Annual Review Debate — Internal affairs and Government relationships

The question now is that the reports of committees relevant to internal affairs and Government relationships—arts, culture, and heritage, defence, finance and revenue, internal affairs, Māori affairs, Pacific Island affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, security intelligence, services for Parliament, sport and recreation, State services, statistics, Treaty negotiations, and women’s affairs—be noted.

I move that the reports be noted. I am taking a call as the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee, which has responsibility for a number of the topics under this theme. It is really interesting to speak in the first themed, bracketed debate of this sort in the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. I am referring specifically to the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, Mr Chairman, because you may be inclined to have the same very hard-line approach to refer to the topic as your predecessor in the Chair had, and I just want to cover all bases before I get on to a broader contribution to the debate.

I do want to take the opportunity, and I will be upfront with you, Mr Chair, that it is slightly outside the mandate of the debate, but given the contribution that I am going to make next I think you will excuse me. I want to take the opportunity while the Hon Chris Finlayson is in the chair to acknowledge and thank him, not on behalf of my party, but on behalf of all New Zealanders for the drive and leadership that he demonstrated in enabling our National War Memorial to be completed in time for the 100th commemoration of the most tragic episode in New Zealand military involvement, the landing at Gallipoli. I know that previous Ministers and Governments were involved in the purchasing of the land, but I am reliably informed that if it was not for the Minister’s personal passion and drive to have this completed on time, it may well not have happened. So, Minister Finlayson, I will not do this too often. I know that it is extremely risky for my reputation as it possibly is for yours, but it is a genuine commendation of the work you did. I think that the whole nation has benefited from that experience, which was broadcast throughout the day on Radio New Zealand, and probably featured on Campbell Live too, possibly, because that is a fine contributor to public debate as well.

I want to talk in general about some of the reports that we are considering that our Government Administration Committee considered, particularly on the State Services Commission, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the Department of Internal Affairs. I say that for core public services they were plagued by a lack of policy leadership and a lack of vision from their Ministers to the point that there was quite a lot of despondency. And the icing on the cake was clearly that they were, in large part, underfunded. Despite the significant funding cuts that many departments have had to face—even in health, which has not kept pace with population growth or inflation—the National Government this year is still going to break a significant election promise that it made in 2011 and 2014. It was the No. 1 commitment from the Prime Minister in both those election campaigns that in this year’s Budget we would see a Budget surplus, and now we have been told that that Budget surplus has been put out yet again. So it is hard to work out where the money has gone to.

We know we have had a recession. We know we have been part of the international global financial crisis. We know that the Government has put in significant amounts of taxpayers’ money, as we in Canterbury have put in ratepayers’ money, to the rebuild facilities that are needed, particularly in the infrastructure. But that does not make up for the poor financial management that the Minister of Finance has demonstrated, and the waste of money that we have seen. There were wastes of money like the bailout of corporates. Skycity and Rio Tinto are the two obvious ones. There was the extraordinary amount of money that was put into giving the highest-income earners—or those who declare their income—the 10 percent of top-income earners, a significant tax cut in the very same National Budget that was cutting home support services for older New Zealanders.

So the priorities of this Government have been wrong, the financial management of this Government has been weak, and we have had New Zealanders duped—told in two successive election campaigns that the No. 1 priority is that there would be a Budget surplus this year. Now we know that that is a broken promise. I wonder how National members of Parliament who are elected as constituency MPs feel when they go back to their electorates and have to face up to people they have duped. They have misrepresented what was going to happen, and now they have to go back and say: “We’re breaking our promise.” It is a very sad indictment on our political system.

