Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 38 to 43, amendments to Part 4 and schedules of the principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. For fear of the Minister and the Government thinking that our amendments were no good, we continue to offer them as an olive branch to the Minister for future reference in order to make this bill and the legislation into the future even better.

I want to bring the attention of the Minister to Schedule 1, “New Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1”, and I want to speak directly to new clause 36, in new Part 2, which is “Transfers from Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”, and, in particular, if I may draw the Minister’s attention to clause 36(1)(e). The Minister, in a number of contributions on this bill this evening, has spoken about and actually used the word “repatriation”. When we’re talking about the workforce that already exists within Te Aka Whai Ora, the Minister’s words were “repatriation”.

Now, for some, that might give a bit of comfort that they’ll still have a job into the future. But the reality is when this Government is looking towards saving 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent, guess whose heads are on the chopping block! What the experience is—in particular in Māori health—is that when Governments look towards austerity cuts, Māori kaupapa generally are the first ones out the door or on the chopping block.

So my question is very specific to the Minister with respect to his use of the word “repatriation” of these staff. I’ve spoken to some of those staff directly and they’ve spoken to me of their anxiety. The fact that they left the original status quo health sector that the Minister is supporting and taking our health system back to—they left that because they were disillusioned that it wasn’t actually providing anything for Māori. Their skills weren’t being utilised, so they found the home at Te Aka Whai Ora and their skills were utilised to the maximum capacity.

Now they’re anxious, and the question to the Minister is that with regard to clause 36(1)(e), “subject to subclause (4), every employee of the Māori Health Authority becomes an employee of Health New Zealand on the same terms and conditions as applied immediately before they became an employee of Health New Zealand;”—wow! I can tell the Minister that a large number of those positions that were recruited in Te Aka Whai Ora were actually quite specialist positions, and do you know what? It’s only fair that for a hard day’s work you get a fair day’s wage. Our expectation from this Minister—and I would like to hear his answer to the question—is about whether or not these staff will indeed actually be, in their entirety, repatriated, and in particular when the Minister’s own finance Minister is asking for a 6.5 to 7.5 percent cut, or savings, in order to pay for tax cuts. So that’s a really important question and that will go some way to soothing, if you will, the anxieties of many of that workforce that found a home in Te Aka Whai Ora who believed in the kaupapa of Te Aka Whai Ora.

The second part to that, I say to the Minister, is that as we look across the employees of Te Aka Whai Ora—and I know this because I was the Minister responsible for doing this—we know that there were a number of arrangements that saw some of those positions actually be part funded by Te Aka Whai Ora, so that they created a substantive position there, but were also part-funded by the iwi because it was important that the iwi found their voice and their particular health aspirations in Te Aka Whai Ora. So there were some really innovative, I’ll call it, ways to make sure that those who found themselves at Te Aka Whai Ora could be used to their maximum potential. So that’s a very clear question. I’m sure, as I said, the workforce in Te Aka Whai Ora will look to the Minister to make sure that the Minister can certainly support many of those who are anxious at this point in time.

I would like to bring the Minister’s attention to the same new Part 2, clause 34, where it says in there, at clause 34(1), “Section 54, which requires localities to be determined, takes effect on 1 July 2029.”—1 July 2029. I don’t have a crystal ball, but 2029? That’s a long way away. This Minister, in this particular bill, is looking towards tying the hands of a future Government to a bill that clearly Māori do not want. So my question to the Minister here is: why so far out? Why, when the Minister has made it clear—and, in fact, the words from a number of members from the Government were saying—that tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake are found regionally, driven by iwi, driven by Māori health providers locally, why, then, does this particular Part 2, clause 34(1), which requires localities to be determined, take effect on 1 July 2029? That’s some way down the track, and I want to hear from the Minister: is this the vision that’s been asked for by this side of the House? Is this the vision that the Minister is providing us? Because if that’s the case, it’s not flying with me, and I suspect that it won’t fly with Māori health providers up and down the country.

The final question I have for this particular part in Schedule 1 is to the next subclause—so clause 34(2)—which says, “Section 55, which requires a locality plan to be developed for each locality, takes effect on 1 July 2030.” Well, I’m just seeking some clarity here. We’ve got two different dates here which seemingly talk about the same thing around localities, and we’ve already heard this evening how important localities are to the way that we look towards devolving services, commissioning for outcomes, etc. So just some clarity, if the Minister wouldn’t mind on the two separate dates there, I’m sure that will go some way to even encouraging, perhaps, more questions from, I know, myself and other members on this side of the Chamber about, “OK, if there’s clarity there and we understand what the vision is here, then how can we continue to make sure that the strategy is clear for the Māori health sector?”

