Estimates Debate — Māori, Other Populations and Cultural Sector

Members, we now come to the votes in the Māori, other populations and cultural sector, B.5, volume 8. The question is that Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Sport and Recreation, Vote Statistics, Vote Treaty Negotiations, and Vote Women stand part of the schedules.

Ā, tēnā koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. It is a pleasure for me to take this call in this appropriations debate for Māori, other populations, and cultural sector. It is a privilege indeed to be a Māori MP within the National caucus, and also to be the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

This Government is indeed delivering for Māori, particularly when we look at the measures—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member early, as I did with other chairs, to remind him that his role is to report in as neutral a manner as he can as the chair of the committee, rather than give a partisan speech. That is why the member has an extra speech, and the member’s team has an extra speech, so he can do that. It is a warning I have given to previous chairs. He can take another call if he wants to be partisan and talk about a particular party’s programme.

Thank you for the guidance. The Māori Affairs Committee heard evidence from the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, Te Puni Kōkiri, and also the Office of the Auditor-General. When we look at the total appropriations for Vote Māori Development, they are, for 2017-18, $312.9 million. The Minister conveyed to the Māori Affairs Committee that within that there were 15 new policies, including additional and actual new funding. That new funding actually covered, particularly, additional funding—first of all, $2.5 million for Whānau Ora; then also for the Māori housing initiatives, which was another $5 million; and then new funding, under that, was for Te Reo Māori, of $6.5 million.

One of the things that the Minister highlighted, along with Te Puni Kōkiri, was that in the 2017-18 appropriations there was, actually, funding of $71 million to achieve the Whānau Ora outcomes. When we look at that, a lot of the funding itself was concentrated around the Whānau Ora Outcomes Framework, which was a principle measurement. We found, in the presentation, that there was actually a lot of commitment, more so to the way that the Whānau Ora initiatives are actually measured and monitored.

One of the things was that it very much highlighted the seven outcomes that Whānau Ora was going to deliver on—or that it is delivering on. One was self-management, others were to live healthy lifestyles, participate fully in society, and confidently participate—that was the big one in Te Ao Māori, in the world of the Māori: “Whānau and families are economically secure and successfully involved in wealth creation”. That particularly came, within that Whānau Ora piece, around Māori entrepreneurship and the development of that particularly, and Māori actually being in charge of their own destinies—particularly in businesses and employing Māori within those businesses as well.

There was another part of it that talked about being cohesive, nurturing, and also very, very resilient within the whānau space or the whānau area. The responsibility was also for stewardship to the living environments, particularly around the upkeep and the kaitiakitanga of Papatūānuku—so the environment was very, very important inside of that.

At the committee, we were told that there was some real, sort of, tangible process that was achieving these outcomes and that the Minister was satisfied with that performance. He was questioned by a number of us on the committee, but there was a very, very clear way in which this was presented around that measurement. For example, we heard that just over 1,014 whānau were prioritised in a housing report, particularly with insulated houses. So that was under that Te Pou Matakana.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt Mr Korako’s speech, but I raise a point of order to express this side of the House’s concern at your use of the word “neutral” when it comes to speeches from the chairs of committees. I have read the Business Committee’s determination, and whilst chairs are expected to set out the major findings of the committee, the Business Committee’s determination did not say that chairs must be neutral. I do note you have pulled up a number of our chairs around that and suggested that they must be neutral, so I wanted to outline that concern—that I do not believe that is quite the determination of the Business Committee and that any member of the Parliament, unless they are a presiding officer, is likely to have some partisan aspects to their speeches. I wonder whether you could reconsider the way that you have been ruling.

I will reflect on what the member said. I have been involved in discussions around the difference in the role of that speech and the reasons for giving an extra speech to the chairs of committee, and, actually, it is a speech for presiding officers from the committees. My understanding—and I am happy to reflect on it, and I am happy to discuss it with colleagues—is that they are, effectively, extra speeches in order to set out what happened at the committee, in the tone of the reports, rather than the tone of a partisan member.

Thank you for reflecting.

I take a call on two aspects of these Estimates, and there is so much in this. I find the name a bit problematic: Māori, other populations and cultural sector. “Other” is sort of “othering” people who actually have a very legitimate place in this country and very legitimate things to talk about. But I am just going to talk a little bit about Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations. I am only a part-time, temporary member of the Māori Affairs Committee and do not have the knowledge of my colleagues. I am not there for the Appropriations or Estimates. However, today I do need to speak for the Greens on this, and I am not going to pretend to be neutral. I do not think I ever have in any circumstance, really, so I do not see any reason to start.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I’m not expecting you to break the habit of a lifetime.

No; nor I. I have got only a few more speeches left; I may as well go hard. Also, I think neutrality is fairly mythical. Everybody brings a clever little bias, especially in this place.

Getting on with the Estimates, there is a lot of interesting appropriation of money here, and it is very hard to assess unless you go into the detail, but one of the things that concerns me is that there is only a total of $71 million for Whānau Ora outcomes, including Whānau Ora navigators from non-Government commissioning agencies.