The theme of internal affairs and Government relationships encompasses quite a number of portfolio areas, and I particularly want to start by referring to the report of the Government Administration Committee and its review of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

I particularly refer to the category of World War I commemorations and begin by thanking the previous speaker, the member for Port Hills, for her very generous comments. I do appreciate them. They should also be directed at the outgoing Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Lewis Holden, who is moving to Auckland to take up a senior position in the State Services Commission. I worked with Lewis over a period of 5 years. He was a very good chief executive officer. He and his team, and, in particular, Brodie Stubbs of the ministry, did a tremendous job in ensuring that the World War I commemorations that we had here in New Zealand were of real international quality. So I am very pleased that, in terms of continuity, the Government of the 1930s established the War Memorial Carillon, and the previous Labour Government established the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. This Government has been lucky enough to continue that tradition by developing the War Memorial Park and the Arras Tunnel. I think we should all be very pleased with what we achieved.

Of the areas within my particular sphere of influence at the present time, I want to refer to the report of the Ministry of Māori Development. This ministry is doing some hugely important work on the reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Eleven percent of the North Island is governed by this legislation. Eighty percent of that land is undeveloped or underdeveloped, and there have been a number of reports that have been released, and I particularly refer to the recent Ministry for Primary Industries report that says that if we can free up this land for development it could be worth up to $8 billion to the Māori economy and create thousands of jobs, with inputs of a couple of billion dollars. So this Government has said it is worth the challenge.

I pay tribute to the people in the ministry, the advisory groups, who have done so much work on this particular exercise. It is hugely important work. I would go so far as to say it is one of the biggest pieces of economic reform that this Government has undertaken. Very shortly an exposure draft is going to be released so that people can talk about it. There have been some people who have been saying that there has not been enough consultation. There has been a glut of consultation up and down the country, talking to people, to make sure that we get it right. This is a complete rewriting of the legislation, and it is hugely significant for New Zealand.

I also want to say something about Treaty negotiations. It is never easy to advance Treaty negotiations, but we are making very good progress. I particularly want to acknowledge the very good work of the Office of Treaty Settlements and Crown negotiators like Paul Swain and Rick Barker. They are fine people. They could have stayed here in Opposition, hurling insults across the Chamber, getting bored, but instead they got out into the wide world, working with me—not for me, but with me—and I would like to think that they and the other Crown negotiators are making very good progress.

Highlights of the previous year include the Te Ātiawa settlement and, of course, the hugely significant Whanganui River settlement. There was 130 years of litigation laid to rest through that particular settlement. There is a huge amount of work that is being undertaken at the moment, and every person in the Office of Treaty Settlements is utterly dedicated to the job at hand. I believe we are making good progress.

I also want to say that the Māori Affairs Committee, first under the chairmanship of Mr Tau Henare, and more recently under the chairmanship of Mr Korako, has been doing tremendous work in pushing the legislation through the House. I am very satisfied that in the area of Māori development this Government has been doing a huge amount of work. It is incredibly important work for our nation. I am particularly excited by the proposed reforms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which will benefit the Māori economy.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Can I take this opportunity to acknowledge a great man whose legacy is vast and broad. Perhaps the most enduring part of his legacy was his ability to connect with Māori people, young and old alike. You may be asking whom I am talking about. I am actually talking about “Kia ora, Chief”—the Hon Parekura Horomia—who on this day 2 years ago passed away. I want to acknowledge him as a segue into our contribution this evening around exactly what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has just spoken about—Māori development, or, I would argue, the lack thereof.

One of Mr Horomia’s legacies was a strong Te Puni Kōkiri. The focus was to ensure that the Government of the day met its obligation to the Māori people, as sanctified in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In fact, it says that our principal duties under the Act are to monitor and liaise with Government agencies, and to promote increases in the achievement of Māori in key social and economic development areas. This, I believe, is not what is happening. I believe that our people are being duped into believing that only via an economic pathway can they also achieve cultural wealth, which is one of the key priorities of Te Puni Kōkiri.

In the annual review, I am concerned by the appropriation. If we look over the past 6 years, Te Puni Kōkiri’s appropriation rate has barely kept up with inflation. Some might be asking what that means in real terms. Well, for a young Māori fella, what that means to “Joe Public” is that he is getting ripped off. In fact, it has been a cut. If you look at that, if it has slowly risen, barely keeping up with the rate of inflation, I would argue that, over the past 6 years, in real terms that means there has actually been a cut. You know, this is certainly being felt in real terms across the regions and in the urban centres.