Just to recap, that’s a question relating to clause 36(1)(e) and, of course, clause 34(1) and (2). I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those matters.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member who’s just returned to seat, the Hon Peeni Henare, for his questions. I used the word “repatriation” because what we know from the independent report into the Māori Health Authority—2022, I think that report came out; could have been 2023, May 2023—was that there was some concerns that Māori with skills were taken from Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority and those from Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health, leaving them somewhat eviscerated for those skills. So when I use “repatriation”, it is to return them to what was their initial home. I do take the point that maybe part of their leaving was dissatisfaction and unhappiness with—I do understand that.

Clause 36(1)(e) describes what we’re talking about here—clause 34(1) talks to section 54, and clause 34(2) talks to section 55. I’ve discussed localities at some length here tonight across Part 1, and I remain of the statements that I’ve made that localities are simply paused, pending a view as to where they sit in a new configuration. The choosing of that date was just a placeholder date. There was nothing particularly special about that.

There was one other point, sorry. I meant to mention clause 36(1)(e), the transfer to the Māori Health Authority. That’s consistent with the transfers Act and so is bound in the legislation of the transfers Act.

Just before I take the next speaker, members should be aware that that the new system of committee—well, it’s not really new—is questions and answers. Now, members are entitled to take five-minute calls and that will be taken into account. However, the whole idea is that we get the interaction going with the Minister. So I would invite members to actually certainly take your time to ask your question, but it just will assist in keeping the information flow going.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to seek a little bit more clarification with respect to the exchange that you’re expecting. Is it your preference that upon receiving the call, we indicate that we will seek to have that exchange for fear of sitting down and losing the call?

Yeah, a wise and experienced member might stand and say, “I intend to ask several questions here of the member in the chair.”, and the Chair will then know. I do realise that there are different Chairs here and we all have our own styles, but certainly while I’m in the Chair, which I will be over the next day or so, I leave it open to the members to conduct business that way.

Thank you. Being wise, I intend to ask a series of questions. So the first is in reference—and there’s quite extensive pages, I guess, involving new Part 2, clause 36, on the transfer of assets belonging to the Māori Health Authority and how the Minister sees that, I guess, transitioning.

There are a couple of questions that come to mind. The first thing is that this kaupapa, Te Aka Whai Ora has mauri and has a name. And it has a name that was gifted to it. It has a name that was gifted to it by te ao Māori that comes with significant depth and meaning. If it is indeed this coalition Government’s intention to put that name to rest, where and how can we expect—and I will take on the fact that the Minister has spoken about cultural competency and, indeed, cultural integrity. Where and how does the Minister believe that the mauri of the name, the aspirations of the name and those of our kuia and our w’ānau that were involved with it, belongs? That leads me to—I guess it’s not actually, Minister, where it belongs. How do you see yourself putting that to rest, and where do the iwi and the people involved belong in that transferral?

This then leads me to my next question, which comes again around the lengthy—and I guess I can do from clause 36(1)(a) to clause 40, and it carries on to page 15, from memory. Our biggest value out of all of this is our people and the fact that they were bold and courageous enough to give their time and their energy, their expertise to this kaupapa, and in fact, it’s really important that we gather the experiences, the lessons, and the data that they have. There is a lengthy reference to those of our people who most of us consider as tohunga, whether it be from the manager on the board, to the youngest, newest staff member that’s come and contributed to the belief that this model was going to make a huge impact to our communities. Where and how is the Minister proposing to hold that value?

I’m proposing to ensure that that value continues to stay in a health kaupapa that has primarily been focused on the speciality of Māori in addressing inequities in Māori. Knowing that we have such a shortage of qualified, experienced, and skilled people, how can we be assured that the Minister has not only considered the biggest value that we have, which are our whānau, our kaimahi, our kaitautoko, our kaihautū, on this waka that has, as I think the chair quite rightly put, been put ashore until the tide changes—it would be really critical for us connected to the communities and those connected to the iwi. Certainly, one of the questions that has been given by iwi-Māori partnership board members is: what happens to our biggest asset or value, which is our people?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for those questions. With regards to recognising the special place of name as a taonga, this was put to me by the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, and I suggested to them that if they wanted to make recommendations, I would take their advice. So I do understand that. I do understand where it came from. And in their capable hands, I envisage it will be placed safely back.

