the ministerial warrant, one takes the responsibilities that come with it. Being able to engage with Māori up and down the country is a very small part of the responsibility that goes with that warrant. A big part of it is discharging one’s responsibilities here in Parliament, being accountable for the money being spent—

💬 Jill Pettis: And delivering to the people, which we are doing.

Did that member hear me? Is she worried about the health of little Māori children, and the poverty that exists in various parts of the country ?

Ā, ki a koe e te rangatira. E te whanaunga, rangatira, kei te Minita, kei te mihi nunui ki a koe mō tō mahi kei te awhi i a mātau. He iwi kotahi tātou mō ngā motu. No reira, tēnā rā koe. Kai wareware i a mātou mō ngā mema ki tēnei taha, kei te mahi kaha mō ngā kaimahi mō te Tari o Te Puni Kōkiri. No reira, Leith, mō tō rōpu, mō te kaimahi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou.

I was acknowledging, firstly, you, Madam Chairperson, as the Chair, and, secondly, my relation Parekura Horomia, as the Minister in the chair, and was acknowledging the work that he has been doing in bringing our people together and supporting them. I particularly wanted to acknowledge the fine work that the workers at Te Puni Kōkiri conduct under the leadership of their chief executive officer, Leith Comer. Māori come from a range of communities that, at times, can be most ungrateful and thankless with regard to the efforts that are made on their behalf—they never seem to be good enough. So, at given points of time in this House, it is very important that we acknowledge the difficulties that a number of people who engage with our communities on our behalf work under. To that extent, I wanted to acknowledge, on behalf of members on this side of the House, the work and commitment of the workers of Te Puni Kōkiri.

I think it is extraordinarily rich that a certain member of the National Party sits on that side of the Chamber. When I open the Dominion Post I read that the leader of that party says that Māori cannot be trusted, yet Georgina te Heuheu has the temerity and the audacity to come into this Parliament and talk on behalf of that party. That is a disgrace. Something will have to happen pretty soon because I tell members that for “Wild Bill”, the dipstick from Dipton, to make that particular comment must have been—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member must refer to other members by their correct names.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have dealt with the matter, Mr Hide. The matter has been dealt with.

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: It is two points of order in a row.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Number one: Jill Pettis was calling out right through my point of order. That is out of order and you did not stop her. Number two: I took offence at what the Hon John Tamihere said. You did not allow me the opportunity to give my point of order. You sat me down before I had finished. Secondly, you did not ask him to withdraw and apologise. I thank the Minister for doing that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have dealt with—

💬 Rodney Hide: What is the point of making a point of order when you do not listen to it? And do not wave your hand, you queer cow over there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member has dealt with it.

The real point I wanted to make about—

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have just taken offence at the comment that member has made, and I want him to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, it was. Did you hear what he said?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry but I did not hear an offensive comment. I tell Mr Hide and members that there will be silence during points of order and when I am ruling on points of order. I will now ask the member whether—I did not hear it—he made an offensive comment to Jill Pettis.

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

I want to put it on the record that when the honourable member from Dipton took part in the Fight for Life promotion last year, he was called—it was on all the posters—“Wild Bill from Dipton”. I am only recording what is publicly and widely acknowledged and known.

The Leader of the Opposition has definitely lost it. He is actually saying to the New Zealand public that if they want to support the National Party, they have to be on an income of $60,000 or above and come from a European community—preferably on the right side of town. National is now doing exactly what Maurice Williamson said—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is an estimates debate on Vote Māori Affairs, and has nothing to do with members of this Parliament. The member’s comments should be related solely to Vote Māori Affairs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. I ask the member to come back to the estimates debate.

Coming back to the estimates debate, I note that the Māori Television Service has had an extra appropriation of about $7.4 million made to it. I am given to understand, because I have very good contacts in the Māori community, that there are a number of productions in the can. One of them is about the leadership of the Hon Bill English. In that regard, taxpayers’ money will be spent to this extent. What will happen in that particular—

💬 Government Member: It’s a comedy.

No, it is not a comedy, but it does track the political exploits of this member. To the extent that taxpayers’ money—good money—is being spent on that, I am saying that, in exploring the exploits of this wonderful member, we have to start to understand that what Maurice Williamson is saying quite clearly—and he will be on the box, he will be on Māori television as well—is that the National Party now is focused solely on 20 percent of the vote in this nation. It has nothing to do with community. It has nothing to do with nationhood. [Interruption] Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. The allocation is 5 minutes only.

There has been a Speaker’s ruling with regard to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the member raising a point of order?

I am raising a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Point of order, John Tamihere.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am seeking a second call, to this extent: I was under the understanding that Speakers’ rulings with regard to our seeking a further call, in terms of 5-minute speaking times, had been waived till the end of this year. That was a decision made by the Committee of the whole House.

💬 Dail Jones: I think that the agreement on the estimates debate is that there are two 10-minute speeches at the beginning, and there are 5-minute speeches afterwards. That ruling was given by the Chairperson at the beginning of this estimates debate. The member’s point of order is specious.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I also remind members that the Minister in the chair can have a second call, but no one else.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a matter of some concern that I wish to raise. There are two parts to it.