But let me tell you whom I feel for the most. I feel sorry for the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri, who are being asked to match biblical deeds at this point in time, to turn water into wine, to make miracles from the measly portion of money that has been allocated to Te Puni Kōkiri. What I am saying is that, currently, as it stands, the annual review shows us that there are over 30 vacancies in Te Puni Kōkiri in what is an already depleted rank. Of more concern is that no waka can head in the right direction without the right leadership, and, as it stands, there are four vacancies in key leadership roles in Te Puni Kōkiri right now.

What is the plan of this Government? Well, apparently, we have been promised that those positions will be filled by the end of the calendar year—by the end of the calendar year. There is a difference in the Māori world between time and wā, and I can tell you that this is definitely really exaggerating and pushing the boundaries of wā. What that means is that it has been over a year since the election, and these key leadership roles within Te Puni Kōkiri have not been filled.

💬 Pita Paraone: Mā te wā.

Mā te wā—mā te wā. That is, of course, one of the big concerns in the new operating model that Te Puni Kōkiri is currently operating by. That operating model is one that, as the Minister has already alluded to, talks about the economic growth and economic prosperity of the Māori people. Well, it just so happens that another priority of Te Puni Kōkiri is to improve the cultural wealth of the Māori. Nowhere in the annual review of Te Puni Kōkiri, and almost nowhere in the discussion from the Minister this evening, has there been any reference to the growth in the cultural wealth of te iwi Māori, of the Māori people. This is an important priority in my eyes. A focus on business growth and initiatives has been at the cost of the well-being of the Māori people. In fact, in my opinion, this Government has lost faith in the Māori people, and, not surprisingly, our people have lost faith in this Government.

I rise to speak to the annual review of the Ministry for Women. I would like to start by sharing with the Committee a quote about the recent report Fault Lines: Human Rights in New Zealand, which was produced by some academics from Waikato University, including the previous Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor: “Professor McGregor says we keep telling the United Nations we were the first to grant women the vote, but we still don’t have equal pay for women or pay equity for carers. ‘Nor do we have adequate paid parental leave, and we continue to suffer completely unacceptable levels of violence against women. We say how good we are, but the reality is we’re in trouble.’ ” The Ministry for Women, newly named in this term of Parliament, is the Government’s principal adviser, according to its annual report, on achieving better outcomes for women. Quite similarly to the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, I feel that this is another case of a ministry being asked to turn water into wine. With a small group of people and a budget of under $5,000, this group of mostly women are expected to help this Government, to work with this Government, to deliver on better outcomes for women in this country.

I do want to spend just a very brief period of time talking to the structure and the fact that this ministry has a Minister, the Minister for Women, who is outside of Cabinet. We have seen in the last week that, I would suggest, the Minister feels that her political career and her personal political ambitions are in conflict with her ability to speak out and advocate for women in this country. When the Minister for Women chooses to reiterate the Prime Minister’s minimisation of a case of harassment and chooses not to raise any of the wider issues around women’s safety in the workplace, we see the consequences of this position being based outside of Cabinet, and the low priority that this Government gives to the status and the progress of the rights of women.

The ministry has three core goals: economic independence of women, more women in leadership, and increased safety for New Zealand women. These are ambitious goals. The reality is that when one in three women in this country is likely to experience sexual violence and when one in three women in this country is likely to experience physical violence at the hand of their most intimate partner, we know we need ambition and we know we need someone who will stand up and actually work to turn that round. What do we have instead? We have a Minister outside of Cabinet and we have a small, under-resourced ministry that is able only to give advice.

In the last year and a half, this ministry has produced 17 media releases, the majority of which are congratulations to other organisations. Only three of them reported on information that had been put out by Statistics New Zealand. There were only three pieces of research and advice that media releases were put out on. I am not blaming that group of people who are in there, who I believe have the best intentions. This is an issue of this Government’s lack of priority around the well-being of women and the well-being of families in this country. It is a sad indictment on the state of things in New Zealand. Just to take the one example of paid parental leave, where the Government here had the opportunity to grant this country 26 weeks and it chose—

It gives me pleasure to take a call in this stage of the debate around revenue and finance and the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Can I recognise all members of that committee and thank them for their diligence and say that I particularly enjoyed reading their report. When looking across the impact that many of the members had, some members seemed to know much more about what is going on than others. Therefore, I certainly recognise my colleagues on the right of the chair at this moment.