The reason I raise this is that Whānau Ora as introduced to this House by the Hon Tariana Turia was a programme that we, the Greens, could understand as being a once-in-a-generation transformative, complete overhaul of how the welfare system has failed to work for Māori. It was the vision of Dame Tariana Turia because she was so aware of that failure. It has always been under-invested in, and $71 million is, again, an under-investment. It really is. We actually need to spend a whole lot more money than that if we are serious about the potential of this programme, which has great potential but is still underfunded. So I just want to make that point.

I want to note also that there is some funding for Māori women’s development, which is always good to see, but what is sobering alongside that, I think, is the fact that for Māori women—and I saw the statistics today—the gender pay gap is 24 percent; for Pasifika women it is 28 percent, and for the rest of us it is 12 percent. That just tells you that funds like this, in this Estimate, will not do anything until we address the gender pay gap for low-paid Māori and Pasifika women workers. It is a disgrace that it is double the gender pay gap for Pākehā women in particular, at 12 percent—and that is a disgrace in itself. So we have got a long way to go and therefore Vote Māori Development is not totally satisfactory, because of the fact that it is still underfunded.

The other Estimate I want to address is Vote Treaty Negotiations. There are a number of things in here that are concerning in principle that I wanted to talk about. There is money here, which I want to support, that was a contribution to the Parihaka community engagement with the Crown support package. I was one of the privileged people who went to Parihaka on the day of the apology and I fully support this process. What it tells me is that full and final settlement, which is what a lot of this appropriation is about, is not, and should not be, the goal. We need a peace process, and that is why this particular small part of it, for Parihaka, is being looked at by other tangata whenua groups who have had the trauma of colonisation and the brutality of the loss of their land and culture. Settling is not what is required; it is honouring that is required.

So the funding that was put into the Parihaka process, which is just the beginning of the healing, is very important because it steps outside the narrow definition that this Government has had—and, in fact, several Governments—that all we do with Te Tiriti in this Whare is settle claims. Actually, that is a complete misunderstanding of the breadth and depth of our founding document. So this Estimate talks a lot about the money being set aside for assisting tangata whenua, mana whenua, to establish their takutai moana, and that, again, is a waste of money because that relationship with takutai moana should never have been broken. They do not have to prove a thing.

I would like to take a call on this Estimates hearing and make comment, especially because the last two speeches have been talking about Whānau Ora, in particular. Just around the Pasifika component, as the Minister for Pacific Peoples, I believe that there is a lot that we can actually acknowledge and celebrate, as well as also—like with anything—think about what the future may look like in regard to the work of Whānau Ora but also some of the other parts of the Estimates hearings that talk about the development for Pasifika, in particular.

I was honoured to attend the conference just a while ago in the lunchtime break—the Pasifika conference for the Pasifika Futures commissioning agent. The title of the conference was “From Work to Wonder”. It was celebrating the achievements over 3 years, and what I can say to the Committee and those who are listening in is that there are 56,039 individuals who have benefited over those 3 years from the work of Pasifika Futures. That is, roughly, around about 10,400 aiga and families up and down the country that are making a difference. That is 19 percent of our Pasifika population—

💬 Pita Paraone: How much has it cost?

—in New Zealand, which is just over 300,000. The member has been talking about what the cost is. For that commissioning agent, over those 3 years, roughly around about $27 million has been invested into that. The member may ask whether that is a good investment and whether it has made a difference. As I have said, those are the figures around the reach that it has, in particular, for the Pasifika Futures engagement, as well. There are 38 partners up and down the country, from the top of the country right down to the end. They are making a difference, and I want to be able to highlight that in some of the results that they are achieving—

💬 Pita Paraone: What’s the split between the different Island groups?

—through it, as well. So when we think about the differences, and while there are many different ethnic groups that are in the Pasifika groups, predominantly—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): As long as you are looking forward to the Estimates.

Sorry—in looking forward in the Estimates, in the Estimates the breakdown is quite clearly that 40 percent is Samoan, 31 percent is Tongan, 16 percent is Cook Islands, 16 percent is some of the other smaller groups, and 3 percent is Fijian. I just say for the member’s benefit that these are the differences that it is making as well.

💬 Kris Faafoi: What about us?

And the Tokelauans are there—sorry, I do apologise. The Tokelauans are very strong in their presence as well. Actually, I have to say that they are clearly making a difference through this, and we celebrate with them, as well.

When we are talking about how we know that this work of Pasifika Futures, through the Whānau Ora work, is truly making a difference, I want to make three little points that have come out of the report from the chairman, Dr Kiki Maoate. He said: “The wonder about Whānau Ora and the work that we are planning is this: we can as Pasifika, first of all, understand our challenges, we can design our solutions, and we can create our future.”

When I was talking to the providers that were there today, they talked about the difference that they are able to make in working with these aiga—with these families—to design what that future would look like. So here are some of the results that are coming out, as well. Out of that, 2,480 families have prioritised health. We know non-communicable diseases are a critical issue of concern. It is the diabetes, it is the cardiovascular disease, and it is the issues around obesity. There is a 20 percent increase in the proportion of those families around immunisation. We know that for Pasifika as a population/ethnic group, it has the highest proportion of uptake in regards to immunisation, which shows that this work is making a difference. Sixty-six percent of engaged families have a family member with a long-term condition. They are now further engaged with health providers, which is making a difference as well.