Secondly, I’ve already mentioned, in the first reading, the importance of organisational knowledge and retaining that and the vital importance of staff who have transferred and the hope that they’ll transfer with us into these two new homes, these two new vehicles, and help us with the mission that we have. To that effect, I have tasked the leadership, who will be transitioning also, with paying particular attention that we retain the best learnings, the best knowledge that may have come from this period of time with the Māori Health Authority so that we can take this into the new organisations.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to start my contribution by reading from the evidence of our auntie Moe Milne. Paragraph 12: “I was part of the branding and naming of Te Aka Whai Ora. We were very deliberate about what we were talking about. Te Aka Whai Ora were the vines from the whenua ki te rangi—our connections, our intertwining, the intertwining vines in the pursuit of oranga and wellbeing. Te Aka Whai Ora is the wellness of our people.” I’m just going to leave that there for the Minister to think about when he thinks about what he is going to do with the taonga that was gifted to this Government for Te Aka Whai Ora.

I want to talk about the determination of localities and locality plans. The Minister said that he has already spoken to this in previous debates, but this clearly comes within the part that we are debating now and the schedule that we are debating now. It is new Part 2, which is inserted into Schedule 1. It is clause 34 and, in particular, sections 54 and 55 and dates that are going to be amended.

What I want to refer to here—and I’m just going to pull it up. I’m skipping between what is currently in the Act and what is being proposed in the legislation that we have before us. I think that when it comes to localities and locality plans, this is actually something all New Zealanders should be concerned about, not just Māori. This is being dressed up as and presented as, what I would call, virtue signalling: “We’re going to get rid of Te Aka Whai Ora. We’re going to do it within 100 days. Look at us; look how great we are delivering on our election promises.” I can talk to you about no consultation, not following any due processes, doing it under parliamentary urgency, but what all New Zealanders need to know is that localities and locality plans were not just for Māori, they were not just for Te Aka Whai Ora; they are actually part of how the whole pae ora legislation functions.

So the Minister is delaying these by years. The proposal is an arbitrary time frame that he just thought up as a placeholder, and he has given us no reason, no proper justification, as to why he has picked this time frame in the proposed legislation. Why this is important not just for Māori but for all New Zealanders is because when you look at locality plans, section 55 of the principal Act states that “(1) Health New Zealand must develop a locality plan for each locality. (2) A locality plan must—(a) set out the priority outcomes and services for the locality; and (b) state the plan’s duration, which must, as a minimum, be 3 consecutive financial years; and (c) give effect to the relevant requirements of the New Zealand Health Plan; and (d) include a statement of progress against the priority outcomes set out in the previous locality plan, unless it is the first locality plan for that locality. (3) In developing a locality plan for a locality, Health New Zealand must—(a) consult consumers and communities within the locality;”—so I think about Northland and I think about Te Tai Tokerau. This is not just about consulting Te Aka Whai Ora and iwi-Māori partnership boards; this is the entire community.

The whole point of the pae ora legislation was to end a postcode lottery for health services. I was in my communities talking to my communities about the postcode lottery we have had in Tai Tokerau for health services. Come and visit. Come and see the health inequities. In fact, the Minister, a former GP in that area, knows these well. So your delay to 2029 and 2030 means the entire community that lives within these localities are now going to have to wait to have input into the health plan, to have input into what’s going to go into the Government policy statement (GPS), to have input and what is going to receive financial support.

I don’t think the Minister just dreamt up 2029 and 2030. That puts it beyond their current term. That actually puts this now beyond their term of Government. Basically, they are kicking the can down the road—“We don’t want to give locals a voice in the development of their health strategy and plans that we are then going to have to deliver on through a Budget process.” Please explain to me if I am misunderstanding what the point of your pushing out of the time frames is.