The Inland Revenue Department has a very big work programme in front of it. It was announced a few years ago by a former Minister of Revenue. It is about modernising and simplifying tax administration in New Zealand—a very large mouthful, that, as a description, but it is a very important one because one of the ways the current Government and, indeed, future Governments can make sure we are serving the public well when it comes to tax is making sure that the cost of administering taxation in New Zealand is as low as it can be.

There are two parts of this. The first is the cost to the Inland Revenue Department and, therefore, to the Government, to run the tax system. That is one thing we should focus on, but for this Government our focus is very much on reducing the costs to comply with tax on individual taxpayers, large taxpayers—larger companies—but particularly small to medium sized enterprises. The country is not actually in a bad space in this area. A survey was done not so long ago in America of the costs of tax administration or tax compliance for small to medium sized enterprises, and it found that the cost, on average, in a given year in America was about $10,000. A similar evaluation in New Zealand shows that it costs small to medium sized enterprises in New Zealand about $4,500 as part of tax administration. So they are significantly better off than in the case of America.

When one considers how many small to medium sized enterprises there are in New Zealand, that adds up to some billions of dollars. Through business transformation, through an opportunity for the current Government, and indeed all of the House, to look to simplify and modernise tax administration in New Zealand, that cost could come down. If it only came down by, oh, I do not know, a billion dollars within that, that could be as much in some cases as half a percentage point of GDP. That is money that businesses get to keep themselves and certainly the Government believes that businesses are the ones who are doing the hard work and they should keep more of their own money to invest in their businesses, to help grow the economy, and to employ more New Zealanders.

This is an exciting opportunity. It is not actually about only a computer system, although the current computer system, called “FIRST”, is more than 20 years of age now, and indeed it probably already costs more to maintain than it does to replace, but this is an opportunity to make sure that we have a tax system that is fit for purpose. Before any party in this Parliament needs to contemplate increasing tax rates in the future to meet some of the costs associated with the services that New Zealanders demand and deserve, it is our duty upon the Parliament, and indeed the Government, to look to reduce the cost of complying with tax to simplify and to modernise it.

There are a number of issues that we are working through that I know the Finance and Expenditure Committee canvassed during their hearings and their deliberations around this. The first is that we have set up a number of groups and bodies to consult and be involved with New Zealanders to ask them to consider how we can make the tax system simpler for them. This is not about reducing tax or saying to them that they do not have to pay their tax—indeed, they do—but how we can make it easier for them to comply. Of course, the majority of people in New Zealand comply with their tax obligations voluntarily. That means we do not have to make them pay their tax, but certainly we want to make it as easy as it possibly can be for those who want to comply to do so, and then to focus resources upon those who choose not to so that we can make sure that they are paying their way as well.

We set up a taxpayer simplification panel where businesses large and small, and individual taxpayers, can send their ideas into Inland Revenue for an independent group to assess. We hope we can make some changes this year, and others will be part of business transformation. We had a listening campaign as a trial in the Hawke’s Bay, where we asked people to text or go online and tell us about ways to simplify taxation. A significant number of people took time to do that. We had a tax administration conference that also gave us an opportunity to consider the issue more widely. Just recently I launched two consultation documents: a green paper on tax administration and making tax simpler, and a second one on better digital services and how we can bring Inland Revenue up into the 21st century to make things easier for people as technology allows. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, tēnā anō tātou ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o tōku kōrero i te pō nei, he tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko ngā kōrero i a taku tuakana a Peeni, tana mihi ki a Parekura, nā te mea, i te wā e ora ana, ko ia tētahi o ngā tangata o te ’hare nei, i tū kaha ana ki te kawe atu i ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki ngā take Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and greetings again to us. But before continuing with my address tonight, this is a brief call to endorse the statements by my elder kin Peeni in his tribute to Parekura, because when he was alive, Parekura was one person in this House who was strong on addressing policies about Māori matters.]