If we take, for instance, economic development and the work that is happening there, 1,652 families have completed financial plans. We know that financial capability—budgeting and so forth—truly makes a difference to the work that we are doing. That is 1,488 families who have reduced their debt. These are some of the results that are coming through that are making a difference to our Pasifika through Whānau Ora funding that has been allocated in the Budget.

We are succeeding in education with lifelong learning, and—I know that Mrs Martin will appreciate this—62 percent of families who were not previously enrolled are now enrolled in early childhood education. Three hundred—and as tradie, I really appreciate this—now have trade qualifications that have been absolutely completed. John Kotoisuva, with the work that he has been doing in Trades in Schools, is making a difference.

At Ōtāhuhu College the STEM programme has shown that 33 percent of students who have gone through now have university entrance. That is an increase of 65 percent of students who have gone on to NCEA level 3 in the STEM subjects.

I just want to say in my closing remarks that the work of Whānau Ora through Pasifika Futures and with the championing of our Minister for Māori Development is making a difference and is delivering for our Pasifika whānau and communities as well.

I rise to contribute to the debate on Vote Māori Development. I look at some of the information here, and it is quite clear that there has been a minimal increase in this particular area—in fact, it says there is a 0.6 percent increase. I also read on about the capacity of Te Puni Kōkiri and also the policy advice. Other aspects of the role of Te Puni Kōkiri have come under question many times, and I cannot help but wonder whether or not Te Puni Kōkiri is, shall we say, schizophrenic—schizophrenic—

💬 Pita Paraone: Irrelevant.

Ha, ha! Te Puni Kōkiri is there for economic development, it is there for monitoring Whānau Ora, it is there for monitoring Te Reo Māori, it is there for monitoring the Māori Housing Network, and it is also there with oversight over so many other things. I wonder whether this is actually impacting on its performance.

As we have questioned in the select committee process around the deliverables and the outcomes that have actually been there for our people, questions still remain. Questions have been asked about particular policy directives of this Government, and those answers have not been given about the intention of a particular policy. Sure, it might sound good on paper to throw a few dollars at it, but it does not meet the needs of our people. It does not contribute to a long-term sustainable vision for our people.

I come now to Te Ratonga Whenua Māori—the Māori Land Service. The vote includes an appropriation of $1.796 million to establish and operate the Māori Land Service. Well, in the last month Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill has been taken off the table. What does this mean in particular with regard to the Māori Land Service? It says here, “When enacted, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill will establish the Māori Land Service”, so we have an appropriation for the Māori Land Service, and I understand that. But we have a bill that has been widely rejected by the people of Aotearoa New Zealand—widely rejected—so much so that the bill has been taken off the table, yet in the appropriations the Government has forged ahead with the Māori Land Service. Something about putting a cart before a horse comes to mind, and that is of serious concern to us.

We also have some questions—me, in particular—in Tāmaki-makau-rau about whakapapa, and the marae ora sustaining the marae, sustaining the pae. I think that is a worthy cause. I think it is important because of the important place that marae as an institution has for our people. But I wonder whether this particular appropriation is actually big enough to rise to the challenge. I think of Tāmaki-makau-rau and of all the urban Māori, the majority of whom are people who, if you ask them, actually whakapapa back to the North, back to Ngāpuhi—most of them do. But if you ask them, we are now into a third and fourth generation of disconnection—of disconnection. While this particular policy is well intended, and I think it has a bit of merit—rebuilding our pae and rebuilding our marae to make sure that whānau want to go home and be connected—I wonder (1) whether it can be achieved, and (2) what is the particular strategy for Tāmaki-makau-rau, given the urban migration and generations of disconnection from marae and whakapapa.

Of course, while some bits of money are appreciated for these particular kaupapa, if you think about the spread of marae and where the concentrations of people are, I have not seen a strategy directed at Tāmaki-makau-rau, where the majority of the Māori population are. In fact, this policy was launched down on the East Coast, where there is already a strong sense of culture and identity amongst the people down on the East Coast—Ngāti Porou and Ngāti Kahungunu. Yet in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where the need is greatest—where the need is greatest—we have not seen that particular impetus placed upon reconnecting whakapapa and whānau.

In conclusion, we have some concerns around the appropriation for Vote Māori Development. While we acknowledge the Minister and his hard work in getting what he can, we still believe that it is not enough for our people. It is not enough, and, hopefully, come September there will be a time for change, when true outcomes can be reached for Māori people.

Tēnā koe Mr Chair, kia ora tātau katoa. Ka mihi rā i te tuatahi e Kelvin. Ki te āhuatanga o te aranga ake o tētahi o koutou hei tuarua mō Te Reipa me pērā ka tika, kua eke tētahi Māori ki tēnei o ngā taumata, nō reira, ka waiho tērā kōrero ki reira.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and acknowledgments to us all. I do acknowledge in the first instance, Kelvin. The situation where one of you being elevated as deputy for Labour, it has to be acknowledged, no doubt about it, a Māori has achieved this one of the levels, and as a consequence leave that comment there.]