Section 55(3) says, “In developing a locality plan for a locality, Health New Zealand must—(a) consult consumers and communities … (b) consult local authorities affected by the … plan;”—sorry, Far North District Council; sorry, Whangarei District Council; sorry, Kaipara District Council. You’ll have to wait until 2029-30 when I might come and have a kōrero to you about the concerns for your health needs and aspirations in your area. You have to consult the social sector agencies and other entities that contribute to the relevant population outcomes within a locality. Sorry, all of you providers. We’re not coming to talk to you until 2029-30.” “I’m going to set health targets,” is what the health Minister said, “but I’m not going to follow any of the processes in the legislation which gives a local voice.”

Now, this has been done under urgency. There is no select committee process. Do all New Zealanders understand that in the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, you’re actually sneaking in other fundamental changes that are impacting the way in which this legislation operates to deliver health services to our community—do they? Well, it’s pretty late, there’s no select committee process, this will be done by tomorrow, and the very mechanisms in this legislation to make it work, to deliver pae ora for all will be gone.

Oh, sorry, it also says here that you will engage with the Māori Health Authority—that’s going to be gone—and iwi-Māori partnership boards for the area covered by the plan, and you’ll consult any other individual or group that Health New Zealand considers appropriate.

It says that a locality plan is made when it is agreed by Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and relevant Māori organisation, iwi-Māori partnership boards—right? This isn’t just about disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora; this is about fundamentally changing the mechanisms within this legislation that will deliver healthy futures for all. So can the Minister, again, please tell the entire committee—or not “again” and “please tell”, because you haven’t yet. Can the Minister please explain to the committee why it is necessary to change the date for localities and locality plans to 2029 and 2030, and how will all of those in section 55 who were going to have a role in developing their locality plan, which was going to inform the strategy and the GPS, now have their say in the processes going forward?

Kia ora, Mr Chair. It’s incumbent upon me to share with the committee my intimate knowledge of the establishment of iwi-Māori partnership boards and localities in Tai Tokerau, having spent two years working on the predecessor Kotui Hauora, a DHB-iwi relationship board, and then in Te Taumata Hauora o Te Tai Tokerau and the locality space. My question is unique and different to what has been put forward by my colleagues, but it does relate to the time line of the legislation and, in particular, for localities for 1 July 2029.

Now, not all localities in Tai Tokerau have been established. There have been expressions of interest to commence the work, and Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora have received those letters of intention. However, for the past six to, now, 12 months, Te Whatu Ora, as the fund holder, have held on to the dollar. There has been no ability for iwi, hapū, marae, community, and councils to commence the work together to establish a locality. So, you know, the instance or the argument that somehow Te Whatu Ora is going to be the golden egg for Māori health—when hapū, iwi, and marae come together with providers and councils and say, “We’re ready to go”, we don’t get a dollar to start the conversation.

Now, saying that, I’m asking the Minister of Health my direct question around the time line of 1 July 2029: will there be resourcing available for our people to do that important work so we can have lift off at this date, so that our locality plans can be well developed by that date, because we know community engagement takes a while. I’m not saying Ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi are always a cohesive group; I’m not saying that we have strong relationship with council day to day, but it takes time. So I think that this is an opportunity for us to resource the engine room—which is community, it is hapū, it is marae—through the locality space, up into 2029, so that we can cut the ribbon and say, “Here we go, we have localities across the nation, with locality plans in place, and we’re good to go across the health system.” This is an opportunity for this Government to resource us to get on with the job. So that’s my question: will you resource us to do the locality work that we’ve been waiting for for quite some time?

The second question is relating to our employees of Te Aka Whai Ora, and specifically to clause 43 in the new Part 2 to be inserted into Schedule 1 of the principal Act. Now, I’m mindful that there are just under 300 kaimahi within Te Aka Whai Ora and many of them are across regional spaces, the hospitals—Hokianga, Whangārei, Kerikeri, and there’s a few in the Wellington and Auckland areas too. My question is in terms of the policies and their status, of the lift and shift into Te Whatu Ora. Minister, our whānau in Te Aka Whai Ora are specialists, as we’ve heard from Peeni Henare. They are based in locations in kāinga for a reason. Te Aka Whai Ora are like a hub and a spoke. Te Aka Whai Ora provided the tap root, the tree was established, and then they were the kaimahi in the rohe. Will their conditions be the same transferring to Te Whatu Ora, or will they become a part of the 80,000 strong workforce of Te Whatu Ora and be expected to move to Whangārei or expected to move to Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, or Wellington to become a part of the big 80,000-strong workforce?