Just by way of explanation I stand first of all to support the comments made by my elder brother Peeni Henare in terms of acknowledging the work of the late Parekura Horomia on promoting and advancing the cause of Māori as Minister of Māori Affairs. My comments are in relation to the 2013-14 financial period and I will refer to the Ministry of Māori Development. I will also touch on matters concerning the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and the Treaty claims.

We have heard that the debt owed by this country at the moment is $85 billion. Over the past 7 years we have ended up having a deficit. I make that comment wondering why is it that the Ministry of Māori Development over a similar number of years has underspent their allocation, and wonder whether or not they have been asked to contribute to reducing that debt by underspending their annual allocation. If in fact that is the case, then I am very disappointed to hear that, given that the very people they are set up to serve—apart from their political masters—Māori, youth, the elderly, and the dispossessed, given their needs, I would have thought that the department would not have enough money to spend.

I want to give you an example. During the course of the review of that department, the Māori Affairs Committee heard that for the Māori wardens their budget was underspent by 10 percent. They have received the same allocation for this particular activity since 2008. And in every year the department has failed to expend the full amount, and I wonder why. We asked the officials as to why this was the case. Their response was that the administration funding had not been paid out. I find it rather strange that for 7 years in a row the same budgetary item was not paid out. Hopefully, as time goes on we will learn more about the reason why they had underspent.

Let us look at some of the other examples where I believe that the department is having difficulty. We heard that they underwent a restructuring of their staff and the way that they would operate over the next year or so. We found that a number of experienced staff had been let go. It seemed to me that this was a clear example of allowing institutional knowledge to be lost by that department. I will say to this Committee that over the next 12 months or so we will see the effect of the loss of that institutional knowledge. The Minister, when he took a short call on Treaty settlements, made reference to—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, sorry, the member’s allocation is completed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I inquired of the Chair before you—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies. There is one supplementary.

Thank you. I just wanted to make comment on the issue around the reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The Minister made quite a statement that there had been enough consultation around the reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I would suggest that there may have been a lot of consultation, but the people were told that it was a review of the Act. The review of the Act and the reform of the Act I believe are two different matters. I am not arguing against the reform. I think the time has come for the reform of the Act, but to suggest that there has been sufficient consultation, then I would suggest that the people have been misled, because they were told during the course of that consultation that it was going to be a review and not a reform of the Act.

The other point I want to make concerns the issue around Whānau Ora. A lot of money has been expended bringing this programme up to where it is today. One of the challenges that we were advised that the ministry would have to face was ensuring that the people knew what Whānau Ora was about. I am really surprised that it has taken this long, given that it was introduced 3 years ago by the former Minister of Māori Affairs and co-leader of the Māori Party at the time. I am really astounded by the fact that, given the amount of money that has been allocated to Whānau Ora, the ministry is still talking about ensuring that people know what this kaupapa is about. I think that some monitoring should really take place in terms of how Whānau Ora funding is being expended.

Finally, I want to make comment about the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, which the ministry has a purview of responsibility for. One of the changes that has been mooted is the removal of the status of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori—the Māori Language Commission—from being a Crown entity to being just an ordinary entity. When we spoke to officials, they told us that the responsibility of a Crown entity was to report to its board. The proposal under the bill is that the Māori Language Commission will be responsible to a group called Te Mātāwai. I believe that there is no change, no serious change, in the set-up that the commission has now, and that the commission itself should retain its status as a Crown entity. We in New Zealand First will certainly be pushing for that to be retained when the bill comes before the House.

I just want to conclude by saying that, overall, Te Puni Kōkiri appears to be doing what it was set up to do, but one of the things that I believe it should have taken a lead from its previous Minister on is making more contact with the people whom it is set up to serve. Kia ora.