I just want to acknowledge the fact that that Mr Kelvin Davis is No. 2 for Labour. That is an important development in terms of Māori aspirations and dreams. Being a leader in this political arena, I just wanted to acknowledge that at the start of my kōrero. In respect of the other issues that were raised by Mr Peeni Henare—unfortunately, I did not hear many of the other speeches in respect of Vote Māori Development—I can say that as Minister for Māori Development I am very pleased with the development that has happened for Te Puni Kōkiri. I do not think that it is schizophrenic, but I do think that it has a lot of work on, and I have certainly made it very clear that I have got high aspirations as the Minister to address many of the issues that have been canvassed in this Committee. I would like to think that I push it hard and I like to think that I role-model hard work, as Te Puni Kōkiri should do, in the best interests of our people.

I think the member was a little bit economical with the truth in respect of the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh no, no, no. I am just going to give the member a bit of guidance. I think he is heading into an area where he is likely to get out of order, so I think he had better take care.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I will correct the member, and say that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is not off the table. It is still on the table. It will be on the table until the end of this parliamentary term, so to say otherwise is not quite correct. I just wanted to address that to the member. He was also suggesting that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill has been widely rejected. Actually, the truth, from my perspective at least, is there have been well over 300 hui. Well over 3,000 of our people have listened to the discussion, and we have been able to work through Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill in a methodical manner that has allowed every member to have a say. Despite the fact that I could well have taken it through urgency, I chose not to do that, for the purposes of allowing everybody to have a say.

The issue in respect of wharenui and Tāmaki-makau-rau—one would accept that there are not a lot of wharenui in Tāmaki-makau-rau, but the kaupapa around that particular initiative was to help those marae where, through circumstance, the infrastructure needs some help to reinvigorate the marae in terms of physical presence, as well as the development of that cultural angle for speakers and kaikaranga to keep our marae more active and to bring them to another level. So, while the member did talk about Tāmaki, I would have to say to him that that is part of the worry. But I do agree with one thing that he says, and that is that it is not a lot of money. I understand that. All I have done is recognise that there is a niche there, that we want to address it, and that we will continue to advocate for more money in that space.

The Minister in the chair before me, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, did talk about Whānau Ora. Yesterday I had the privilege of going to a Whānau Ora conference here for the Pasifika peoples. Kia orana tatou katoatoa—it is Cook Islands Language Week. I also want to acknowledge the many whānau navigators throughout the whole of the country who are doing great stuff around our Pasifika communities. I recognise that. In fact, they recognise that themselves by acknowledging those navigators and, indeed, providers throughout the country that are doing great work for whānau. So I was pleased that at the last Budget a further $10 million for Whānau Ora has been invested, there is $9 million over 4 years for whānau-centred family violence intervention approaches, and, indeed, looking across the span of other initiatives in this particular area, there is some more money in terms of rangatahi suicide. It is a sad indictment on our society that we have to face rangatahi who are taking their lives at such young ages. We have been able to build on that fund with a further $8 million over 4 years.

Of course, the big one is around trying to address the issue of “neets”—that particular cohort not in employment, education, or training. We have pumped some $12 million into what we have called Passport to Life, which is about an opportunity that came from the view from providers throughout the country that suggested that so many of our rangatahi are tied because they cannot get a driver licence or they have a pretend driver licence, they get caught out, they cannot pay the bill, they go to court, they get hammered, and they end up going into the prison system. Unfortunately, it is a downward spiral, so what we have tried to do with that package is come up with a package that is about a birth certificate, that is about a passport to allow those aspirations to be sky-high, so our young people believe that they can, in fact, go off Aotearoa and go to the opportunities in the world. It is talking about an IRD number—those sorts of key documents that will allow our young people to pick up opportunities for them in the future.

I know that many members have talked about the kōhanga reo and, in particular, I suppose, the money going to the kōhanga reo. I can say to members that the initiative of helping out kōhanga reo with $5 million is all about trying to get more of our people into kōhanga reo by offering up opportunities to either (1) do up that transport by way of the safety elements of the vans or (2) get more vans to be able to help our kōhanga reo get our tamariki into the kōhanga reo movement and hopefully lock them in. That initiative came from the kōhanga reo themselves, and so therefore our responsibility was to support them in that particular line.

Yes, there is some more money in broadcasting, as well. In Te Māngai Pāho we have got $10 million, and, of course, there is a further $6 million in Te Reo Māori initiatives. I know that members talk constantly about housing, and I have been questioned in this House about housing and the housing network. I think the important point to be raised here is that the path that has been raised by the Māori Housing Network is but a small part of the bigger picture of housing initiatives covered by a number of Ministers. Is there one silver bullet to deal with those who are in homelessness? The answer is no, there is not, because if somebody had found it we would have dealt with it far earlier. Our initiatives like Te Puea Marae and marae taking responsibility for some of our families are important—yes, they are—because they fill a gap, but what they do identify is the ability for our people to work with our own and to make a connect with Government agencies that need to make those connects with many of our people. So I am pleased to say that we have been able to help in that space.

