Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill

We come to Part 2. This is a debate on clauses 5 to 7, schedules 1 to 4.

I have to say we’re having a wonderful debate. We’re talking in languages of te reo, English, Greek, and we are covering a wide range of topics—astrological formations, the principal stars in the group; it’s a fascinating debate.

Obviously, we’re just now turning our minds to Part 2, and I think clause 6(2) is the first bit I want to ask about. Why was the decision made that the Matariki holiday would always fall on a Friday? Obviously, during the first stage of the debate, just before the dinner break, we were talking about how we had different days, different significance, and when Matariki actually came into existence some iwi had a different perspective on it. So what’s been obviously taken and what’s been written into clause 6(2) is that it would always be on a Friday.

I suppose my first question to the Minister is: why is it always on a Friday? I think we’ve got to bear in mind who is bearing the cost for this. This is the not the Government writing out the cheque; this is business owners using their hard-earned cash to pay for this additional day. And, of course, it’s an extension—it’s another public holiday; it’s not a reduction or at least keeping the same number, the current number, of holidays, which is 11. This is taking it to 12, so not only is there additional cost but when a public holiday falls there is also significant impact for business owners in terms of how they arrange their staff, and what this means is obviously that staffing their business on that Friday is a very difficult issue. So that’s my first question to the Minister: why always on a Friday and what other considerations were taken into account on whether it should fall where it should fall?

E te Tiamana, tēnā koe e te mema mō tēnei pātai. He pātai pai tērā. Ko te tino kaupapa ki te kāhui mō tēnei kauapa he aha ai te Paraire kāre kore te Mane, ērā atu rā, tuatahi. Mō he wīkene roa ki te whakaawhina i te tāpoitanga o te tāpoi kua haramai ngā manuhiri mai i ētahi wā ki ngā wāhi rerekē, ki te āwhina i ngā pakihi ki te whai pūtea, ki te manaaki i a rātou mō tērā atu mea. Koinā he whakaaro pai.

He whakaaro anō, ko te tino kaupapa o Matariki ki te whakanuia ki te whakapiri ngā whānau mai i ngā wāhi ki te whakahokia ki te kāinga. He maha ngā whānau i tēnei wā e noho ana ki ngā rohe rerekē. Heoi, kei te pai ki ngā pakihi maha ki te āwhina rātou ā te Paraire ki te hoki ki te kāinga, engari kāre he tino pai mō ngā pakihi katoa ki te āwhina i ngā kaimahi ā te Mane. He whakaaro mai i ētahi department o Te Kāwana me ngā kaitono ki te komiti.

Heoi ki te whakaaro o tō pātai ko wai e kawea te utu o tēnei kaupapa o Matariki. He whakaaro e pātai atu ahau ki ngā āpiha i te rā tuatahi me hōmai au tēnei pire. He aha te utu, ā, ko wai e kawea? Ko te whakaaro mai i te, kei roto i te regulatory impact statement mai i Te Hīkina Whakatutuki. Ka huri koe te whāinga tekau mā ono ki te wāhi Section 4 o te Impact Analysis, i tēnei whāinga (whārangi) he maha ngā reanga o ngā utu, ā, ko wai e kawea. Ko te tino kaupapa kei roto i tēnei tono ko te whiu e maha ana ngā pūtea mō ngā tāngata katoa o te whā rau whā tekau mā toru ngā miriona tāra e whakatinana kei roto i te economy pea. Koinā ngā whakaaro o ngā āpiha o te Hīkina Whakatutuki. Tuarua, o te mea, kāore e whakautu pai tērā, kāore e whakautu pai. Ki a rātou ki te kaimahi mai i ngā pakihi katoa, ko te utu ki ngā kaiāwhina e toru rau whitu tekau mā iwi miriona tāra. Ki te taumahatanga o tērā ko te whā rau tekau mā whitu ngā mirona tāra mō ētahi rā, ia rā, ia rā katoa. Kei roto i te ripoata e kī ana ngā apiha.

