Estimates Debate — Māori Development

We now have the Minister for Māori Development, and the Minister is available to speak to that portfolio. I’d like to ask the Minister to come to the chair, please. Right, we have the Minister for Māori Development in the chair, ready to take questions.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Tuatahi e tika ki te mihi ki ngā rōpū i whakahere whakarite tēnei wiki, te Wiki o te Reo Māori. E tika me mihi ki a rātou Taura Whiri me ngā kaiārahi, Ngāhiwi Apanui me Rawinia Higgins. Rawe tā rāua mahi ki te whakahaere tēnei wiki. E tika hoki ki te mihi ki a tātou i Whakanui tēnei wiki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Rawe, e mihi ana ki te Whare i tēnei wā.

Tuarua e tika ana ki te mihi ki a koe e te Minita. He tino tauira e hoa, he tino tauira mō tō tātou reo Māori. E mihi ana ki a koe e hoa. Ahakoa he nui ngā āwangawanga mō ngā tau ka heke mai, nō te mea he nui ngā whakaeke o tēnei Kāwanatanga, e tika me mihi ki a koe e Tama mō tō kaha ki te whawhai mō tō tātou reo Māori. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Kia ora, Madam Chair. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the people who organised this week, the Māori Language Week. It is imperative that we acknowledge them, Taura Whiri, and the organisers, Ngāhiwi Apanui and Rawinia Higgins. They’ve done a splendid job in making this week work. And also acknowledgments to us all who are partaking in the Māori Language Week. Awesome, thank you all in the House today.

Secondly, I’d like to acknowledge you, Minister. You’re an awesome advocate, mate, and advocate for the Māori language. Acknowledgments to you, friend. Despite the rough road in the years ahead of us due to the breaches being made by this Government, it is only right that I thank you, Tama, for your hard efforts to fight for the Māori language. And so thank you all, thank you everyone.]

I’m just opening there by acknowledging our Minister for Māori Development’s commitment to the language—of that there is no doubt—and congratulating this whole House in terms of celebrating our language. Of course, on this side of the Chamber, we’re very worried given the number of attacks on kaupapa Māori initiatives over the last year, so I have to balance that, but I wish all the best to the Minister, who, no doubt, is an advocate for our reo.

I want to ask him, first of all, given the Māori broadcasting proposals today, what does he see the future for in terms of Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, Te Mātāwai, and Te Taura Whiri. Is there going to be a rationalisation of these entities? What sort of formal kōrero conversations have taken place with the entities and what sort of future is there? Is there a number of worries that he’s getting back from these entities?

I also want to ask the Minister: will he be putting a tono, or a claim, for a budget for Whakaata Māori next year? Is that on his agenda, or will he continually blame me for not getting funding for Whakaata Māori for next year, the year after, and the year after? I have seen that response, so I just want to know if the Minister will do his job or continue to blame the former Minister for not getting funding for 2025-26—and it’ll be all over in 2026. I need to put those pātai.

That’s just on the Māori broadcasting side, and I’ll come back to other kaupapa, but can I ask him: does he agree with Minister Seymour—in terms of the need and race argument or debate, where does he see Māori broadcasting? Does he see Māori broadcasting as a needs area, or does he see Māori broadcasting in the rights area—where does the Minister distinguish in that area? Do we have Māori broadcasting as of right, as the Privy Council outlined some years ago—they said that that was the way to go in terms of increasing our language—and the Waitangi Tribunal, or does he go down the David Seymour - Nicola Willis - National Party line that everything is around the needs area?

Can I also ask in this opening kōrero what impact will this directive have if we’re going down this track of needs—which we support absolutely, apart from the Treaty settlement area and, obviously, in some of the broadcasting areas. If the Minister is going to follow the needs directive, what sort of impact will this have on Vote Māori Development moving forward, given the majority of the Vote targets, and how does that support Māori aspirations? Just some opening pātai for the Minister to consider.

Tēnā koe e te Minita, me ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa i tēnei Wiki o te Reo Māori. Ake, ake, ake.

[Greetings Minister, and also acknowledgments to everyone here during this Māori Language Week. For ever and ever and ever.]

Minister for Māori Development, thank you for hearing my pātai this evening. I’m going to frame these particularly around progressive procurement, which is about, of course, using our collective buying power to deliver better value for people, for our communities, and for our taiao. Under our Government, we set a new 8 percent target, Minister, of all annual Government contracts to be awarded to Māori businesses, and we made this increase after exceeding our initial 5 percent target, hitting 6 percent in the year of 30 June 2022. This meant that more than 3,200 contracts were awarded, worth $930 million. Minister Nicola Willis announced, last Friday, that progressive procurement has been scrapped based on the Cabinet directive paper on a needs-based provision, or what ACT is calling “need before race” provisions.

I am keen to understand how this reconciles with such a particular kaupapa that it’s not only Māori from a perspective of the challenges that they face in hauora and mātauranga and so on and so forth. Actually, this is igniting the economic potential for this country that benefits Māori and non-Māori alike. Minister, how many Māori businesses have been awarded contracts and was there any notification to contractors before scrapping the progressive procurement programme? Is the Minister aware of similar programmes in Canada, the US, South Africa, the UK, and Australia, and, if so, what is his rationale to cancel the programme when other countries we measure ourselves against are progressing with targeted procurement opportunities?

Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Mihi ana ki a koe e te Minita mō tēnei wāhi kōrero e pā ana ki ngā take whakawhanake Māori. E tautoko ana au i ngā mihi ki a tātou e pā ana ki tēnei wiki whakanui i tō tātou reo Māori.

[Thank you, and greetings to the House. Thank you, Minister, for allowing us this time to speak to Māori development. I support the acknowledgments made in regards to the Māori Language Week.]

Minister, I’m really keen to understand and unpack where we’re at, and following on from my colleague, around Māori broadcasting, considering the substantial change which is coming. I know, yes, we can blame the previous Labour Government, but the pātai sits right now with the Minister for Māori Development here, and I’m really wanting to unpack what the plan is. Ultimately, we have a workforce that will be made redundant, we have content that will be reduced, and we have the one dedicated asset, taonga, to te reo—being the Te Reo channel—being taken off TV and being available online only. This is significant for a very skilled workforce, which is unique because they’re primarily a reo-speaking workforce, and they number only a few. When we lose this workforce, we don’t want them to go flipping burgers; we want them to walk into other options. What are we doing in terms of pathways for these people who will be impacted? It’s estimated to be some 25 percent of a workforce cut within the team. Even if we think about our awesome news and current affairs team, they could lose as well.

How does technology fit into this closure of part of Whakaata? The Hawaikirangi was established, we have the great vision, and yet we are finding a squeeze on such a specialised area of work. That plays in with all of our whānau in broadcasting—those grave concerns. Just sharing that as one pātai.

Further, can you tell us more about the next steps in terms of our Māori housing prototypes, particularly in the iwi space? We know that they’re progressing at pace, but also where to from here? Can we lock them in for the future? These are pātai i tēnei wā kia waiho ki konei. [questions to address later in time.] Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Can everybody hear me this time, actually?

💬 Hon Members: No.

I’m leaning in—ka pai? Ka pai, tēnā?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can hear you now, yes.

Awesome. Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe e te Minita, tēnā tātou katoa. My questions are also around the Māori broadcasting sector. I mean, today, for example, we heard about KoPA, which Te Māngai Pāho are using as a—it’s the kore to pō awatea model to measure behavioural change and attitudes towards te reo. I’m interested to understand where in his Estimates the Minister for Māori Development is right-shifting or moving the dial to grow affinity for te reo. The downscale in funding is clear, but I’m interested to hear how the Minister sees Māori and iwi radio being able to continue to supply te reo distribution in the face of ongoing increasing operational costs year on year. I also wonder whether the Minister has made any forecasts on future operating costs under an operating model that is maybe more multi-distributional than linear, as it is today, given the very real drivers, needs, to change out technologically. Kia ora.

Tēnā tātou i te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Nau mai ki te ake ake ake me te āpōpō hoki. Me ngā mihi hoki ki ngā koroua, Willie kōrua tahi ko Shanan taku hūanga. E whakawhatukura nei tō tātou Whare Pāremata. Tātou e hui tahi nei, tēnā tātou katoa, kia kaha te reo Māori.

[Greetings to us all in this Māori Language Week. Welcome to the for ever for ever for ever, and the future as well. And greetings also to the elders, Willie and Shanan, my kin. Honouring our Parliament House. All here today, greetings to you all, and glory to the Māori language.]

And if you can get one of those shirts down at The Warehouse, let me know.

Look, there’ve been a number of questions, but I thought I’d better answer them in turn. Let’s start with the Māori broadcasting, te ao pāpāho Māori [the Māori media world]. Isn’t it absolutely amazing? Who would have thought 50 years ago, when the Māori language petition was signed; or even 40 years ago, when things started going, with Whai Ngata and Derek Fox on Koha and Te Karere; or 30 years ago, when we had Aotearoa TV and Tuku Morgan was at the top of the charts helping produce those programmes, that we would have such an array of talent?

I really want to hark back to the legacy of the National Party, in particular, in supporting reo initiatives over the last 50 years, starting with things like Te Matatini in 1972 in Rotorua—mihi ana ki a Waihirere [acknowledgments to Waihirere] and many other initiatives that were started by whānau, started by communities, and supported by National-led Governments—and other-led Governments, to be fair, not just National-led Governments. But—

💬 Hon Member: Kōhanga reo.

Yes, kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, wharekura, and wānanga, and also various marae initiatives—not just National-led Governments but all Governments. It’s been absolutely marvellous to see the development of the broadcasting sector.

The broadcasting sector is not immune to the market, either, and, certainly, questions have been asked of me this week in relation to why we should stand by and watch a te reo channel go online rather than having a terrestrial platform. Those are decisions that I leave for the board and Māori TV management—Whakaata Māori management—to make. They certainly have already foreshadowed that decision to be made; they just made it a year in advance of when they thought they were going to make it. As a result of making that decision, they will save $2.5 million of Kordia fees. Now, we know that, and that’s a step in the right direction.

Tākuta Ferris: But many people will be cut out of the reo, Tama.

No, they won’t be cut out in te reo, because it’s becoming much more normalised in our communities. That’s actually a wonderful thing, as we strive towards that big, hairy, audacious goal of 85 percent of Aotearoa New Zealanders valuing te reo as a key part of our national identity. That legacy is one that I admire and acknowledge; even Maurice Williamson—great man—for his mahi on the broadcasting assets train many years ago.

Now, there has been a question about rationalisation of the industry. Well, there’s been a serious rationalisation across media worldwide, and I think that if the view is that the Māori broadcasting sector is the only platform to promote te reo Māori, I think we’re living in a different, alternative universe. Certainly, the commitments that have been made by Governments—including recently by the “Mana pūtea”, Nicola Willis, of $48 million extra into Te Matatini—are another platform through which te reo Māori is enhanced, elevated, and normalised through our communities, and I mihi to Nicola Willis for that.

The rationalisation of the Māori language entities, I think, is one that’s been suggested or implied by the members this evening. However, you know, there’s a wānanga to be held there or hui to be held before that sort of idea can be progressed in any serious or material way. Those are kōrero that may be had with the entities that are involved: the three Government entities and also Te Mātāwai. Certainly, from my position, an engagement with Te Mātāwai over those issues is very, very important, as is the need for Te Mātāwai legislation to recognise all those iwi that were invisibilised through the process and weren’t put on the schedule. I’m still waiting for some of my iwi to be put on that schedule.

Anyway, back to the rationalisation: if that’s something that has been foreshadowed earlier on by the previous Minister, if that’s something that was envisaged, you know, that’s ka pai. I welcome his views on that. But that’s really a kōrero to be had across the various entities—Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, Te Taura Whiri, and Te Mātāwai—before we go further down in that direction.

Now, yes, there has been a call—a clarion call—that funding has gone up and gone down. Certainly, the $90 million extra money, paid over and above baseline funding over the last four years through the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, I’m sure was well received by the Māori broadcasting agencies and Māori language entities. That’s something that we have to face up to: there was a fiscal cliff—it is occurring now—but we will continue to advocate for te reo.

I’m going to call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi next, but I just want to alert members that the Green Party, in this debate, only has three minutes and 48 seconds left of time, and Darleen Tana has 1½ minutes left of time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If Māori make up 20 percent of this country’s population, you would expect us to make up no less than 20 percent of this year’s total Budget. That makes it—listen to this—$36 billion if we’re being generous, OK? It would be closer to $48 billion if it were based on need, which is a common word that we keep hearing from the other side of the Chamber. Instead, over $300 million of targeted Māori funding has been cut—obviously, you’ll know all about that—while some initiatives have been completely scrapped. Māori are not mentioned once in any of the priority areas of this Budget. The Māori Development section of this Budget summary only talks about savings. It makes no mention of new Government commitments—no surprise. Why are there no new initiatives or new funding in the Māori Development section of the Budget? First question.

Second question: do the cuts to Māori Development indicate that the Government wants to see the equity gap between Māori and non-Māori widen? That’s what it looks like, feels like, and—certainly from where we’re all sitting—it is like. I’d be interested to, hopefully, hear from the Minister for Māori Development. If you could explain and answer my questions, I’m keen to listen. Kia ora rā. Thank you. Tēnā koe.

Mr Chair, thank you. Kia pai Te Wiki o te Reo Māori—happy Māori Language Week, everybody. So just reflecting on the Estimates discussion select committee, Minister, you talked about—

Tākuta Ferris: Kia kaha te reo, W’anganui.

[Let the language be strong, W’anganui.]

What’s that?

Tākuta Ferris: Kia kaha te reo Māori—kia kaha te reo Māori, bro.

[Make the Māori language strong—make the Māori language strong, bro.]

You could take a call. Minister, you talked about your aspirations around the Māori economy and doubling the Māori economy by 2035. That is an aspirational goal, but you’ve, of course, got limited resources at your disposal. I’m wanting to ask the Minister for Māori Development—

Tākuta Ferris: Oh, you’re interested in Māori when we’re talking about economics?

Can you just listen with your taringa—listen with your taringa.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Ferris, can I just say the great thing about a committee stage is that members are able to take calls. I do note that Te Pāti Māori have actually got a few minutes left. So, rather than conduct this across the floor, I’m inviting you perhaps to—I’ll even give you the next call, if you want to take the call. Carry on, Mr Bidois.

Ngā mihi, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask the Minister how he’s going to work with other ministries in order to achieve his aspirations around the Māori economy. Te Puni Kōkiri, his ministry, is relatively small. The aspiration—the big, hairy, audacious goal—of doubling the Māori economy by 2035 is a huge task. I’m keen to understand which ministries he wants to work with and how he is going to work with ministries to amplify and get better outcomes for the Māori economy.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The honourable Minister.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, I’d like to be the Minister again.

I think the previous Minister was seeking some honour in standing early. However, let me come back to some of the comments before about progressive procurement, over here on my left—my Ngāti Whitikaupeka relation. The progressive procurement policy has not been scrapped; the target has been removed. There needs to be further work about how we can uplift local procurement and regional procurement. That’s a job that Minister Lee, Minister Jones, and myself will be looking into.

Now, I am very aware of progressive procurement and supply diversity programmes offshore. It’s especially noted the federal objective in Australia of 3 percent of federal funding will be spent on procurement from the indigenous population in Australia. It’s a little bit surprising to me that the previous Government, with its majority, did not enable that sort of legislation in New Zealand. However, we are really focused on procurement being based on value. Ultimately, that is determined at the procurement end by procurement managers throughout different agencies and throughout different Government entities and, indeed, councils. Our role—Minister Lee, Minister Jones, and myself—is to look how we can uplift and elevate procurement at a local level and at a regional level. I’m confident that that will also see a lot more Māori businesses engage in and enter into procurement.

There was an observation around the Budget, and 20 percent of the total Budget. This Government, as we are all aware of—and certainly the National Party—are all about getting the economy back on track. We are not for allocating on the basis of their ethnicity, as we know. We do not make choices like Budget allocations on the basis of ethnicity. However, what we have done is made some tough choices, and there have been some savings across different departments. Those savings and the approach that we have made have resulted in significant tax relief to many, many whānau Māori—in fact, over $400 million in tax relief to Māori whānau, and that’s bigger than in what I can recall any Treaty settlement in the history of Treaty settlements. There has been some reinvestment, through tax relief, into whānau Māori.

I know that some people haven’t been counting that lately, because they’re really focused on other topics, but I’m actually focused on ensuring there’s equality of opportunity for Māori across different facets and dimensions of our society, and all of us know that good government will ensure that this equality of opportunity is actually facilitated and provided. We can say, hand on heart, that does not exist today, because we just have to look at the disproportionate stats. Some of those areas where there are significant disproportionate statistics affecting Māori have come through and been demonstrated through the nine targets that we have and priorities that we have.

For example, as we’re aware, there are some serious gaps or serious inequalities in the number of immunisations for two-year-old Māori kids compared to kids in the rest of New Zealand. When we arrived in Government, that immunisation rate was about 72 percent compared to the rest of the New Zealand community, which was about 85 percent. As a result, we went direct. We contracted, through Whānau Ora mechanisms, $50 million geared around immunising kids. Since then, an additional 33,000 tamariki Māori have been immunised. I think that’s an absolutely great achievement and I acknowledge Dr Reti for that.

However, what we also have is a question—this question came over here from my colleague Mr Bidois—about how we’re going to work with other agencies around Māori development, whether or not it’s economic development, social development, or cultural development. I did want to point to one thing that is very useful for us to reflect on: the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) has been established with the first two goals of promoting flood resilience—which we need for a lot of communities, including Māori communities up and down the country—and Māori economic development. What a marvellous opportunity to see the Government come in behind and tautoko Māori economic development that is already happening.

Now, also as part of the RIF, we’re able to support whenua Māori that require support and find it very difficult to get lending through banks, because we aren’t able to sell whenua Māori very easily. As a result, earlier this week, Minister Jones and I made an announcement about funding the infrastructure at a papa kāinga called Parihaka—absolutely fantastic—and I acknowledge David MacLeod over here, who’s partly from Parihaka. We’ve provided that banking up against the Provincial Growth Fund, and we’ll now come in behind with another $5.5 million to get those wastewater pipes, roads, lighting, and other things fixed so we can create more housing at that papakāinga. It’s a great place to be, and this is part of a great Government’s work. Kia ora.

I want to follow up with the Minister for Māori Development on his kōrero about Whānau Ora, given the “needs not race” priority, which is obviously a priority that most Governments will follow. I want to ask the Minister: what will this mean for the commissioning of Whānau Ora contracts and Whānau Ora providers? The intent of Whānau Ora is to be a by Māori, for Māori kaupapa, so will this now mean that non-Māori providers, like the Salvation Army—will they now become Whānau Ora providers? Are they now going to take the service?

Which brings me back to my earlier question about needs-based and rights-based: does the Minister still recognise that some Māori kaupapa like Whānau Ora, like kōhanga reo, like kura kaupapa are rights-based kaupapa? It’s not about needs; it’s about rights. Māori won those through going to the courts, going to the Privy Council. They are recognition of Māori indigenous rights in this country. Or are those kaupapa going to be subject to the same needs rationale that now the Minister is talking about, and how many Māori providers are going to miss out now? I want to ask this because recently Whānau Ora has been opened up, and I need to hear about the type of advice from his officials regarding the directive. Did they provide alternatives to the directive, and, if so, what are those alternatives, Minister?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the Minister for Māori Development’s responses to my question. I have some confusion around how there is a—

💬 Hon Member: Nothing new.

—Māori—I just want to understand from the Minister how there is a Māori economic plan. If you can’t have a Māori, does it make it just an economic plan? Acknowledging that the Minister said that the target has been removed only, can the Minister outline for me what is, effectively, his key performance indicator on building the Māori economy, on progressive procurement in particular?

I understand that there’s no plan at the moment that has come out as an alternative, following Minister Willis’ response on progressive procurement. I note that the Minister said during scrutiny week that he wanted to figure out the overarching Government economic plan, and so I’m interested in how that switches from focusing on a Māori economic plan to a needs-based economic plan, and, if he could articulate for the House, in that economic plan, what he sees as the needs basis—if he can itemise those for us.

The Minister has said that he supports “by Māori, for Māori” for everyone. What does he actually mean by this in light of the Government’s needs-based provision paper that was released last week? The Minister has stated that “to make sure that non-targeted funding addresses the needs of Māori communities”; what advice, reports, or evidence can the Minister provide that supports a non-targeting approach that works for Māori communities?

I’m mindful of the short time that I’ve got available, so I’d just like to pop off a few questions, if that’s all right, in relation particularly to the Māori Development Fund. With the reductions in the Māori Development Fund, we know, on the front line in the kāinga, the reduction of services does impact those whānau who want to develop both in their business space—also whenua Māori and the ability to access the specialist support that this fund has made available. Does the Minister for Māori Development have any explanation in terms of what he’s hearing on the ground in terms of demand, which could be outstripping the actual supply and dollar that we have left in the offices?

Also, with the restructures that have taken place within Te Puni Kōkiri, what efficiencies have been made? Is there any way to really equate the benefit of these cuts and what happened to these kaimahi, and then what has been the impact in the regions? Further, going back to Māori housing again, acknowledging Te Puni Kōkiri’s strong work within the space and knowing that through the housing and urban development changes as well as Te Puni Kōkiri, I’m worried about Māori housing keeping the volume up across all of those work streams and how Te Puni Kōkiri will maintain that focus, providing those tools, providing the specialist support, and then enabling whānau to whakamahi their whenua Māori. Kia ora.

Just going down another area for the Minister for Māori Development: what are the Minister’s plans for the Waitangi Tribunal in terms of new members? I note that no new members have been appointed to the tribunal in the last few months, which is a heck of a concern for te ao Māori, the tribunal playing such an important role in terms of Māori development. What new members will the Minister be looking at? I know that a number of them have asked about being reappointed, and they play such a vital role. Can I also ask what type of advice he is getting in terms of the tribunal? We are very appreciative—Māori communities, iwi Māori are incredibly appreciative. What type of advice is he getting in terms of its future, what are the roles that it’s going to play—is there a future for our tribunal?

Can I move to another area: Ihumātao. Given the National Party’s huge concern for housing, what is our update in that area—can the Minister provide an update on the status of Ihumātao? Given the passing of Kiingi Tuheitia and the Kiingitanga representative on the rōpu whakahaere group, are there any delays over the five-year period and what is happening to resolve the issues at Ihumātao? I’m very aware of how tough it is. I don’t envy the Minister’s mahi—job—in that area, but it’s an area of huge concern for Tainui people; and for Kiingi Tuheitia, who wanted to see some developments in the kaumātua housing area, particularly in Ihumātao. He had some objections, of course, from the younger crew over there. What is happening? Is the Minister planning on allocating any future funding for potential settlement at Ihumātao, and, given the pressures on Te Arawhiti, is engagement with iwi and the interested parties being adequately funded moving forward?

Have there been any requests from rōpu whakahaere for extra funding, or a request to extend the five-year period—which was a period that was criticised hugely when these Government members were in Opposition. We’re probably now at about 2½ to three years, and it is a huge kaupapa for our people, not just in Tainui and Kiingitanga but in South Auckland and Ihumātao. What barriers have been identified, and what are his strategies going forward in resolving what’s happening at Ihumātao?

Kia ora. Just while I’ve got a bit more time, I’m wanting to explore with the Minister for Māori Development the essential services—I’ll call them that—ngā wātene Māori. How is our funding going for ngā wātene Māori? Are they going to be sustained? Knowing that they were exceptional in the work that they did at Tūrangawaewae to support both Koroneihana [the coronation] and Kiingi Tuheitia’s hui mate [funeral], and they are essential services on the front line in our communities, I worry about groups such as that.

Further, organisations that are funded through the Hapori Māori Fund—if an explanation can be provided in terms of the changes in funding and what impact that has had on them in terms of retaining both their core functions and their ability to get out and about and engage with their Māori communities. Kia ora.

There are a number of matters that have just been raised, but why don’t I start with the wātene Māori. They have been funded on a regular basis, annually, and my understanding is that the funding this year has been addressed and conveyed to the wātene Māori. Certainly, there’s a genuine enthusiasm across some of my ministerial colleagues to see a more enduring solution for the wātene Māori. They have done a great job—they along with people like the armed forces—at the recent tangi at Tūrangawaewae for Kiingi Tuheitia; an absolutely marvellous contribution to the delivery and success of that tangi.

Clearly, there’s a real concern around needs, race, ethnicity, and other matters. We on this side of the Chamber have coalition arrangements, but in relation specifically to Whānau Ora and kōhanga reo, I have not known any Whānau Ora provision or kōhanga reo provision that is not open to delivering for people who are not Māori, and kids who are not Māori, and whānau who are not Māori. I’m not aware of that, but please let me know if that is the case. They were not set up, and certainly Whānau Ora was not set up, just for whānau Māori. It was set up for a range of whānau with needs, but in a manner that befitted our cultural heritage and through the delivery of people who understood the needs of whānau—specifically whānau Māori, but all whānau—and doing things in a different way, and delivering Government services in a different way, with the seven Whānau Ora outcomes. The framework that goes with that—a very flexible framework, by the way—is something that I admired with Whaea Tariana, for what she did, but also the cooperation arrangements between the National Party and Te Pāti Māori, and then further enhanced by the Labour-led Governments over the last six years.

Certainly my experience and my observation is that even the delivery of Whānau Ora has not been restricted to Māori providers. Pasifika Futures has a Pasifika dynamic and a Pasifika way of delivering Whānau Ora. And that’s kei te pai, kei te mihi. I acknowledge Debbie Sorensen and all the whānau who are involved in that. It is not just for whānau Māori, and it is not delivered just by Māori providers. There is a degree of diversity in there, but we know—we all know in this House—that there are disproportionate needs amongst whānau Māori. We know that—whether or not that’s social, economic, or other—needs amongst whānau Māori are disproportionate, and we see that in the targets that we have and the priorities we have. I mentioned one before about immunisation rates. I could go through all of them, whether or not it’s victimisation through crime, the education stats of our—[Interruption] What was that?

💬 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Racial profiling.

Āe, I acknowledge it—I acknowledge your view. The education statistics of our young people, and the number of Māori who are living in emergency housing after the moral, social, fiscal, and cultural disaster curated ultimately by our previous administration—we know about these things, but what we are very clear on is having a plan to address them one by one. That’s why you’ve got Teaching the Basics Brilliantly and other programmes that have been established by this Government where decisions have been made. Even the priority one programme in emergency housing has resulted in literally hundreds of Māori kids moving out of emergency housing in the last four months. That is absolutely fantastic in my view. Up to the end of July, 1,110 children were moved out of emergency housing, primarily because of the decisions made by this Government.

Now, in terms of “by Māori, for Māori”, we are great believers in devolution—absolutely—and hence why we saw what happened at Juken Nissho when that timber mill was shut down in Gisborne. Te Puni Kōkiri stepped in and provided some support to Toitū Tairāwhiti to help retrain those many workers that were out of a job. Forty workers ended up going from Juken—basically, put out of a job and into horticulture and into housing, and most of them are still working there today. That’s the type of direct action, the type of devolution, that we’re actually into: delivering on the needs, employment and others, of people.

There was a comment in relation to Ihumātao—a very interesting take [matter] that Ihumātao; a very difficult one, Ihumātao. Certainly, I’ve met with the rōpū whakahaere on a couple of occasions. We are trying to identify a solution that’s more enduring. I hope that we get there. I think that there is a pathway. There are actually two pathways to get to a solution. There’s actually a pathway—

Tākuta Ferris: What’s your plan to get there, Tama?

Well, it’s not talking it up down at the gym or here in the House; it’s actually doing something and meeting with people. What we can say is this: that is not an easy situation, and it was diabolical that land for housing money was used to buy that land, and now we have inherited a challenge. It’s one that I gladly take on.

Those responses—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Labour have now five minutes and three seconds.

Oh, OK. Thanks very much. They’re disturbing, those responses, particularly the Whānau Ora response, because he should know that Whānau Ora was set up because of Māori missing out in terms of funding and resourcing, and Tariana Turia, who set it up, talked about a billion dollars actually being allocated towards Māori.

The Minister for Māori Development is right: Māori providers don’t turn away anyone—that’s absolutely correct. Our doors are open to anyone who comes in. However, there are no mainstream providers; there are Māori providers and we have a Pasifika provider. The question is: are we going to open the doors to mainstream providers who already have, as the Minister knows, 97 percent of the funding in this country? That’s the question. It disturbs me if that is going to be the strategy going forward, but I’m hearing the Minister tonight.

I’m also worried about the Māori housing area. Can I ask, quickly: in Māori housing, how much has the Minister allocated in preparing Toitū Tairāwhiti and Ka Uruora to scale up housing in those areas? What impact will the Government’s directive needs-based service provision have on the delivery of papa kāinga housing? I think that’s an important area.

Going back to what I said earlier, he has to concede that there are areas where Māori have funding based on their Treaty rights. Not every set of funding that the Government allocates is based on need; some funding is based on the rights that Māori have won through the tribunal, through the appeal court, through the Privy Council. Are we going to see some silliness here in terms of how we apply needs-based service funding? I have no problem saying that both National and Labour, in the past, have confused this area. That’s why we need to have some directive from the Minister, so that our people can feel comfortable, particularly those who have been working off the smell of an oily rag, hoping that the funding would be reissued, not opened up to mainstream providers who have been taking all the funding for all the years.

Can I also ask: in the housing area, at the Iwi Chairs Forum, the Government confirmed shared priorities between Pou Tahua and the Crown prioritising housing. What feedback from iwi chairs did the Minister receive regarding Māori housing initiatives and what is being progressed in moving forward?

Can I also ask what targets, if any, has the Government set for housing repairs and infrastructure development on whenua Māori land and general title land? This area of housing—I know the Minister has a background in it—is incredibly important for our people, given the by Māori, for Māori strategies and solutions that we put in place.

Just back on the emergency funding, is the Minister concerned about no information being given? He was questioned on this the other day and he said he wasn’t concerned. I accept that he was taken out of context—he’s explained that since—because I know he would be concerned about whānau who are left out of emergency housing or who are taken out of emergency housing. Does the Minister have any information about whānau who are being kicked out of emergency housing?

Can I ask him: in terms of Māori, what are the funds that are being allocated right now in terms of Māori housing? What is the future for that?

Going back to Ihumātao, can I ask again how much longer is there left in terms of the contract and how is the partnership now working with Kiingitanga and our urban set up? Bernie O’Donnell has been our urban representative and Crown representative. How is that relationship working? It’s vital that Māori know that there’s a future there. I accept that it’s a very tough area, but I don’t accept that nothing should be done in that area.

So, just summarising, the “by Māori, for Māori” strategy—the Minister is confirming that that’s going to be the case, can he elaborate a little bit more for me on that? Kia ora, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Member: Three more seconds.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Mr Chair?

Shanan Halbert for—you have three seconds left.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hūhana Lyndon: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ah, yes, Hūhana Lyndon.

Wāhi kōrero. I think I’ve got about a minute left, Mr Chair.

💬 Steve Abel: A minute, 30.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh, a minute, 30 seconds. I’m going to bang out some more. Minister for Māori Development, are you able to provide some information around—well, we’ve had our first Matariki with a 45 percent funding reduction. How’s that gone for everyone, because I know most of us got declined, and we couldn’t tono for pūtea. Is there any intention to increase that Matariki funding so we can have full celebrations within our communities, hapū, and iwi.

The youth housing cuts have occurred. Are there any plans to bring back some youth housing funding to help our young people whai kāinga [find a home]? Then also the Te Ringa Hāpai pūtea—knowing that that’s been cut, whenua Māori are lacking again those skills, expertise, and the capacity to be able to whakamahi our whenua. It would be really awesome to know what the plan is for our whenua Māori space into the future.

Kia ora tātou. You know, I think that many of us really get energised by speculation—

💬 Shanan Halbert: By what?

Speculation. On this side of the House, we live in facts and figures, and all the reckons about Whānau Ora that have been espoused this evening are not discomforting me, because I still live in the world of facts, not reckons. The commentary about housing—you know, there’s been some amazing Māori housing development and iwi housing developments over the last few years, and I acknowledge Matua Willie and the team for giving that support to various Māori organisations, including the four iwi prototypes who are beavering away trying to deliver on the thousand homes that were either contracted or committed through the Whai Kāinga Whai Ora programme, plus also the papakāinga being run through Te Puni Kōkiri. For the most part, the funding that was set aside in the Whai Kāinga Whai Ora programme persists. It is still there, and my expectation is that there will be additional projects that will be encouraged and supported in the very near future. Taihoa—stand by, await announcements.

Now, in relation specifically to Toitū, it’s my understanding and I’m advised that they received a couple of tranches of funding—one of which was earlier this year—to carry on with their build programme, and it was great to take the Prime Minister there last Thursday to see Willie Te Aho and Annette and Tāpeta and Matua Herewini and the good mahi they are doing alongside Philip Leather. Certainly, what we saw there was a very focused group of individuals, a focused group, who are dedicated to reducing the social deprivation that comes with a lack of adequate housing, and that was acknowledged. I applaud Willie Te Aho but also Matua Willie Jackson and others who have congregated to make sure that that happens, and we continue to support it.

What we have also had to make tough choices around, though—and this is coming back to member Lyndon’s comments and questions. We have made some tough choices around housing, and there have been some savings from Kāinga Ora and across the housing Vote, including some of the youth housing monies that were not contracted at the time. They were directed back to the centre.

There was a question about Matariki. That’s actually a matter that Minister Metekōura—Minister Goldsmith—has to respond to, because it comes within the Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage. However, what I can say is that there was some support given, through the Minister for Māori Crown Relations’ portfolio, for Puanga. There was some support given for Puanga over the year, and I thought that that went really, really well.

The comments about iwi chairs and Pou Tahua and the mahi tahi being undertaken between iwi chairs and the Government around housing: most of the iwi and Māori chairs that I’ve talked to have been absolutely thrilled and motivated by the housing support that has been provided over the last few years but also the support that we continue to give them this year and the commitments that we’ve made to continue working with them to deliver housing to people with needs. In relation to those matters, I’m very enthusiastic. I think that Māori housing provides an alternative, a different, and, in some ways, a better way to deliver housing to whānau Māori but actually to other whānau as well, and I’ve certainly seen that—I’ve certainly seen that. Many iwi and Māori organisations don’t restrict themselves to delivering just to Māori but actually are happy to deliver to a broader community.

I just have to look at what Tainui Group Holdings has done over the years and my experience as the residential property manager at Tainui Group Holdings, delivering housing not just for tribal members but for others, and Tainui Group Holdings and Waikato-Tainui were absolutely thrilled with that. There are people in our communities—and there are people in this House also—who just want to deliver to a specific group of people, and I acknowledge that, but that’s not the space this coalition Government is in. That is never going to be the space that the National Party is in, and it’s not the space that I’m in. I’m here, as the Minister for Māori Development, to support Māori development, but sometimes that involves building businesses that don’t supply food, housing, or other services just to Māori but to a wider range of people, as well.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā koe e te Minita Whakawhanake Take Kaupapa Māori, me ō whakahau kāre koe mō te whāngai i te tahua pūtea ki te iwi Māori kia whakatūria e ia ōna whare ake e rangatira ai tāna noho, tāna tū i runga i tōna whenua?

Kao. Pai kē kia whāngaia te katoa ki te rau, ki te piki huia i tukua iho mai e ngā mātua tīpuna hei oranga mō te tini mokopuna ka heke mai i roto i tēnei rā. Ko koe te Minita i tēnei rā, e Tama.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to the Minister for Māori Development, and your assertions that you will not allocate budgeted funding to the Māori people so that they may establish their own structures so that they may live and stand with nobility on their own land?

No. It would be better to give everyone the plumes, the huia feathers that our forebears and ancestors passed down for the wellbeing of the many grandchildren to come in this time. You are the Minister today, Tama.]

I just want to pick up on the old facts and numbers idea—facts and numbers. I’ll start with our mate over there who thinks that the Māori economy is going to double by 2035—bro, you’re way out. I don’t know where you got that, but you’re so far out it’s almost ridiculous that it was uttered in here. The Māori economy is currently estimated to be $70 billion. It’s about a three- to five-year-old figure at this point, and what’s known is that whenever it’s assessed, it’s always about $5 billion to $10 billion behind.

So, Tama, my question to you is: how, in your capacity as the Minister for Māori Development, are you going to ramp up Māori enterprise? The Māori economy, which constitutes one-sixth of this country’s entire economy, grows at a rate faster than any other segment of this country’s economy. How are you going to ramp it up as the Minister for Māori Development—question No. 1. Pātai nama tahi, koia tērā. Tuhia ki tō pepa e hāngai tika tō whakautu ki taku pātai. The Treaty partner. Ko koe tonu te Minita Whakawhanake Take Tiriti, Take Kaupapa Māori o te Kāwanatanga, ko koutou ko te taha kāwana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. [Question No. 1, that’s it. Write it down on your paper so that your answer accurately relates to my question. The Treaty partner. You are the Minister of Treaty negotiations and the Minister for Māori Development in the Government, you all are the Governor’s side of the Treaty of Waitangi.]

There you are, standing as the Minister for Māori Development in amongst the Government, who is the Treaty partner in this country for the period between 2023 and 2026, although I doubt there’s much understanding of what that means amongst the seats over on that side of the House. What’s your part in that, Tama?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just address the Minister by his correct title, please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, Minister—what’s your part in that then, Minister? Ka pēhea tō whāngai? Te whāngai i ō hoa ki ngā tikanga i whakaritea mai e ō mātua tīpuna i roto i te 1835, te 1840? Pātai tuarua. Tuhia ki tō pepa e tika tō hāngai i te whakautu ki aku kōrero. [How will you administer it? Minister, what’s your part in that then, Minister, to educate your colleagues on the conventions that were put in place by your forebears and ancestors in 1835 and 1840? Second question. Write it down on your paper so that your answer accurately addresses my statements.]

Allocation on need, not race. I gave a kōrero in this House earlier on today, talking about constitutional arrangements, and every time anyone over there mentions race or ethnicity, they are dismissing the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this country—and I’m here listening to you do it. Pēhea ō kupu ōhākī ki ō mokopuna, e Tama? Tuhia ki te rangi. Tuhia ki te rangi. Taua tangata he mōkai noa iho, kāre au mō te paku aro ki a ia. [What about your parting words to your grandchildren, Tama? Write them on the sky. Write them on the sky. That person is just a disgrace, I’m not even going to pay any attention to them.]

OK, democracy—taku pātai tuatoru. Taku pātai tuatoru. Ko te democracy e amongia, e whakatairangahia nei e te Kāwanatanga. [—my third question. My third question. The democracy that is being espoused and promoted by this Government.] The Government has been great at reminding us that they won an election and that democracy is the thing that runs this House. Well, my understanding of democracy is the rule of numbers, and so the numbers are this, Tama: Māori are 1 million people—

💬 Hon Members: Full name.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: —Minister, Minister—in the 5 million - plus people in this country. Tama, that’s 20 percent, minimum. Here’s the number for you, Tama. Here’s the number and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Ferris, please respect the tikanga of this House and use the Minister’s name, or the next time, you’ll be sat down.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, ka pai. Tēnā koe. He wareware nōku. Tēnā koe, e te Minita. Anei ngā kōrero me ngā whika hei whakaaro māu. Anei ngā kōrero me ngā whika hei whakaaro māu. Whāngaia tō hoa ki te reo Māori, e te Minita.

[Oh, thank you. It’s because I forgot. Thank you, Minister. Here are the statements and figures for your consideration. Here are the statements and figures for your consideration. Educate your colleague in the Māori language, Minister.]

Twenty percent of the population, Tama—20 percent of the $180 billion in this year’s tahua pūtea is $36 billion. That’s $36 billion, e te Minita. Pēhea tō toha i te wāhanga e tika ana e ea ai te wāhi ki te democracy, e whakanuia nei e koutou, e mana nei i a koutou? Pēhea tō whakatinana i te democracy, e Tama, e te Minita, me te tuku i te wāhi e tika ana ki te tokomaha o te iwi Māori? Taku pātai tuawhā. [How will you allocate the appropriate amount to fulfil the democracy that you are celebrating, that you are enacting? How will you implement democracy, Tama, Minister, and allocate the appropriate portion to the multitudes of the Māori people? My fourth question.]

That’s my fourth question. If Māori are 20 percent of the population and democracy is the rule of numbers, then 20 percent of the $180 billion is $36 billion. Pēhea tō tuku mai i tērā pūtea? [How will you transfer that funding?]

I have a little bit more time, I’d like to ask about Te ing—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): 33 seconds.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —and I’m going to really boot it. Te Pū Harakeke funding—it is through that funding that many of our community groups apply for Matariki funding at Te Puni Kōkiri. I know of many that were declined because it’s a small pūtea available. I’m just wanting to explore with you: how is Te Pū Harakeke going? It covers māra, it covers sponsorship, and it covers Matariki. Is the funding still the same or has it reduced?

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Chair.

The Labour Party does not have any more time.

Point of order, Mr Chair. If no one else is seeking the call and it’s a timed debate, it would appear that it’s in your discretion to give the call to anyone who stands up. I appear to be the only person standing up.

No—the member might like to seek leave of the committee of the whole House to speak, and he’s welcome to do that. This is a timed debate, and the Labour Party have been allocated their time and their time is used up.

My point being, Mr Chair, that the debate as a whole is timed as well, and if other parties elect not to use their allocated time, then it’s up to the—

💬 Hon Member: Presiding officer.

—presiding officer to allocate that time to any member who wants to give it a crack. I’m giving it a crack.

Well, actually, what I’ll do at this stage is—there are other parties with time still allocated. If those parties do not seek the call now, I am happy to give those parties’ calls to you, Mr Webb.

Āe, kei te pai.

That would appear to be the case, so I call—sorry, am I getting an indication that neither two parties that still have time left wish to take their call? Is that what I’m hearing?

Speaking to the point of order, just how much time do we have, Mr Chair?

We’ll just check that. Te Pāti Māori have 12 minutes and 34 seconds; Darleen Tana has one minute and 31 seconds.

Mehemea e hiahia ana koe ki tētahi, kei a koe. E rima miniti, kei a koe.

[If you want one, it’s up to you. Five minutes—all yours.]

Right. I didn’t hear that, sorry—so you have now allocated your time to the Labour Party?

Five minutes.

Five minutes. Duncan Webb—five minutes.

Kia ora, and kia ora to Te Pāti Māori.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Duncan Webb—five minutes.

I appreciate that very much. I think it’s a real privilege, if I may say, to speak on this Estimates in respect of Māori Development. In particular, I’m interested in some aspects of Māori-Crown relations in respect of Treaty settlements, because I’m interested in the Minister’s views around the challenges in his role in respect of Treaty settlements in Te Arawhiti in particular, given that in the settlement process he will be expected—and the Crown is expected—to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

That strikes me as being quite a challenge in the current environment, especially when the underpinnings of that Treaty are being eroded by a corrosive Treaty Settlements Bill which is being generated by one of the parties in the coalition. Those principles, as developed in the courts, are, in fact, fairly well known. One of those principles is a kind of quasi-fiduciary relationship: the obligation of the stronger party to a relationship, the Treaty relationship, to protect and promote the interests of the disadvantaged party. I’ve been listening to this debate and also watching some of the steps of this Government which do anything but protect and promote the interests of Māori, most recently by revoking a procurement policy intended to support Māori business.

In respect of the Treaty Principles Bill, one of the abiding concerns appears to be the intention to trim back—

💬 Hon Member: Uh, oh!

—I can’t do that—to trim back the customary rights of Māori to only those which are contained within the legislation as it stands. Now, that seems, to me, to be a fundamental misunderstanding of indigenous rights generally and customary Māori rights in particular. The whole concept of Māori customary rights is that a power or entitlement that has been exercised since time immemorial continues and runs, as it were, in the same stream as the common law.

In fact, I know that the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Tama Potaka, is quite some legal scholar and he will know that there is an accommodating place in the law for customary indigenous tikanga. Yet we have a corrosive Treaty Principles Bill which is seeking to railroad and constrain what Māori customary entitlements are and say that they exist only if they’ve been recognised in legislation by the Crown. I find that extraordinary, particularly in light of the fact that customary English law doesn’t require recognition by legislation—why should customary Māori law require recognition in legislation?

I’m particularly interested in the challenges that he is facing in seeking to honour the Treaty by settling with iwi who have yet to settle; by approaching those negotiations in an honest, good-faith manner with an intention of uplifting and protecting the interests of Māori in the face of a Treaty Principles Bill which is, in fact, seeking to downgrade the principles of the Treaty and relegate the Treaty to some kind of second-rate or second-tier document.

I guess my final point was: if we are going to have a Treaty Principles Bill, let’s not waste $4 million of the Crown’s funds on it; let’s make something of it. Will the Government consider looking at that bill and making and recognising in legislation the constitutional place that the Treaty of Waitangi occupies in our country and giving it the status that it deserves: alongside other legislative instruments such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and even, conceivably, entrenched legislation such as those provisions in the Electoral Act?

I’m grateful for Te Pāti Māori offering me time to take a call. I’ll take five minutes if I can get that, thanks. Just considering, and because the Minister for Māori Development is the Minister of Te Arawhiti, I’d like to talk to some of his portfolio spaces. Is that possible? We’ve already started talking Treaty principles; let’s talk Māori-Crown relations and a little bit to do with the dollars, but also some of the policies and the cuts that we have seen come out of Te Arawhiti. Can I continue on? It’s his portfolio and we’ve started to explore Treaty principles.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, as a question, the Minister’s informed me it’s not his portfolio. However, while your question is—

HŪHANA LYNDON: Crown-Māori relations? It is Māori development.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just continue your speech as long as you would like. The Minister will answer how he perceives it to be.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Well, Māori-Crown relationships should really be core to the Māori development, I would argue, and there’s an opportunity here for us to discuss with the Minister in terms of the broader remit of kaupapa Māori within the Government as Māori-Crown relations but also Māori development. It may not be a discussion about dollars and cents per se tonight, but it is about the core function of the Crown honouring its Te Tiriti relationship with te iwi Māori, so hence my questions for tonight and also the opportunity to bounce off my colleague who was speaking to the corrosive proposed Treaty principles bill.

For the Minister, as Māori development but also as Te Arawhiti, I’d like to explore with him what he thinks in terms of the cuts that have been made across his department portfolios, particularly for staff and where we see national officers are being impacted and our regional officers also being downsized, and then when I look at Te Arawhiti and Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Justice, there is staffing rationalisation happening. That’s a tangata impact, but then for te iwi Māori, it’s a navigation issue. It’s a navigation issue, because when funding is being cut across your portfolios it is very hard mō te Māori ki te aru te pūtea [for Māori to make money].

Ko wai ngā tāngata tika ki te kōrero e pā ana ki ngā take kerēme, mō te taha hāo ika, ngā kerēme takutai moana, anō ki te taha o Te Arawhiti kei te Puni Kōkiri ināianei taku whakapae. Nō reira ahea ka hūnuku ngā kaimahi? Kua oti katoa tērā kaupapa ki te huri haere i ngā kaimahi i roto i Te Arawhiti ki a tae atu rātou, wetahi o rātou ki roto i te Puni Kōkiri.

[Who are the right people to speak about settlement claims, for fisheries, for claims in regards to the ocean, and also about Te Arawhiti whom are at Te Puni Kōkiri now, I guess. And so when do the employees shift? That matter of reshuffling the employees from Te Arawhiti—well, some of them—to Te Puni Kōkiri is done.]

That’s a question around the restructure. Have our Te Arawhiti colleagues been moved over to Te Puni Kōkiri yet? Those policy functions that have been announced, has that taken place? What has been the impact in terms of kaimahi that have moved across to your ministry?

For those other issues in terms of Te Arawhiti and thinking about the Treaty Principles Bill, the policy implications—so we’ve been told there’s been a review of Treaty clauses and also Treaty references across legislation. That’s what we’ve been told for the last year. Someone’s doing it. Now, it’s my understanding that Te Puni Kōkiri is that monitoring function. As well as Te Arawhiti, they are monitoring also compliance against Treaty settlements. Who’s doing that? Who is doing the review? Is it Te Puni Kōkiri pulling out the information and ruku hōhonu in all of the kaupapa here and looking for our Treaty clauses or Treaty references?

I’d really be interested in terms of who is doing the dig. Who is digging around in our legislation and policy and pulling out all of the Treaty clauses? Is it Te Puni Kōkiri? Is it Te Arawhiti? Who’s doing what in terms of the whakapapa of this digging around to take out our Treaty clauses across legislation. We’re seeing it right now, whether it be Corrections, whether it be section 7AA, someone’s digging around in the legislation and I’d like to know which part of the Minister’s portfolios is doing the digging. Who are those kaimahi and what part of his departments?

Further, the Waitangi Tribunal is under threat. We know this. They have been threatened publicly over and over, and when we see kaupapa inquiries such as the natural resources kaupapa inquiry going live about two weeks ago, I am excited for the opportunity for our people to put their kōrero forward, but how can we prepare adequately when we know that there is a here—a noose—around the Waitangi Tribunal, and are they going to get cut? What is the huarahi here? Where are we going with it? There’s a deep fear within te iwi Māori that that independent panel and function of the Waitangi Tribunal could be lost to us because of the type of Government that we have right now who is going line by line through legislation, taking out Treaty clauses and references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I know that my time is up, but I’m just going to use it as much as possible. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā tātou katoa, kātahi rā te hūmārie, kātahi rā te māramatanga, kātahi rā te mōhio i roto i ngā pātai kua tau. E tūohu ana taku ūpoko ki a koutou e pātai mai ana ki au, ka rawe hoki ngā kōrero. Engari, koinei hoki e kite ana au i te poho kererū me te poho kukupa i roto i ētahi o ngā pātai. Me te mea nei kei te whakarangirua ngā pātai i te anga whakamua o ētehi o ngā mahi o tēnei Kāwanatanga haumi.

[Greetings all, what humility, what enlightenment, what wisdom within the questions that have been set forward. My head bows to your questions for me, such beautiful speeches. But also I see the arrogance and the pride within some of the questions. As if to confuse all questions that adhere to the development of the work done by this coalition Government.]

That’s why I’ve said be careful of the speculation.

The number of constitutional issues that have been raised this evening—but let me start with the Tupu Harakeke kaupapa, which has continued and continues to be at a regional level. That’s my awareness; that’s what I’ve just been advised by the officials. There’s also been a number of comments about the Māori Crown relations portfolio, although I did understand that this was a Māori development - Te Puni Kōkiri - Vote Māori Development hearing.

We all know what the Prime Minister said about the Treaty principles bill, so we’ll leave it there. We know what the position is.

💬 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is that?

You’ve heard it many times before, and I don’t need to repeat it now.

Now, what we can also acknowledge is that there’s been a number of observations around democracy—ka pai hoki. I think there might’ve been a few comments looking for a question over here on the left, but I didn’t hear the question, so I don’t know if I can respond to anything there. Kia ora.

Can I just explain to members what’s happening. The total time left for the debate now is just under 24 minutes. The time set aside for the debate by the Business Committee takes precedence over the time allocated to the parties, so unless no one takes the call, the debate will still now go for another 24 minutes. Just so that everyone understands what is actually happening. While the parties on my left are getting to the end of their allocated time, there is still time allocated for this debate because the Business Committee’s decision is the overriding decision.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I back up the very valuable contribution made by Dr Duncan Webb.

This area, in terms of Treaty rights, is a huge concern. We’re seeking the Minister for Māori Development’s views on this because, surely, the way this Treaty principles bill is set up is a clear breach of indigenous rights and of Treaty rights. That being the case, can we hear from the Minister his view on this, given that we have David Seymour now with six months—six months—of publicity guaranteed because of the gutless wonders on the other side not wanting to stand up—

💬 Dan Bidois: Point of order.

Oh, he’s all offended—he’s all offended. He’s all upset.

💬 Dan Bidois: Point of order, Mr Chair. I just want to illuminate your mind to Speakers’ rulings 144/1 around the relevancy of Estimates. In this debate, I have heard several times around a bill that is not before Parliament; it is not within the Minister’s responsibility. We’ve heard some comments from Duncan around that said bill, but it’s not relevant to this debate.

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I would argue that that’s not the case. I think the Minister has played a huge part in the Treaty principles process. While it does not directly come under his ambit, he is the Māori development Minister. As the Māori development Minister, you play a part in every portfolio in Parliament. That is what a Māori development Minister should be doing, because every portfolio in Parliament—in Government—affects Māori, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK. My ruling on that is that members, if they do bring up a bill, have to be very careful that they context it against what the subject of the debate is, which, of course, is the Estimates. I’ll be watching and listening very carefully for that—for context.

Thank you. I think, as I said, we have a Minister who’s a very influential Minister, has responsibility right across all portfolios. Whilst the Government on the other side of the Chamber don’t understand that, I’m really happy to inform them that’s how it works, whether you’re in the Treaty principles area, the police area, the health area, it doesn’t matter what area: Māori development plays a major part. That’s why I’m asking the Minister today, off the back of my colleague Duncan Webb: is he disturbed by this, given that he has a strong legal background, given he has a history in terms of advocating for Māori, that we have a Minister who wants to breach the rights of Māori, who wants to change the Treaty of Waitangi? There’s just no doubt about that. According to him, he wants to open up Te Tiriti to everyone—everybody has the same rights; Māori have no special rights. Is the Minister disturbed by this?

Is the Minister also disturbed by the continual strategy of this Government to attack kaupapa Māori initiatives? Just in today’s paper, Audrey Young, probably the most prominent political reporter in this country, has had a real crack at this Government in terms of their strategies, in terms of attacking Māori. This is from Audrey Young, who, you know, hasn’t exactly been a great Labour supporter through the years—good woman that she is, hasn’t been a great Labour supporter—but a very fair and learned political analyst, maybe the best political editor and analyst we’ve had in mainstream media. She has absolutely been clear in today’s New Zealand Herald that this Government is attacking Māori like no other Government has before. How does the Minister feel about that? Is he unsettled by that? Is he unsettled by that given his advocacy for Māori in past years? What does he say when he gets to Cabinet and then he hears about yet another kaupapa Māori initiative going to be attacked.

How does that Minister feel in terms of legislation, where we’re seeing Treaty clauses being knocked out in every—well, not every but different parts of legislation where the Treaty is absolutely relevant in terms of Māori and Pākehā relationships today. What is the Minister’s response to that? Is he contributing right across the sector?

Can I come back to the tribunal. It has been disturbing to listen to Shane Jones’ waffle and attacks on the tribunal. Now, this is relevant because the Minister appoints—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Context, Mr Jackson—context.

The context, Mr Chair, is the Minister appoints the members of the Waitangi Tribunal. The Minister has appointed nobody—nobody—since he took his position. That’s disturbing, given the quality members we have, given the terrific judge we have with Judge Caren Fox—she’s a wonderful chairman; I’m sure Te Pāti Māori will agree that she’s a wonderful chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. And we have people like Derek Fox, Professor David Williams, who I appointed. You know, these are really highly skilled New Zealanders, and I would like to know what the Minister’s strategy is in terms of the tribunal. Is it Shane Jones who is calling the shots here?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take my first call in this debate. It’s a great privilege to speak tonight and to pick up on the questions that were asked by my colleague Shanan Halbert around progressive procurement. We didn’t hear an adequate explanation from the Minister as to why he thinks he can fulfil the ambition of Māori and that he can develop Māori business and yet drop the targets.

What I’m curious about is how this Government can talk about targets and say it is very target-focused and that this is an impact-focused Government in all other areas, but when it comes to Māori, suddenly that doesn’t apply anymore. When I think about my experience looking at social enterprise and best practice over the Ditch—say, in the state of Victoria, where there was a 1 percent procurement target from the Victoria Government—that was a real game-changer for the indigenous people there. I remember visiting construction sites where there were Aboriginal First Nations companies that employed large numbers of people, in the several hundred, able to fulfil Government contracts because of a Government procurement target that said that 1 percent—only 1 percent—had to go to First Nations people. It made a real difference, and there was real evidence to support that.

Now, when Mr Halbert asked his question, we had a bit of a fluffy answer, but we did not hear anything based in evidence or based in reporting back to say what the rationale was to suddenly drop these targets and think that Māori development was going to be able to succeed. It was a long, hard-fought battle by Māori—and I want to tautoko the Hon Willie Jackson and my former colleague Nanaia Mahuta for the wisdom and foresight they saw to bring in these targets and to make them work. Now, the fact that he has not evidenced his response is one thing, but to then sit in a Government that talks a big talk about social return on investment, about a social investment model, about targets and measuring things, and then to say, “But we’re not going to do that for Māori” seems incredibly inconsistent. I want to know from the Minister—

💬 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s consistent with their 100-day plan.

Exactly. Why does the Minister think—if he is all about everything for all New Zealanders—that targets suddenly do not apply in his portfolio, when they apply in every other portfolio?

We’ve seen that this week. We’ve seen the Government talk up targets around crime. They haven’t done very well in achieving those targets. I’ve seen it in the area that I work in with health. Some of the targets are really problematic because they’re not time-bound, but there is this philosophy that targets are an important part of how this Government says that it is achieving outcomes. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is committed to targets and that he is committed to Māori development in all other areas except for the Māori areas and then also say he doesn’t think that anyone should be treated differently from anyone else. What is it going to be, Minister? Is it one approach for everyone or are there some areas, such as setting targets, where suddenly it isn’t appropriate for one sector of the society?

Now, Shanan Halbert asked these questions. I am asking them again to you because we didn’t receive any satisfactory answers from you, and I would like to know: what advice did you receive when you looked at taking these targets away? Like, why on earth would you do that if you are, Minister, committed to Māori development; to business development? We know that targets can be a good thing if they are applied correctly—and we know that that hasn’t happened across Government—but why would you suddenly just take them away and say, “Oh no, no, no, but that doesn’t apply in my portfolio area”? I’d be very keen to hear from you why you think targets don’t apply. Which is it going to be: targets for everybody, or targets only for non-Māori, or targets for Māori? Please, you cannot have it both ways, Minister. Please answer the questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that this is a focused session, so I’d like to bring it back to Māori development. I know we could talk about iwi settlements, but that is not the responsibility of this Minister; it is the responsibility of Māori development. We could talk about a bill that is not before Parliament, but we will not do that because it is not in the domain of this Minister.

To the Minister, I’d really like to talk about TPK, because they do some really good work—Te Puni Kōkiri—and they do some really good work around monitoring and evaluation to make sure that the system and the agencies are delivering for Māori. I’d really like to understand what the Minister’s priorities are for the coming year. What’s he going to do differently? What’s TPK going to do differently to make the system effective so that we can get better outcomes for Māori? That’s what we’re all here for, folks, is to get better outcomes for Māori and not to waste the committee’s time for speaking on frivolous questions for five minutes.

That’s my question to the Minister. We do have a couple more minutes, so maybe the Minister may indulge us on his aspirations for TPK; maybe not, but I think that the committee deserves to know in the remaining minutes of this evening what the Minister has for his aspirations in this area.

Yes, well, as we are aware, the absolute vision of Te Puni Kōkiri is thriving whānau. Certainly, over the last six months, we’ve seen actions that have been taken by this Government to ensure that an extra $400 million of that whānau moneys stay in that whānau pockets with the tax relief that’s been announced by the “Mana pūtea” Nicola Willis. My focus, of course, is working alongside Te Puni Kōkiri to address the unfortunate and confronting inequalities of opportunity, particularly in relation to the economic and social deltas that are in front of our iwi, in front of our Māori people.

I take great pride in the work that our ministerial colleagues have undertaken—people, like Minister Shane Reti, who’s absolutely focused on activating the iwi-Māori partnership boards to actually make decisions and deliver on the health needs of Māori; the “Mana mātauranga” Erica Stanford, who’s focused on teaching the basics brilliantly and getting structured literacy throughout all schools, whether or not they’re kura, Māori-medium, or English-medium schools. I even acknowledge Matua Rewi—Minita Rewi Seymour—and the charter schools initiative, and trying to provide additional diversity of delivery of education through Aotearoa. That particular initiative, I expect, will activate a number of schools that are kaupapa Māori - focused, and potentially many schools, as he did many years ago with Raewyn Tipene and others in the North. Finally, the Minister for Regional Development, Matua Tararā, from the New Zealand First Party, who’s been absolutely focused on activating Māori economic development through our communities with the Regional Infrastructure Fund and also any of the legacy funds that emerged out of the Provincial Growth Fund.

We’ve heard a lot of humility tonight—especially from my colleagues on the far side of the Chamber. It’s been an absolutely riveting experience, but I thank all members for taking the time to listen to one another and also my answers and responses to the question, and a couple of speeches this evening. I want to acknowledge my huānga, my whanaunga from Ngāti Whitikaupeka. Ki runga ki raro, hui hui whiti whiti ora, tēnā tātou katoa. [Above and below, we meet together in light, thank you all.]

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I might just explain that the time would have taken us just beyond 5 past, in which case it would have been too late for the committee to go to the vote, so we’ll be suspending. I also will just make a note that this is not about ministerial responsibility; this is about Votes. It was divided up into Votes. What has been happening is that there have been other Associate Ministers who have taken the call when it has gone beyond the responsibility of the Minister in the chair—that is just for your edification there, Mr Bidois. The committee is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for the extended sitting.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)