What we have done is to secure, for example, a little bit more money into the housing network—$8 million. In fact, I need to say again to members that the housing network’s job is not to build houses. Its job is to do other things like, actually, educate people about the whole process of getting houses. It is to help those communities—like the Waimanas, like the Ruatāhunas, like, in my particular electorate, the Ruātokis—that have housing issues within those communities such that just some repairs and maintenance on those houses would bring them up to at least being warm and safe, and would get rid of the rain that sometimes trickles down the windowsills. All those sorts of things are things that I have seen in my electorate that you would not believe should be a part of our New Zealand way of life. But they are, and therefore we have tried to target and find our niche amongst all of the offerings that are available from the Government.

We have also looked at the possibility of other avenues to help our people move into housing, because homeownership is still a dream that many of our people aspire to, as they should do. They want to have their own house, establish their papakāinga, and there are great examples around the country. In Meka Whaitiri’s area in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, at Waiōhiki, there is one there. There is Waimārama. There are some more up in Ngāruawāhia, in Tauranga Moana, in Mangatawa—areas throughout the country that are doing great stuff. The most recent development was probably 2 weeks ago when I was at Ngā Pōtiki in Tauranga, where they have an opportunity to build over 200 houses on an area of land that they secured through settlement. The housing network is giving them a hand, a kick-start in terms of that particular development. So things are happening in that space, and I am really looking forward to the opportunities that come up into the future.

Can I just say that the member Peeni Henare also talked about the reforms and the Māori Land Service. I can say that the Māori Land Service is on track to be delivered 18 months after the actual passing of the Māori land law legislation. Why 18 months? It gives us a good time to make sure that all of the elements of the land service, of which there are four, will be in place and up and running. Part of it is the registry. Of course, we want some services around governance, to give assistance to landowners to sort out some governance arrangements, for far too many land blocks do not have those arrangements in place. Dispute resolution is important, and the last part—the actual key to all of this—is around development opportunities that may come for our people to utilise the land if they so wish. I am pleased that we are in the first phases of that development. In fact, it has been probably about 6 or 8 months now along that road. It is a new service—completely new. Therefore, we know that we have got a lot of work to do, but it is in a good space, and I think that more will come in the next electoral cycle.

Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate looking at the Estimates, particularly the Estimates that affect the portfolio of the Minister for Māori Development. Can I say in the first instance that when the Māori Affairs Committee discussed these Estimates, we had some concern about the level of work that is required of Te Puni Kōkiri in its capacity to carry out those duties that have been assigned to it. One has to question whether, in fact, it has the capacity to do the job well. I, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, did have some reservations about the capacity of Te Puni Kōkiri to do the work that it is supposed to do. I think that part of the difficulty is that it has got rid of experienced staff, or that the staff that it has employed do not have what I would call the life skills for the issues that our people out in the regions are having to face.

The question of Whānau Ora, for instance—the ability of Te Puni Kōkiri to monitor the success or otherwise of that particular programme. It has been going for some time now, and we have yet to see some evidence as to how the success, so to speak, of that programme is measured. I just want to put that on record, in terms of the concern that New Zealand First has about that particular programme, in light of the level of funding that it has received since its inception.

The other issue I wanted to talk about is the whānau-centred family violence intervention. While that has been allocated $9 million over 4 years, the nub of the matter for me is getting qualified facilitators to help families and to address the violent behaviour that is quite common in whānau-centred family violence. I also acknowledge the level of funding towards the Rangatahi Suicide Prevention Fund, but I believe that while it may be a major concern amongst the Māori community, it should not be left entirely to Māori funding to address that particular issue. I just wonder whether, in fact, the $9 million that has been made available over 4 years is sufficient.

The Māori Land Service—we have heard from Minister Flavell that they have allowed for 18 months to establish the service after the passing of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Can I suggest that in spite of what the Minister might say, this is a covert way, I believe, of doing away with the Māori Land Court, and I would suggest to this Committee that the level of funding that has been allocated for the establishment of the service itself could be better utilised by restructuring the Māori Land Court. I would hope that the Minister does give that thought some consideration, because there is concern out amongst the Māori community, irrespective of what some of them have said about the Māori Land Court itself. It is better the devil you know than the one that you do not know, and I believe that Māori are correct in having some concern about the role of the Māori Land Service.

In this week, the Cook Islands Language Week, may I say kia orana tatou katoatoa to all members in the Committee. In reference to Vote Pacific Peoples, I note that the report has additional money for this Budget. It is seen as an increase of $750,000 per year. Sadly, if one looks through that report and looks at what the Ministry for Pacific Peoples intends with that increasing funding, it does not have any support for Pasifika languages, and that concerns me.

I want to make it quite clear that I am not necessarily pointing my finger at the honourable Minister Mr Alfred Ngaro, because he became a Minister only last year. But I am saying to this Government: why is it that this Government is so determined to not support Pasifika languages that even in this year’s Budget, not one dollar—zilch money—is allocated to support them? In fact, if you divide the additional money, $750,000 per year, amongst the 350,000 Pasifika people, that works out to only $2.15—$2.15. You cannot even get a bag of chips at $2.15. I want to state that I am not pointing the finger at this Minister alone, but, certainly, he has responsibility to step up and either support Pasifika languages or follow what his colleagues in the National Party are saying.

I want to say that in 2008, when National came into power, it cut all references and strategies supporting Pacific student bilingualism from the Pasifika Education Plan. In 2009 this Government forced the then Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs to abandon its plan to publish, in its statement of intent, for two pilot bilingual schools.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member, and that is to remind him that we are currently considering the Estimates, and that is something that is forward-looking. He can make passing reference to things from the past or he can say that things should be in there, but to focus on previous cuts is not appropriate.

I appreciate that, Mr Chairman; it is just that my style has always been to provide some context. None the less, let me just provide for the performance improvement framework review by the ministry in May of 2017. You will find that in this report, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs is saying that the new May 2017 strategic direction drops the ministry’s commitment to Pacific languages policy, drops the ministry’s commitment to its Pacific languages framework, and drops the ministry’s commitment to language weeks and language rejuvenation, in favour—this is what the report says—of moving from language to culture so that we can be more aligned with the New Zealand - born demographics and, furthermore, for communities increasingly to take a hands-on role in the delivery of Pacific language weeks.

Pacific language weeks were started by the communities anyway, but this Government—in an effort to try to make it look as if it was doing something—decided to get behind them. Now it is going to drop them—now it is going to drop support. International best evidence shows that three generations is the time that minority languages among local-born populations can survive. If this Government does not get behind Pacific languages—and in this report there is failure to show any support for them—then Pasifika languages will be lost in the years ahead.

Forward-looking again, in the years ahead, it will be the islands of Niue and the Cook Islands that will suffer the most. At least with Samoa and Tonga we continue to bring in cohorts from the Pacific, through the Samoan quota and the Pacific access quota, who speak those languages. But for Niuean and Cook Islands communities, that is not the case. I want to put that on the ground, and say to the Minister, the Hon Alfred Ngaro—a person who speaks Cook Island himself—that in this environment, this could be one of your legacy tasks: to show that you care about the languages and to not simply follow what the National Government has said, because $750,000, with nothing allocated for languages—

I am going to use my time in this Chamber today to talk a little bit about this Government’s track record and our future plans for the arts, culture, and heritage sector. I begin with the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund, which was a fund that was usually, really, for historic collections of nationwide importance—buildings and places that were absolutely the crème de la crème. While it is important to support those, it has also been important to change the rules, which we did last year. This was the first time that the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund had the kind of brief that has seen the announcements that I have been making over the last couple of months.

I look around this Chamber and I see many areas represented and hard-working local MPs who have advocated for places within their own electorates and within the regions that really need a little bit of extra support. From a $30 million fund over 3 years we have been able to give money to The Meteor Theatre in Hamilton, and to Whanganui—not only to the Whanganui Regional Museum but also to the Sarjeant Gallery. This is a building that is, deservedly, known nationwide, but is a particular attraction, obviously, for “The River City”, and it was in dire need of help. The Regional Culture and Heritage Fund is the fund of last resort and it funds to “a third, a third, a third”.

There is also Whakatāne’s museum and research centre, which combined, for the first time, iwi as well as colonial artefacts and meeting rooms and meeting places and is, I think, a game-changer for Whakatāne. The Nelson School of Music and Eastern Southland Gallery similarly benefited, and the Hawke’s Bay Opera House has been given an additional $4 million for seismic strengthening. This is a building that was originally given seismic strengthening by a community that worked hard to raise those funds—and I commend the local council at the time for allowing that to happen—but it needed more money, so the fund has enabled it to get to the level, now, where people are able to access it safely.

Similarly, with the Whangarei Art Museum, otherwise known as the Hundertwasser—an extra $3 million has gone into that, and I commend Dr Shane Reti, who has been an articulate, hard-working, and, shall we say, unswerving advocate for this extraordinary project, which is going to do a lot to change the visitor numbers, I think, to Whangarei. It also involves iwi, so there is a modern art gallery for Māori art that will be there, in amongst this international attraction.

The Heritage Earthquake Upgrade Incentive Programme, which we have niftily called Heritage EQUIP, came into being in last year’s Budget and we have set up an expert panel that now evaluates properties. This is a particular fund that is designed to assist private building owners to strengthen their earthquake-prone heritage buildings. It is about a $10 million fund, and we have made announcements in Dunedin and Napier. We are about to make them in Nelson and Christchurch. This is where we feel that the character of a town or a community could be lost if it was left up to individual owners of buildings that require extra maintenance. It is at a much more expensive level than just regular maintenance, and it also means that the integrity of the character of that original architecture is kept in place. These are the kind of things that money almost cannot buy—that are priceless—but they need some help from the Crown, and we do not resile from a leadership role, as we did not when it came to the New Zealand film sector.

I have been around long enough to have seen the halcyon days of the 1980s—the movie industry that came and then went. We needed to come in in 2014, which we did, and change the archaic labour laws. They marched in the streets but they were wrong. When we got together with the screen sector we understood that the fund was required to attract people to make big blockbuster movies in New Zealand, and also to reignite the moribund film sector of New Zealand, because it was lacking a professional service. It was lacking people who could guarantee that they would have projects all year round, and so it meant that we lost professional people across what I call the craft side of the movies.

We have put in, over the last 5 years, $100 million to make 26 New Zealand productions, and we have announced in this year’s Budget an additional $220 million for international productions. That is going to be over 4 years. We are evaluating this grant again because it has been so successful, and, when it comes to the New Zealand productions, we have brought forward $25.5 million to enable about $64 million to be made available over a 4-year period to sustain our vibrant screen industry. It makes us all feel good to have our screened stories told in a way that is eloquent.

I am going to dedicate the majority of my contribution to the “other peoples” who make up the 52 percent of New Zealand, and that is women. I just want to pick up on a comment made by the Hon Maggie Barry just then. It is unfortunate that in the Estimates and in the amounts that she just announced for culture and the arts, the member for Rodney was unable—I am not sure whether he advocated for it—to gain any funding from these Estimates for the Warkworth Town Hall, which is over 100 years old. It sits there and, actually, the men of that area marched away from there for World War I. I also think it is disappointing that, with regard to Pasifika peoples and the contribution from the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who mentioned lifelong learning, these Estimates have nothing to do with lifelong learning if you are over the age of 30. There is nothing for Pasifika peoples, the Computers in Homes budget has been taken away, SeniorNet’s budget has been taken away, and there is no increased budget for night school.

I want to pick up also on the lack of budget around Pasifika languages. It is interesting that it was only in the last Parliament that a National-led Government actually participated in a Pasifika languages inquiry, which had several recommendations for Budgets going forward about the support of the retention of Pasifika languages, not only for those coming to New Zealand but for those born in New Zealand. So it is of interest that inside these current Estimates there are cuts to any support for Pasifika languages, when assurances were given only 3 years ago.

I will talk now about the 52 percent of the New Zealand public that comes under “other peoples” in the Estimates debate. We can acknowledge that there has been an increase of $500,000, and we need to acknowledge that that has happened because the Hon Paula Bennett has taken the portfolio. Not only has there been an increase by the National Government, and $500,000 in the 2017-18 Budget, but now, at least, the Minister for Women actually sits at the table. That only happened because when the Hon Paula Bennett, I believe, got the opportunity to take on a larger leadership role, she also, being the bolshie woman that she is, said: “I’ll have that portfolio, thanks.” That is the only way, it appears, that the National Government would allow the Minister for Women to sit at the Cabinet table. That is the only way, I believe, that there was any increase in the Budget for these Estimates. We do note that this increase disappears, going forward. It appears to be a one-off $500,000 increase in an election year, projecting for 2017-18, with the Minister for Women sitting at the table.

We also note that there is absolutely nothing in the Vote Women document that sets any targets for the ministry to measure itself against, with regard to, let us say, pay equity, or to measure itself against, let us say, the number of women on boards. There are actually no practical things going to be done by Vote Women with this $5,208,000, except providing advice. So that is $5,208,000—there are no events being run to actually make sure that young women are more confident in their opportunities, and that they can do as the Minister has done and pull themselves up to the table and take these opportunities. There is no measurement of any of those sorts of projects coming out of the Ministry for Women.

I think that the other thing that needs to be seen, if we are going to be discussing the pay equity bill later today, is there is absolutely nothing inside these Estimates to address the fact that the pay gap has got bigger under this Government, particularly for women with children compared with men with children, which now sits at 17 percent. So it is disappointing. There is $500,000 more in these Estimates but no targets, no real action: a conversation will take place, we will talk to people and try to get them to do something, but we will take no action. Kia ora.

I rise to support the Estimates for this theme and talk to Vote Māori Development, Vote Treaty Negotiations, and Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, time allowing. In the Estimates consideration at select committee we heard that Vote Māori Development had received increased Estimates funding of 60 percent over the past 5 years, going up from $195 million to $312 million. This has been spread across the four anchors for Māori development, each of which I would like to touch on.

The first anchor for Māori development is Whānau Ora, which received $71.48 million. We were interested in the Estimates around what the outcomes measures might be for that funding. As my good friend and colleague Nuk Korako has described the seven components to the outcomes framework for Whānau Ora, I will not reiterate them, but we did have quite a detailed discussion as to how the Estimates funding might be spent, and we are satisfied that it was well accounted for.

The second arm to Māori development is whenua Māori, and this received $1.79 million in the Estimates. This is primarily tied to the new Māori Land Service, which will be enacted as part of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. The Māori Land Service has several functions. These include land registration, components of governance, capacity building, dispute resolution—which was quite important as this came to committee—and land utilisation. Again, we discussed what the outcome measures are, and we were told that this was for review after 5 years.

The third component to Māori development is whare. This talks to Māori housing initiatives, which received $22 million. We heard, as the Minister has said, that Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) does not build houses; TPK is responsible for managing Government funds and for collaborating with Government departments. Having said that, in the last financial year the whare component to Māori development has resulted in 22 affordable housing units and 136 whānau homes.

The fourth part to Māori development is whakapapa. We heard that the Marae Ora programme will receive $10 million over 4 years. This is primarily around building relationships between whānau in the community and their marae. So we had quite a detailed discussion over Māori development.

The committee then talked to Treaty negotiations, with an appropriation of $400 million. We heard that 16 percent of these funds are going to claimant funding, roughly the same amount is going to takutai moana, and the balance—roughly two-thirds, or 66 percent—is going to negotiations on, and implementation of, historical Treaty claims.

We asked what the progress was, because we have a target of settling all claims by 2020. We heard that 83 deeds of settlement have been signed and 54 deeds of settlement remain. There was also some interest in the select committee around the Post Settlement Commitments Unit, which actually sits under the Ministry of Justice. We were interested in its role and responsibilities. We heard that this unit is responsible for 6,000 historical commitments that it monitors. We were also made aware that it could indeed revisit previous settlements.

Finally, I would like to touch base on the arts, culture and heritage fund, and both congratulate the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage on, and thank her for, the very generous funding that the Hundertwasser Wairau Māori Arts Centre received earlier this year: a further $3 million, added to that previously received, for a total of $7 million, fitting the old formula of a third from local government, a third from central government, and a third from philanthropic sources.

The Regional Culture and Heritage Fund is a fund of last resort, and for the Hundertwasser Wairau Māori Arts Centre it was a last resort. We actually had the funding all ready to go, and then the new seismic regulations as a consequence of Kaikōura added on the extra $3 million, which the Minister and her officials were able to come to. So again, I would like to thank the Minister for that, and complete my contribution today. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a call on the 2017 Estimates for Vote Māori Development. Before I start, can I just acknowledge what a historic day today is. We have not had a woman leader of a major political party since 2008. I want to congratulate Jacinda, and I also want to congratulate Kelvin Davis, the first Māori deputy leader of a party.

Women voters and Māori voters up and down this country will acknowledge the great decision that Labour has done. I come into this Chamber as a proud representative of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I stand on the shoulders of great men, like Tāreha Te Moananui, Hēnare Tomoana, A T Ngata, and Parekura Horomia. Why I mention those particular rangatira is because whenua was very important to them. It was also very important that they came to this House to talk and advocate for the rights of Māori people.

So to the Estimates. I am glad that I followed on from the member, Shane Reti, who just resumed his seat, who talked about an increase in the Budget. Let us put the facts on the table. In Budget 2017, Vote Māori Development went up not by 1 percent; it went up by 0.6 percent—0.6 percent from $310 million to $312 million in the Estimates. That is an increase of 0.6 percent. This is not a Budget for Māoridom, given that it is facing the severe impact of homelessness in this country. The people who I see when I drive up and down my electorate, particularly around Marine Parade—and you can see them in the cars, in the vans, any time after 10 p.m. in all the car-parks where people normally used to go for other activities along Marine Parade; they are actually living there. That is what has happened under this Government.

The Minister for Māori Development in his contribution quite rightly said: “Well, there is no silver bullet to housing.” He said there is no silver bullet and that it is not his Ministry’s responsibility to find housing. But at the very least he is at the table with this Government. What has happened to the advocacy of the Minister for Māori Development to speak up for those many Māori around the country who cannot get on the waiting list, who are left homeless? What has happened to that? That is the question that I would like to propose to the Minister in his defence of this Budget.

Let us look at some of the facts. The Māori Housing Network, in 2015, despite spending over $37 million, has completed only 11 houses to code compliance—$37 million and 11 homes. But the real story around this country—if many of the National MPs will come to visit any of our offices—is that there are so many people who cannot even get on the waiting list. So our waiting lists in small provincial towns are growing, but what about those who cannot even get on the waiting list?

In the time I have got left I do want to address Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which the Minister talked about. He carries on misrepresenting his rounds of consultation. The actual draft was tabled in June 2015. What the Minister fails to acknowledge is the multiple changes he has made to a considerable and significant piece of land legislation, and he has done it outside of the scrutiny of the Māori Affairs Committee. He has made 70 changes that he forgets to tell New Zealanders and landowners about, which he has done without the proper scrutiny.

My colleague Peeni Henare has spoken about the enormous opposition to that piece of legislation, but the Māori Land Service is a cornerstone of those reforms. In its report to the Government, which the Minister had in April, Treasury said that it was not prepared, because there was no business case put up and there were a whole lot of gaps in his planning. This shows that the Minister is so out of touch with something as enormous as Māori land reform, and that his Ministry has not been backing him up, and so Māori land owners out there are absolutely confused as to what is happening next.

This bill is a dog—I am talking about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Māori do not want it. The Māori Land Service is completely a failure, and it should not proceed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, I did not want to interrupt the member Meka Whaitiri’s contribution, and my apologies if I misheard her. I do congratulate Kelvin Davis on his elevation to the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. But if I heard the member correctly, she claimed that he was the first Māori deputy leader of a party, and I think the record should have to reflect that Ron Mark actually beat him to it.

I think the member knows very well that he is trifling with the Chair. That is not a matter of a point of order. If the member wants to debate it, then he takes a call.

Votes agreed to.

Primary Sector