Heoi, mō ngā iwi katoa, mō ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa maha ngā whāinga pai, ko te tikanga, ko te mātauranga mō te pūtea hoki. Ki a mātou ki tēnei taha o te Whare nei, maha ngā hua o ngā tāngata o Aotearoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for this question. That is a good question. This was a big issue for the advisory group; firstly, why the Friday and not the Monday or another day. For a long weekend, to assist with tourism, to support tourist visitors who have travelled sometimes from one area to another, to help business to make money and to host them for that occasion. That was a good idea.

Another thought was that one of the main themes of Matariki is for families to return home from other places, to celebrate and gather together. There are many families these days that live in different places. However, many business were happy about helping them to return home on Fridays, but businesses more apprehensive about helping workers on a Monday. It was an idea from some Government departments and the submitters to the committee.

Turning to your question regarding who will carry the cost of this initiative of Matariki. It is a question that I asked the officers on the first day I was given this bill. What is the cost and who will bear it? This is covered in the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). If you turn to page 16 in section 4 of the impact analysis, on this page the costs are listed in detail and who will bear them. The main issue contained in this report is the spending such a large amount of money on everyone, $443 million to implement this in economic terms. That is the view of the officers of MBIE. Secondly, of the thing, that not a good answer, that’s not a good answer. For the workers from all businesses, the cost of support is $379 million. The burden of that is $417 million for each day, each year. This is stated in this report by the officers.

For all the tribes, for everyone in New Zealand, there are many benefits, in terms of customary values, Māori knowledge, as well as financial. To us, on this side of the House, there are a great many benefits to the people of New Zealand.]

First of all, I just acknowledge the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage for responding to that. I’m glad that she spoke about the issue of cost. So, she was saying there the cost is up to about $450 million per annum for holding this holiday, which is now specified as being on Fridays. I can accept the proposition that Matariki’s very important, and, as a party, we all agree that Matariki should be celebrated in New Zealand. But the issue with the cost is where does the cost lie? The Government seems very generous in terms of wanting to impose that cost burden on small business owners, and that is who’s going to have to pay the check—who is, ultimately, going to have to write out the check for the $450 million. And so my issue—and this is the biggest issue that National has with this bill—is that if it was the Government paying and the Government wants be generous, that’s fine—and I see the Hon Stuart Nash sitting there, as economic development Minister—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: I’m also the Minister of Tourism.

And tourism. If the Government wants to fund tourism activities, it should do so directly. What it’s doing is requiring business owners to write a cheque out of their business account to pay for a public holiday. So the issue still remains: $450 million is a substantial amount that small business owners have to incur because the Government chooses to make an additional public holiday, as opposed to saying, “Look, we will keep the number of public holidays at 11, not extend it to 12.” That is the central issue.

It’s all very well for Government to be generous spending other people’s money, but this is just another case—and when you line this up with the estimated $2.8 billion of additional costs that the Labour Government has imposed on small business over the last 4½ years, this is just yet another cost. The assumption, of course, is that small business owners are good for it. The mums and dads who own those businesses are good for it. They’re always rich; that’s the assumption. So, again, the question is: why is it appropriate that the Government is so generous with the chequebooks of mums and dads that own all our 500,000-odd small businesses and employ most New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders, working every day to try and grow their businesses and support the New Zealand economy.

Tēnā koe e te Tiamana, tēnā koe e te mema mō tērā atu pātai. Heoi anō, ko te mahi o te komiti ki te tono ki ngā tāngata katoa, ki ngā pakihi ki te homai ngā tono o ētahi rā, he aha te taumahatanga i runga a koutou. Heoi anō korekau ngā pakihi kua haramai ki te komiti ki te kī ētahi kupu o tō tono ki a mātou kei roto i te Whare nei, kāore rātou e kī kei roto i ngā ripoata mai i ētahi Departments ko te Hīkina Whakatutuki. Kāore a rātou i kī ana tēra hoki. Heoi anō e pai te āhua, e pai te rangi o te pātai. Heoi anō kāore a mātou e tono ki te komiti he tino taumaha tēnei taumahatanga i runga i a mātou.

Heoi anō ko wai ka haramai ko ngā pakihi o te tāpoi ki te āwhina tēnei pire. He aha ai? Kei a rātou ngā pakihi tāpoi, he whakaaro rangatira tēnei mō te pakihi mō ngā pakihi tāpoi. Kei a rātou he whakaaro he wīkene roa he pai rawa atu ki ngā pakihi tāpoi kua neke atu ngā tāngata maha mai i tēnei wāhi ki tērā atu wāhi. Koinā te kī o taku hoa ko te Minita Stuart Nash kei korā. Ko tēnei te tono mai a rātou ngā pakihi tāpoi, homai tēnei wīkene roa. Kei te āwhina ki a mātou tēnei kaupapa o te tāpoi kei roto i a Aotearoa.

Heoi, ki tēnei taha, he whakaaro pai ki te mātauranga, heoi ki tēnei taha ki te āwhina ngā pakihi. Koinā te tono ki a mātou, āwhina mai i tēnei wā rerekē, te wā mai i te mate urutā heoi anō, ka puta mai āwhina ki a mātou, ā, he wīkene roa he whakaaro pai ki a rātou.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for that question. Well, the work of the committee was to ask everyone, the businesses, to give us their opinions on a proposed date, and what are difficulties involved for you. However, no businesses came forward to the committee to say a single word about your request to us in the House, nor were they spoken about in the reports from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. They didn’t mention them either. However, the gist of the question is good. However, we did not report to the committee that there was a heavy burden on us.

But who did come along were the tourist businesses to support this bill. Why? According to the tourism businesses, this was a great idea for business, for the tourism business. They thought that a long weekend was a really good idea for the tourism businesses, as many people would move from one place to another. That’s what my friend Minister Stuart Nash, over there, said. This was the request from them, from the tourism businesses, “Give us this long weekend. This initiative will help tourism in New Zealand.”

So, on one side, it is a good idea with regards to Māori knowledge; on the other side, it will help businesses. That was the request to us, help in these strange times of the pandemic, give us some help, and we think a long weekend is a good idea.]

Thank you, Mr Chair. Kia ora, Minister. Thank you for making yourself available this evening to answer some questions about the bill. I’d like to ask about the basis for the timing of the dates that Part 2 provides for. So Part 2, clause 6(2) says that the Order in Council for each public holiday must specify a date that’s a Friday and that’s in the calendar year following the last time we had Matariki. OK, we understand that.

When you look at the next part, the Order in Council must be made at least four years before the last date in the Schedule—in other words, it’s forecasting four years ahead—we can see why that would have some benefit into allowing businesses and communities to plan.

But that’s pretty much the extent of the thinking that appears to have gone into the way that the date for Matariki is chosen to be observed, because when I go and look at the actual dates that are specified, they’re all over the place. We’ve got a 24 June, a 14 July, and then we’ve got a 6 July and an 18 July. It just indicates that while the intention of the observance of Matariki around the appearance of a star cluster, which in the Northern Hemisphere—particularly in Japan, it’s actually known as Subaru. So it’s the same star cluster, Subaru. That may be familiar to people who are familiar with the Subaru brand of cars, which also features on the decal. The emblem for the Subaru is actually the Seven Sisters, the seven stars that Māori describe as Matariki.

So I think it’s important that we acknowledge that there is a good reason why Matariki may be observed in New Zealand, but when we look at the proposed dates and days, it’s very difficult to understand what the reasoning is.

Then we need to understand what the implications are. So the implications are for the first date for it to be observed in June 2022, on 24 June 2022. That’s not school holidays. That means the Friday of the day that it will be first observed is a day where secondary school students will be getting ready to play rugby the next day, and other winter school sports. Senior students and university students will be studying for exams, because this date falls a couple of weeks before the school holidays, Minister. This is the time when most families are incredibly busy—students and young people are actually working hard on their schoolwork and university work, and the rugby season, netball, and other winter sports are really, really ramped up. It’s an important part of the season, and that’s often when parents want to make absolutely sure that their children are fit and well and attending their school sports. Schools depend on it and clubs depend on the kids being there, turning up on the Saturday to play.

The chances that those parents are going to decide to take a random Friday off in the middle of winter to go some place at a time of the year when New Zealand’s weather is notoriously damp, even in places like the winterless North or the almost tropical Auckland where I live, where my hibiscus are still blooming and my frangipani are still in full bloom—I can tell you that 24 June is still a very cold, damp time, even in Auckland.

One of the members over here mentioned potentially it’s the ski season. Well, I can tell you from my personal experience, having spent many, many seasons at Mount Ruapehu, that there is no snow to ski on, on 24 June. [Interruption] Well, I wouldn’t know about the South Island, Mr Bayly or Mr Smith, but if you’re suggesting that one of the benefits of Matariki is that some very privileged people could go skiing, then that’s not one that’s actually mentioned in the bill.

So there is a problem that the date that is selected and the method for choosing the date does not recognise things like is it during the school term or is it not, because it makes a material difference to the way people plan their lives, plan holidays, and choose what’s important for their children, in particular, and young people attending university and school.

I would like to compare that to Christmas and New Year’s Day. That is where we need to understand how these things are chosen, because we’re all aware that Christmas Day is based on the solstice. That’s the time when the sun reaches its zenith in the south and its nadir in the north. In fact, we go further back, Christmas is based on an ancient festival of Saturnalia. So, look, if we’re going to say we’re going to pick the day of every calendar year when the star or the sun or the thing appears over the horizon or does its thing, then it would be impossible to plan for businesses, for families, for community events. You would never be able to plan with certainty when to paint the gnomes, when to get the Christmas decorations out, if Christmas moved around every year. That’s one of the risks with Matariki as a holiday that New Zealand is expected to observe.

It will potentially lose its relevance when it moves around between June and July—potentially a month, a month or so—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Like Easter.

Well, and Mr Nash here mentions Easter. Look, in that Minister’s role as the Minister of Tourism, he should be well aware that there is a major problem with Easter, and the problem with Easter is the Easter trading laws that prevent businesses from opening and carrying out their normal trade, as my colleague Chris Baillie has rightly pointed out, not being able to sell food or alcohol. So as the member Stuart Nash pointed out, Easter does move around. The problem is with Easter, though, that that Minister introduced into the debate, is that, in fact, it’s actually not easy to do business.

What this bill does is introduce another cup of sawdust into the engine that is the New Zealand economy and that is the hospitality industry and which—because, of course, those businesses will still remain open on this day. This isn’t necessarily going to be a day when everybody packs up the car in the middle of winter and decides to go off on a three-day or one-day holiday to visit family in other regions, in the middle of winter, when the days are extremely short and the nights are long and the weather’s typically pretty poor. Actually, those businesses are going to continue operating. All it’s going to be is they’re going to have to pay their staff extra over salary or wages for the pleasure of operating on a day that the Minister in this Government designates as Matariki, and they’re going to have to give them a day in lieu, and all of that is going to add to the cost of business that is sawdust in the engine of the New Zealand economy.

If this Government was really honest about improving productivity, as they say they are, with the fair pay agreements and all of these other things—if they were really honest about improving productivity, what they’d say is we’re not going to pass a single law that’s going to affect the ability of businesses to operate in the current environment. We certainly wouldn’t impose hundreds of millions of dollars of costs on those businesses, as the Minister has suggested.

So when we come back to “this is a Friday”, and a Friday in the middle of winter, on a cold, short day close to the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice, that is not going to be a day that’s going to see a massive amount of economic activity in response to this day that the Government designates as a public holiday.

So, look, while we all appreciate that there is a role to observe Matariki, the New Year that Māori observe, in our calendar, that is important to impose those costs on business and to impose this calendar that Part 1, through Schedule 1 and Schedules 2, 3, and 4, imposes on business—that is completely unacceptable to the ACT Party. It is, as I’ve said, sawdust in the engine of the economy. It’s not going to deliver healthier communities. It’s not going to deliver a healthy economy. In fact, it’s disappointing, because rather than an opportunity to bring New Zealanders together, through passing the legislation now and insisting on dumping all of these costs into the economy which will force up the price of everything at a time of massive inflation, it’s actually more likely to cause division than bring people together.

The challenge that I would lay down to the Minister and to the Government is if they wished to impose a new public holiday on New Zealand, they should choose one to remove—they should choose one. The ACT Party says that should be Labour Day. We don’t actually need a holiday named after the Labour Party. I mean, do you think there will ever be a holiday named after the ACT Party—“ACT Day”? Well, I’ll tell you what—it could be a day in October 2023, after the next election. They could be calling that “ACT Day”, but we won’t be asking for that to be made into a public holiday and forcing businesses and communities to observe it. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Tēnā koe e te Tiamana, me mihi Saturnalia Subaru hoki ki Te Komiti i tēnei pō.

E pēnei ana taku nei pātai ki Te Minita i te mea i a au e rongo ana i ngā kōrero mō te taha o te pakihi. Ki te whakaaro o Te Minita, he aha ngā painga, he aha ngā oranga mō ngā tāpoi pakihi ki roto i ngā rohe, ki roto i ngā takiwā i te mea kei te whakaaro ake au i a ia e kōrero ana mō te rerekē o ngā tikanga, Puanga ki ō tātou nei whānau ki Taranaki, Puaka ki te Wai Pounamu, Rehua ki te Nōta, Matariki whānui. Nā runga i tērā ka pēhea tērā āhua e hāpai ana ngā pakihi, e hāpai ngā tāpoi pakihi ki roto i ngā takiwā?

[Greetings, Mr Chair. I should offer my Subaru and Saturnalian greetings to the committee tonight.

This is my question to the Minister after listening to the accounts regarding businesses: what does the Minister think are the gains and benefits for the tourism businesses in the districts and the regions? Because I was thinking as I was listening to her talk about the varied protocols, Rigel for our family in Taranaki, Rigel in the South Island, Antares in the North and Matariki more widespread. With that in mind, how will the nature of that support businesses and support tourist businesses in the regions?]

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The last speaker asked a question of the Minister: what is being done in the regions to promote Matariki, and particularly those of us with tribal areas who have a regional variation and difference in terms of the dates and the timings of Matariki? In Whanganui, it’s Puanga. So I’m waiting to hear a response from the Minister to that question.

Whilst we’re waiting for that response, I add another question to the mix. Well, in fact, it’s a statement, Minister. Earlier you said in this Chamber that there weren’t any submissions put to the Māori Affairs Committee from the business sector and from the business community. I correct the Minister in relation to that, because it was reported, at page 3—I beg your pardon, page 12—of the Māori Affairs Committee report back to the House, discussing that “Some submitters expressed concern about the costs an additional public holiday might present to businesses that are already facing an increased minimum wage, additional sick leave, and ongoing effects of COVID-19.” So I think it’s important that there is accurate factual information that the public are predisposed to, rather than a certain view that comes from the Government in maintaining and supporting this as a public holiday, which the National Party does not oppose the principle of, but we do query and question the implications in the imposition on our business communities.

I addressed this matter in the House when I spoke to the bill either last night or the night before or the day before, and a statement, again, that a Labour member of the Māori Affairs Committee made was that it’s a Pākehā perspective to say that the fiscal implications only comes from that whakaaro, that line of thinking. That’s not the case. As a former Māori business owner and knowing current Māori business owners, the implications on our SMEs, our small and medium enterprises, our business operations—they are the ones who carry the cost and the burden. So if the Government is so insistent that this bill is going through, I invite the Government to consider some form of subsidy—and whether that’s out of scope of this bill in the way was deemed that substitution of another holiday—some form of subsidy might be imposed that comes from the Government coffers as opposed to the taxpayer coffers.

So again, the reason why I raise these issues is that these are the practical implications and impositions on a sector of our community—of course, many of whom will support the principle behind Matariki, but let’s get real. Cost of living is huge. For our members—

💬 Hon Member: Wrong bill.

It’s not the wrong bill, because this is about the kai of a nation. So I’m speaking to the bill, and I’m addressing the Minister’s answer, which stands to be corrected in terms of a misinterpretation of what the Māori Affairs Committee had reported back. There are fiscal implications, so to dismiss and dispense with that is not correct.

I also, in speaking directly to the bill—I’m trying to find a copy of it. Regrettably, I wasn’t sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee at the time of these matters, because I had other duties calling me to important issues, which is about the wellbeing of our children. But coming to Part 2, a clarification please, because the wording of this is not clear. Clause 6, “Regulations”: “(1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations adding to Schedule 1”, and Schedule 1 details the dates for the next 30 years that Matariki as a holiday will fall. So “make regulations adding to Schedule 1 a date in a year on which the public holiday will be observed to acknowledge Matariki in that year.”—could we please have some clarification as to what that actually means?

Tēnā koe e te Tiamana, tēnā koe e te tuakana mai i te rohe o Whanganui, otirā ki a koe e Simon Court mō tō pātai hoki, otirā ka huri ki e whā ngā kaupapa kua tono mai koutou. Me whakautu anō ki tēnei kaupapa o ngā utu. Ko te kaupapa o ngā whakautu ki ngā pakihi, ko tēnei he tono mai i ngā pakihi, maha ngā pakihi tāpoi ki te āwhina ki a rātou me tono mai me maha ngā tono mai i ngā rohe o Rotorua, Waiariki. Harikoa rātou mō tēnei wīkene roa. Rerekē te whakaaro o te tangata mai a Simon Court o te Pāti ACT.

Ki a rātou o te rohe o Waiariki, o Rotorua, āe. Ka huri ngā tāngata mai i Tāmakimakaurau i te waenganui o te tau, o te tīmata o te tau Māori, heoi i te waenganui o te Gregorian tau. Kua haramai maha ngā tāngata i waenganui i te tau ki te haramai mai i Tāmaki Makaurau ki ngā rohe o Rotorua, Waiariki, ki taku rohe o Te Tai Rāwhiti, ki te rohe o Whanganui pea o te pito o te ao o Tūwharetoa ko Ruapehu. Maha ngā tāngata kua wehe atu, ā, koinā ki a rātou, ngā pakihi tāpoi, e pai ana te tono ki te āwhina i a rātou. Heoi, me whakahoki anō te whakautu anō ki tērā atu pātai.

Ka huri ki te tono mai a taku tuakana mai i Whanganui, āe e tika tāu e te tuakana, kua haramai e rua rau tekau mā whā ngā tono mai i ngā tāngata katoa kua whiu ki te komiti, āe tika tau. E rua ngā tono anake e kāre e pai te utu o tēnei pire i runga i a rātou, kāre e kore e rua anake, ngā tono mai i ngā tāngata kua whiua atu ki te komiti, mai i te katoa o te rua rau tekau mā whā.

Ka huri, ki te pātai mō taku hoa a Simon Court anō. He aha ngā whakaaro o te hāngai o ētahi ngā rā? Tuatahi, ko te matauranga Māori e āwhina i a mātou mai i Te Kāwana mō ētahi ngā rā mō ngā tau e toru tekau, ka haere. Heoi, ōrite pea, ki te wīkene o Ahurei [Aranga], nā wai e tono mai ngā rā mō te Ahurei [Aranga]? Ko te Vatican, ko te Vatican e whiu ana ngā rā. Kei a rātou te mana, kei a rātou te tikanga e piki ana ngā rā mō tērā atu hararei ko te Ahurei [Aranga], heoi, mō tēnei pire, mō tēnei wā, o te wā o Matariki, ka tahuri ki tō tātou nei tohunga.

Ka tahuri ki tō tātou nei tohunga, he maha te mātauranga kei roto ki tērā atu kāhui e āwhina ki a mātou, te Karauna mō te hai i mua mō ētahi ngā rā. Kei te huri a rātou ngā tohunga ki te mātauranga o ā rātou ngā hapū o iwi. Kei te whai a rātou tīpuna mai i ngā whetū mai i ngā whetū o te Matariki, mai i ngā whetū o te Puanga, mai i ngā whetū o te Poutūterangi, mai i ngā whetū o te Rehua i ngā wā o mua.

He tino mātauranga tērā, he science, he tino science tērā, ā, kei te pupuri a rātou ngā tohunga o te Kāhui o te Matariki, kei te pupuri a rātou ngā hua o ētahi mātauranga, ā, kei te puta mai a rātau mai i maha ngā wānanga i tērā atu tau ka huri ki te pupuri ngā mātauranga kei roto i te pire nei. Kāore ko te Vatican, kāore ko ētahi rā i ētahi tāngata. Ko ngā tohunga e pupuri ana tētahi mātauranga, ā, koinā te tino tikanga mō ngā rā kei roto i tēnei pire mō ngā tau e toru tekau e haere ake. Koina ngā pātai katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to my sister from the Whanganui electorate, and also to you, Simon Court, for your question. I now turn to the four issues you have raised. I will return to the issue of cost. As to the issue of costs to the businesses, this was a request from the many tourist businesses for help, there were a large number of submissions from the Rotorua and Waiariki districts. They were very happy about this long weekend. Simon Court, of the ACT Party, thinks differently.

According to those from the Waiariki and Rotorua districts, yes, people will travel from Auckland in the middle of the year, at the beginning of the Māori year, well, in the middle of the Gregorian year. Many people will travel in the middle of the year from Auckland to the districts of Rotorua and Waiariki, to my district of the East Coast, perhaps to the Whanganui district, to the centre of the world for Tūwharetoa, to Ruapehu. Many people have left their region, and that, according to the tourism businesses made it appropriate to ask for help.

However, I should get back to answering the other question. I now turn to the request from my sister from Whanganui. Yes, you are right, 214 submissions were received from all the people who presented to the committee—yes, you are right. There were only two submitters who were not happy with the costs imposed on them for this bill—only two—from all the people who presented to the committee, out of the total of 214.

I now turn, again, to the question from my friend Simon Court. What was the thinking behind the appropriateness of the dates? Firstly, Māori knowledge helped us, of the Government, to set the dates for the next 30 years. However, perhaps it is similar to the weekend of Easter, who sets the dates for Easter? The Vatican—it is the Vatican that sets those dates. They have the authority, they have the procedures to pick those dates for that holiday at Easter. However, for this bill, for this time of Matariki, we turn to our own experts.

We turn to our experts—there is much Māori knowledge held within that group to help us, the Crown, regarding the selection of the dates. The experts turned to the Māori knowledge of their own tribes and subtribes. Their ancestors followed the stars of Matariki, Rigel, Altair, and Antares in times past.

That is real knowledge, it is science, real science, and the experts on the Matariki cluster have held on to this knowledge and they have talked about it in the many conferences held in the last year, so that this knowledge is retained in this bill. Not by the Vatican, nor were the dates chosen by certain people. The experts held firmly to Māori knowledge, and that is the real reason for dates included in this bill for the 30 years ahead. That’s all the questions.]

Joseph Mooney’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 is ruled out of order as being out of scope of the bill.

We now move to Schedule 3. Joseph Mooney’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

We now move to Schedule 4. Joseph Mooney’s tabled amendment to Schedule 4 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The question is that Schedule 4 be agreed to.