I have just come down to the Chamber to do the last hour of duty for the Green MPs, only to discover that of the 36 minutes that we had been allocated for this estimates debate, we have so far received only 22 minutes’ debating time. So we are about to be short-changed by 14 minutes—[Interruption] I fully appreciate that and I was going to come to it. My concern is that there was a Business Committee agreement at the outset of this process, which all parties agreed to. There was a time allocation submitted by David Benson-Pope. We respected that agreement—that we would get 36 minutes in this debate. We allocated our members to speak to the votes they wished to speak to. In three of our cases, members wanted to speak to the votes of Ministers who are lower down in the order—Mr Mark Burton, and Mr Paul Swain twice. I now find that, with this debate due to finish in less than 15 minutes’ time, our last three MPs will not have the opportunity to speak, and I think that is grossly unfair because an agreement was reached, and that agreement will now be broken.

Secondly, there seems to be a perverse incentive in this place that if people behave well, they actually get penalised. I think this is the first point of order that the Greens have raised in this whole 8-hour debate, yet we are the party that, proportionately, will suffer most because of the time running out. I acknowledge that parties like New Zealand First are also missing out—and even Labour is missing out. The reverse seems to be the case if parties perpetually raise points of order; they end up with extra time. One party in this House—ACT—has had 9 minutes more in this debate than was agreed by the Business Committee.

So there are two things that I seek from you. The first is that you take some time to discuss with the Speaker—I do not think it quite warrants our recalling the Speaker at this stage—how the situation was allowed to happen, and to look for a remedy to the situation so that parties actually get their fair time in the estimates debate. For that matter, Ministers need to have a fair chance to talk to the estimates for their votes. One possible solution would be for you to subtract from a party’s time allocation the time it has spent raising points of order during the debate—if the debate has to remain a fixed-time debate. The second thing I ask of you is an immediate remedy, which is that this debate be extended by at least the 9 minutes that one party has received above its allocation, and, preferably, by the amount of time necessary to enable those parties that have not had their full allocation to be able to take up that allocation.

So I seek leave for this debate to be extended to give sufficient time for those parties that have been short-changed, because other parties have taken points of order, to have their fair share. Perhaps I could invite the chief Government whip to advise us of how much time that would involve.

Briefly, I want to say I really sympathise with the member over the issues he has raised. He was not able to be in the Chamber earlier when a good deal of the time was consumed by points of order. It is a matter of deep regret that we did indeed lose so much time. Unfortunately, that was not because of the breaking of a formal agreement of the Business Committee. I think that because tonight we have experienced one party showing total disregard for the goodwill on which relations in this Parliament have to be based, agreements reached in good faith on the part of some are no longer enough, and I think in future we will have to have formal agreements by the Business Committee that are ratified in the House before such debates start. It is a matter of regret that we cannot agree to the leave that the member is seeking. To do so would further reward the bad behaviour that got us to this point, unfortunately, and further delay the business of the House.

Madam Chair, first, I understood that when leave is sought there is a requirement for the Chair to put it forthwith, and not entertain further points of order, as you just did. I am also concerned about the bad interpretation that we just heard from Mr Burton. ACT had accepted that there had been a genuine misunderstanding. I had been happy to restrict my speech to 5 minutes, but it was the intemperate and nasty language from the senior Government whip that caused the extra minutes. The Government will have to learn that it cannot be provocative—that if it dishes it out, it will get it back. That is the point. ACT will always retaliate when we get that sort of nonsense from Mr David Benson-Pope. However, it is my earlier point that I want to impress upon you. When leave is sought, I understand it is a requirement of the Chair to put it forthwith.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will come to that in a minute.

I am rather surprised and, frankly, somewhat disappointed by the statement that Mr Shirley has just made. I think that my conduct in the face of very severe provocation by him earlier in the Committee was entirely moderate and temperate. [Interruption] I provided the Committee with the information that was needed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have warned members once about speaking while points of order are being heard. This is the final warning.

I take offence at Mr Shirley’s accusation—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: This isn’t a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given a warning. It is up to me to rule whether this is a point of order.

I take offence at the suggestion, which would be refuted by anyone present in the Committee, that my behaviour was intemperate, immoderate, or offensive, if that word was used, as well. I ask Mr Shirley to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I do not think that is necessary. An informal agreement between the whips was entered into; it was not an agreement of the Business Committee. It is a matter that must be sorted out between the whips. It is not a matter on which I can rule. The debate time is fixed in the Standing Orders. I refer members to page 95 of the Standing Orders. It is not within the Committee’s power to put leave to extend the time of the debate. It is a matter that the House would have to address.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I wish to foreshadow that when the House does resume, I will be seeking leave for it to go back into Committee, to extend this debate. [Interruption] I seek your guidance. To enable my request to happen, do I need to recall the Speaker now, or can I make that request when the Speaker returns?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): You can make that request when the Speaker returns. Having just taken advice, I note that we will have completed the estimates and put the vote before progress is reported, so it would have to be done now.

Having received your advice, I will ask one further question. What happens to all the votes that we have not taken? Do they all have to be taken within the 8 hours, or is the Government not able to spend those budgets if they do not—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, they will be put as one vote at the end of the 8 hours.

In that case, I request that the Speaker be recalled so that I can seek leave for this debate to be extended.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled