Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is an excellent moment at which to reignite our favourite debating topic in our Health Committee: why does the Pae Ora Act need to be renamed the “Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act”? “Pae Ora” is a beautiful concept. It is so much more meaningful than “Healthy Futures”. “Healthy Futures” is the most banal title for an Act I could ever have thought of. Who wants a “Healthy Future”? Almost nobody. It sounds so boring. What we want is a much more encompassing concept, and that’s exactly what “Pae Ora” is.

This is the most stupid, pedestrian use of the English language I have ever seen. “Healthy Future”—way to put people off. It is so boring. It is so managerial. It is something that AI thought of. I don’t know why anyone would want to name a bill “Healthy Future”. There have been so many efforts to make the language in this bill more interesting.

💬 Sam Uffindell: “Healthy Futures”—plural.

Oh, “Healthy Futures”—Sam Uffindell, is that your point? It’s like Everything Everywhere All at Once. We’re living in a parallel universe where we could have multiple different futures. Well, I don’t think, even in that situation, it is particularly interesting at all.

This is the most boring name for a bill ever given. I’m sorry, Minister, but we need to make this point again: why is it that the Government felt it was so important to not once, not twice, but thrice pass legislation that makes the Māori name secondary to the English name? Nobody was hurt by having the English name second. Everyone knew the name of the bill. Where was it that the health system came unstuck because some person who didn’t understand te reo Māori couldn’t find the legislation and one day did an operation wrong? No, that never happened, because there is nothing wrong with a Māori name for a bill governing the health system.

Yet, here we are in Parliament again, having to see all these petty little changes as Māori names are taken out of things. It’s really just rubbing people who like te reo Māori and Māori themselves—rubbing their nose in the dirt, isn’t it? Making them go second—“Get to the back of the bus. Your name isn’t important.”

I hate this. I absolutely hate it. It seems to me to be such a waste of time and a waste of the power of Government to be doing something that is so petty and small-minded. So, yes, I am quite determined to take up the remaining two minutes of my time to talk about how disgusting it is to take a Māori name out of a bill and give it the indignity of going second. “Pae Ora” had so many more aspirations than the National Party has for healthcare. “Pae Ora” was a concept that was inclusive. “Pae Ora” had a view where healthcare had to accommodate the needs of everyone. The inclusion not just of Māori but also of rural, of Pasifika, of women, of people with disabilities. Having their own visions for the health system was part of the “Pae Ora” vision.

Those strategies and the work that was done and the consultation with our communities are all sitting on the shelf. Then little bits—little bits—of focus group initiatives to help one part of the community get brought up by the Government from time to time, but an encompassing view of what our health system could achieve is dead under this Government. It’s a real shame, because there could be so much more to healthcare. It could be something that supports all of us to live the lives that we want to live. Instead, we have this banal name for a piece of legislation, just as a reminder of the racism and of the anti-Māori direction that this Government takes.

I can’t think of anything more symbolic of a health system that is just trying to grind Māori aspirations for their own better health into dust than what this Government has done to gut the Pae Ora Act. Let’s remember that this Act is the same Act that had a Māori Health Authority, that had a voice for Māori, that had a Treaty clause in it, that had iwi Māori partnership boards that actually had a role in setting local health direction, and it also had a hauora Māori committee that also had power and wasn’t just advisory. That was a good bill that would have improved the healthcare of New Zealanders.

Committee of the whole House

The naming of the bill is to align it. It’s a Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting convention to align the name of this to the principal Act.

Committee of the whole House

May I stand in support of addressing the change in the name from “Pae Ora (Healthy Futures)” to now “Healthy Futures (Pae Ora)”. I give tribute to the Minister of the day who brought this kaupapa to life with the vision and the aspiration in the hope of what Sir Mason Durie gave us in the Pae Ora legislation. It spoke to the wider system and the way that people, communities, and environments could be healthy, vibrant, and thriving.

“Pae Ora” is a fulsome way of looking at what health is in Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s not just Western science; it’s also underpinned by mātauranga Māori. When we think about the opportunity that we had in mauri ora, healthy lives and lifestyles for people, for whānau, for whānau ora, to be healthy families together, and waiora, healthy environments, it’s looking at the entire ecosystem of social and wider determinants of health. That was the intention of the vision—of what Sir Mason Durie gave us as a gift, underpinned by Te Whare Tapa Whā. The whare that is a whare whakaruruhau, a whare haumaru, a safe place for all, that recognises the wellbeing and the diversity of what we are as people and our place within families and communities—that is the lost opportunity here when we take such a narrow patient focus and not look at everything that impacts the health and wellbeing of our people.

Language is important. Language is absolutely important in the way that we frame how the health system is to operate. That’s the great thing about this legislation—that it’s thinking about the parent and it’s thinking about the baby and it’s putting them first in the way that they can provide and be supported, and the best start to life. Those three days in hōhipere, or, if we want flexibility, three days of intensive support in the home or other environments, is a beautiful gift. It’s a tribute. That’s a part of what the “Pae Ora” gift was. Unfortunately, when we change it around because of some type of political ideology in seeing that somehow te reo Māori could be harmful to the health and wellbeing of the system at large, we actually undermine what this legislation looks at. It’s not just the baby; it’s also the parents. It’s also the whānau. It’s the ability to access the health workforce and a supportive environment. That is “Pae Ora”. That is the purpose of “Pae Ora”—look at the environment, look at the whānau, look at the workforce and what is needed.

The question to the Associate Minister of Health is going back to the naming and really wanting to understand why this change is being made when, actually, this is “Pae Ora”. This is a beautiful thing if we resource it well, if we start it right, if we have an equity focus and we think about all the communities that are vulnerable in the system, and we power up the system to actually give effect to what “Pae Ora (Healthy Futures)” and what this three-day stay could actually be for the parent, for the child.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Members, just before I take a call, I have given the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall and Hūhana Lyndon the opportunity to debate around the change that occurred. I would just note that the title of the principal Act was amended by a previous bill and it’s not a matter of debate here on this one, because it was changed in the principal Act. I am looking for other questions relating to clause 3, which is on the principal Act.

Committee of the whole House

Are you wanting a call, Dr Verrall?

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I’m just looking in that direction.

No? I’ve got a small but important question, and that is because the Associate Minister of Health herself has mentioned in this debate, I believe—and we know from the Health Committee—that this was originally a member’s bill. I want to congratulate, actually, the member who brought this bill, Katie Nimon, for the work—sorry, Catherine Wedd. My apologies, it’s because I was looking at the member sitting there.

💬 Hon Member: It’s not the first time that’s happened.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): It’s a frequent occurrence that occurs.

That’s right. I do apologise to both of them. It’s really great to see a member’s bill that has been adopted by the Government, and that’s a good thing, and therefore we are here at clause 3 with a Government amending a principal Act, which is the now Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022.

The question I have, really, is whether the Minister could tell us why it was such a priority to make it a Government bill when we’ve also had another member’s bill, which is the Modern Slavery Bill, that is also related to a principal Act, which is the India free-trade agreement Act, and that was actually part of an agreement that was made in order for Labour to support that legislation. This is very much about this principal Act; it is very much a question for the Minister to answer. Why has the Government decided to prioritise taking this on as a Government bill to amend a principal Act when it was a member’s bill in one case, where there was no agreement made with any members of the House, versus a different situation?

While we all think it’s great for antenatal services to be available to women, we need to understand the priorities and the choices of this Government and also the House time available to us prior to the House rising next week and not being able to get other things through the House. An understanding of the priorities and choices that lead us to this point this evening, where one of these important bills is ignored and the other one is taking up House time, would be incredibly useful.

Committee of the whole House

Not that it’s specific to the title of the bill, but this was also a coalition agreement commitment between National and New Zealand First.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Ingrid Leary—and I would note to the member that I’m looking for questions on the principal Act, which is clause 3.

Committee of the whole House

Sure, and I would seek your guidance that, when the Associate Minister of Health herself brings things into the debate, it does call them into question. I’d like the Minister to explain how a coalition agreement, which is a political document, can be used to justify an executive decision, because that is a really interesting proposition. I’d really welcome the Minister to please explain that. It is not, certainly from my work around I Am Hope funding and the coalition agreement that was used to justify procurement, which the Auditor-General said was not a satisfactory reason for executive decision-making. Is the Minister saying that in this case it is, and, if so, could she please explain how that works?

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 647 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clause 4 Section 4 amended (Interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Members, we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on “Section 4 amended (Interpretation)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.