Members, there is one call left, but the Business Committee determined that this would be a time-limited debate of 7 hours, not just a debate of 84 5-minute calls. Hence, when all calls are exhausted or where those with remaining calls are not seeking a call, the call may go to any member seeking the call.

The Business Committee determined the calls allocated to each party to ensure that each party has the opportunity to contribute to the annual review debate, taking into account the proportion of seats held by that party in the House. However, once those calls are exhausted or not sought, the overall time limit prevails and the call may go to any member seeking the call.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak in the last part of this debate, on the internal affairs and Government relationships theme for the 2013-14 annual review debate. It is a pleasure because this debate is so wide ranging. The topics under this heading include arts, culture, and heritage, finance and revenue, Prime Minister and Cabinet, and State services, to name a few. I think that that leads really nicely into the fourth priority of this National-led Government, which is delivering better public services.

We want the public to have confidence in our departments. We want the public to have confidence in the services provided. They need to be provided in an effective way, and they need to be fit for purpose for that individual who walks through the door. We have asked our Government departments to do more for less. This Government has been pragmatic in its solution-finding, and has set tangible targets for each department, and we measure those achievements and those targets so that we can track progress. And we actually monitor it—a novel idea, I know, for the Opposition. We monitor it to see that it is working, and if it is working we capitalise on that.

But we are a Government that is brave, because if things are not working so well, we are prepared to take the hard decision and modify whatever we are doing for the betterment of all New Zealanders. This is why we have kept Government spending down, because we have focused officials on key measures. We have kept Government spending down and built a stronger, competitive economy, one that grew by 3.5 percent in 2014. It is the best performance since September 2007. With an economy that is growing, with production increasing, and with more jobs—80,000 last year, to be exact—the wealth for ordinary New Zealanders is growing for families and for businesses. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advises the executive on the Business Growth Agenda—some 350 initiatives that have helped grow the regions—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who wrote that?

—and I find it disturbing when some members opposite take a trip on the wild side and come down to Southland and then tell me that we are not doing well. I have got one thing to say to the member opposite—Mr Twyford—which is that the Bluff portion of State Highway 1 is currently being resealed, with the Greenhills overbridge reseal having been completed. If generating 14.4 percent of New Zealand’s total export receipts, if having an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent—

💬 Stuart Smith: How much?

—3.3 percent—and if having some of the most affordable housing in the country and above-average household income is doing badly, well, then I do not know what is good.

Southlanders enjoy a high quality of living, and we are highly satisfied with our lives, according to the 2014 regional activity report. See? We are happy—happy. One of the key parts of the Business Growth Agenda advice from the Prime Minister and Cabinet is to open up our new markets, and Southland is obviously a trading export economy, but we are not going just for dairying. We are diversifying and growing other markets, including fishing and aquaculture, meat, tourism, and wool—over $3 billion in export receipts—and we are even investigating new industries like cropping, oil and gas, and platinum, in an environmentally sustainable and responsible way. So one can see that Southland has got a lot going for it, and different competitive activities, but that those activities can coexist if the right conditions are put in place in respect of the operating parameters.

Mr Clayton Mitchell would be well advised to listen to the answer that the Minister of Conservation gave yesterday in respect of shark tourism operators. That is a competing business, but with the right parameters it is operating in a sustainable way. I want to just end—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What do the pāua divers say?

—Mr Peters—by extending my condolences to the family of Frana Cardno, the former Mayor of Southland District. She was a champion of Southland and, as such, she encouraged people who had Southland’s best interests at heart, and that actually transcended the colour represented in Parliament. She encouraged me while I was at the Department of Conservation, she encouraged me while I was a lawyer, and she encouraged me as the member for Invercargill.

It is a pleasure to take a call in what I guess we would call this grab bag of portfolios that fall under this final item. I would actually encourage members who want to take a look at the estimates document, if you do want to get a flavour of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration of these matters, to take a look at page 295, which is the annual review of Solid Energy, and, in fact, the transcript of the exchange between the Solid Energy board and Clayton Cosgrove MP. It is well worth a read, if anyone wants to have a look at it, and it certainly indicates to this side of the Chamber a topic that should we have had a little more time we could have got into, which is the way in which the Government managed to run a State-owned enterprise like Solid Energy into the ground.

But I want to talk about the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which is contained under this particular set of annual reviews. I want to make two particular points. The first of those is a general one that emerged during the committee’s hearing. Throughout the period covered by this annual review and, indeed, for years prior and, now we learn, for years to come the Reserve Bank has not met and will not meet the target that it has for inflation within the policy targets agreement it signs with the Government. This is a policy targets agreement that has covered both sides of the House. It has been slightly tweaked by both Labour and National Governments at different times. But the reality is that the Reserve Bank is actually going to fail to keep inflation within the 1 to 3 percent band, which Governments of both hues have decided is what is good for New Zealand. Now, when the Reserve Bank came to the committee it was clear with the members that it saw that objective as something that happened over the medium term. We had a discussion about what the medium term might mean—but the reality is that it will not meet that agreement.

I think the time has come to review the policy targets agreement to ensure that while we do what all New Zealanders would want us to do, which is to keep inflation under control, we look at the overall mandate of the Reserve Bank. It is high time, in my view, that we have monetary policy in New Zealand that not only looks at the control of inflation and not only looks at price stability but looks at employment outcomes, looks at whether or not in our country we are generating the kinds of jobs that New Zealanders would want to see, and looks at how exporters are performing. Although there might be some around New Zealand who want to have a party to celebrate parity with the Australian dollar—and if you can afford yourself a trip over to the Gold Coast, it might make you feel good when your spending power is a bit better—the reality is that our exporters, who will drive growth in the economy, are the ones who are suffering as the dollar remains, as the Reserve Bank Governor told us at this review, at an unsustainable and unjustifiably high level.

We clearly, in this country, need to look—it is what he said, Dr Coleman. He says it every time he gives his Monetary Policy Statement. He will say it again tomorrow. And tomorrow when he says it—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What’s the right level?

Well, that is the point. I am not going to say that I am the person who should justify that, but if the Reserve Bank Governor is telling New Zealanders that, if exporters right around the country are telling New Zealanders that, Mr Coleman, then we need to make sure we listen to those people.

Tomorrow when the Reserve Bank Governor makes his in-between Monetary Policy Statement he will leave the official cash rate at 3.5 percent. He has given a clear signal of that. But the reason that he will leave the rate at 3.5 percent is the fear of what will happen in the Auckland housing market if he were to cut those rates. That is clearly what is on the mind of the Reserve Bank Governor, because right around the world central banks have been lowering their official cash rates and lowering interest rates. Here in New Zealand we now have the highest interest rates from a central bank of most Western countries. The reason he cannot lower that rate is because of the failure of this Government to deal with the Auckland housing crisis.

Grant Spencer, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, made a speech the other day that was quite extraordinary in the history of this Government—quite extraordinary. Having come to the select committee on various occasions to tell us that it was not his job to talk about managing the demand side of the Auckland housing market, the deputy governor came out and said that not enough is being done—not enough is being done by this Government to manage that. That is the clear message from the Reserve Bank Governor and the clear message to this Government that it has failed.

E te Kaiwhakahaere ka mihi. I know this is probably one of the final calls in this themed debate, but I want to speak about Māori development and Treaty settlements. We have heard tonight—and in the last couple of days, but particularly tonight—from my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber talking about the Ministry of Māori Development. A lot of that was very much around the glass being half empty. What I want to do is talk a little bit about Māori development.

One thing that has stood out to me after going through the annual review of the Ministry of Māori Development was a lot of the initiatives that it is championing to build and strengthen the Māori economy. One example that it provided was the launch of the Māori Economic Development Strategy in the Bay of Plenty. This had been the culmination of 2 years of development, with input from more than 200 iwi members and Māori business representatives. When you look at the Māori Business Facilitation Service, it is out there supporting many of the initiatives like this one to promote Māori business growth, such as the joint project in Te Wai Pounamu with Ngāi Tahu, and also with the tertiary institutions in Dunedin.

This Government is also promoting Māori science and innovation, recently giving the Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund an extra boost of $1.9 million to that funding. The other thing is also to acknowledge the great work being done by organisations such as New Zealand Māori Tourism Council under the leadership of Pania Tyson-Nathan.

It is clear that the ongoing development of the Māori economy is slowly but surely giving Māori the key to their own destiny. We often hear—and we do use this term—about Māori aspirations, but it can mean different things to different people. To me, when we talk about Māori aspirations it is a reflection of what matters to Māori and their whānau. It is about really holistic well-being. When an iwi can manage its own economy it has the ability to build its own platform to invest in its people and transform its aspirations into positive outcomes. In turn, that builds strong whānau and strong communities.

Over the last 2 days I have heard a litany from the other side of the Chamber in playing down the importance of economic development, which would result in keeping more Māori dependent on the Government for their livelihood. On this side of the Chamber we say no to this sort of defeatist attitude. We have focused on economic growth over the last 6 years. As a result, wages have gone up by 15 percent. We have focused on getting people off welfare and into work. That is why we now have 80,000 people in jobs.

But the growth of the Māori economy has the potential to benefit Māori even further, through the settlement of historic Treaty claims. That is why it was so disheartening over the 9 long years of the Labour Government to see the settlement process all but stall. This Government has signed 47 deeds of settlement over the last 6 years. That is compared to a pitiful 16 signed by the Helen Clark Government when it was in office for 9 years. That is the statistic that really reflects that. It was a National Government that got settlements moving in the 1990s. Labour put the brakes on, and so now, under National, things are moving fast forward very, very quickly.

The Māori economy continues to grow, and it is growing very quickly under this Government’s programme of Treaty settlements. It is that growth, along with the strong development in the rest of the economy, that gives me much hope for the economic future for Māori. This Government has turned round an economy that was sinking under Labour.

Let me say that I was down on Stewart Island recently, and the place was packed out. The reason it was packed out, for the benefit of the member for Invercargill, is that down there they are in the top export bracket of New Zealand and the lower—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The time for this debate has expired.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said a point of order. That means you sit down while I give it. All right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You will sit down.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want my point of order, though.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You sit down. This is a 7-hour debate. The time for this debate has expired.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not unusual when you are going to have a planned debate like that, that you have so many speakers or a time limit. That is why we objected to this process in the first place. I made it very clear in a point of order in this Chamber. My point is, surely, one should have the courtesy of being able to finish their 5-minute speech in this Chamber.

No. The member will sit down.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, that’s why we’re going to oppose this sort of crap in the future.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. [Interruption] Order! The 7-hour time limit was determined by the Business Committee. [Interruption] I am on my feet and I am going to explain the position. Let me explain. The Business Committee determined that this would be a debate of 7 hours. There would be 84 5-minute calls. As I explained earlier, if all those calls were not taken or the time for those debates was not expended, then there were extra calls allocated. The 7 hours are now up. That is the end of the matter. I intend to put the vote. [Interruption] I am on my feet.

The Business Committee made this determination. You have a member on the Business Committee who—[Interruption] Order! Points of order will be taken in silence. New Zealand First has a member on the Business Committee, and that member would have been able to put their case at the time. That is what has been resolved, and that is the process that we are now following. I intend to put the vote.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If the member is trifling with my decision—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am having a point of order. That is within the Standing Orders. Can I please put it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order, and it is this. Were there 84 5-minute speeches?

That is not my point. The point is that this is a 7-hour debate, full stop. The question is that the reports of the committees relevant to internal affairs and Government relationships—[Interruption] Order! We are having a vote. The question is that the reports of committees relevant to internal affairs and Government relationships—arts, culture, and heritage, defence, finance and revenue, internal affairs, Māori affairs, Pacific Island affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, security intelligence, services for Parliament, sport and recreation, State services, statistics, Treaty negotiations, and women’s affairs—be noted.

Reports noted.

Clauses 1 to 13 and schedules 1 to 5