So I’m concerned for the cousins in the regions who deliver outcomes for our people and are the listening ear. So Te Aka Whai Ora commissioned them to be listening ears in the kāinga. So when we lift and shift them to Te Whatu Ora, will we continue to support them to stay in those locations, or will they be centralised? Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To speak to the member before the one who has just resumed her seat—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime—the questions she raised were exactly those raised by the former Minister Peeni Henare about 16 minutes previously on clause 34(1) and section 54, and clause (2) and section 55, and I don’t envisage repeating that. I also met with whaea Moe Milne about three weeks ago, and we discussed the importance of the name. I indicated to her that the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee had said that they would provide recommendations and that I’d be highly likely to take up their recommendations. I met with her also, so I do understand the importance of the name.

To the member who has just taken her seat—Hūhana Lyndon—again, that was a discussion on localities, which I have discussed in detail, and regarding the transfer of staff terms and conditions, it will, as I say, remain as the Health Sector (Transfers) Act requires. I don’t envisage those who are out in the regions being consumed and consolidated centrally, and our initial thinking is that people will stay. Certainly, those in the regions will stay as they are is our initial thinking.

I just wanted to pick up on what the Minister of Health was just saying, because transfer of undertakings, of course, is one of the most important areas, particularly for kaimahi, for workers. We have a whole history, as union representatives will attest, of constant problems—I’m looking at, again, clause 36(1)(d) of new Part 2, inserted in Schedule 1, in terms of transfer of undertakings. I want to come to this as a very important area. I worked in this area for years, and we’ve had constant problems in terms of transfer of undertakings. As you’ll see, clause 36(1)(d) says, “all rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements, undertakings, and engagements of the Māori Health Authority become the rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements, undertakings, and engagements of Health New Zealand”. Now, with so much negative publicity around this, what type of guarantees can our Minister give us with regards to continual recognition of conditions, of employment, of wages?

This is not a secure area at all, and I think if you follow the clauses after the transfer of undertakings, you will see how complex an area this is, because if you go to paragraph (f), you will read, “anything done, or omitted to be done, or that is to be done, by or in relation to the Māori Health Authority is to be treated as having been done”—whatever the hell that means. I wouldn’t mind an explanation on that “or having been omitted to be done, or to be done, by or in relation to Health New Zealand”. When you read that type of language, you know, it makes workers feel very, very insecure. They’re not sure of where they’re going. They’re not sure of any guarantees in terms of continual employment. I have heard the Minister say, but I thought he was a little bit casual, with respect, in terms of “Well, everything will be just carried on.” We have heard that many, many times—many, many times. Wages have been adjusted; people have lost their jobs.

We are in a very insecure environment here, so I wouldn’t mind some clarity from the Minister with regards to this and how the culture of the Māori Health Authority is going to be continued in terms of Health New Zealand. He talked about Moe Milne, and I’m glad he’s consulting with a wonderful kuia like her—one of the most revered kuia of the North, no doubt about that—and I’m sure our kuia there would have told him about some of the insecurities of some of her kids, her nephews, her nieces.

Transfer of undertaking, Mr Chair—and you would know, yourself—has been one of the most controversial areas in the history of work relations and unions. I was a union official for 17, 18 years. Many times—many times—we had to go back in and renegotiate. So what has the Minister got in place to deal with this type of kaupapa? How is he going to safeguard workers? Have these workers been consulted? Are these workers members of unions? We have a variety of different kaimahi there who have allegiances, some of them who might be in the unions; some of them who are not in the unions, and so how have they been made to feel secure going forward? I think these are big questions in terms of transfer of undertakings. Also, what security are they going to be given in terms of retention of culture?

Thank you, Mr Chair. That’s a really good question from the member and I thank him for that. I’ve been informed that the vast majority of people who moved from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand to the Māori Health Authority moved under the Health Sector (Transfers) Act 1993. So exactly the same provisions that didn’t raise concern when they first moved there will actually be the mechanism that puts them back.

Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister for that response, because also, as I speak to clause 43(2) in Schedule 1, this is taking a specific micro-look at some of these matters, when we consider the kind of transfer and references made by my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson about our workers, and that clause 43(2) says, “Health New Zealand must undertake a reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy that is reasonably likely to have a material effect on that employee.” Well, what we know about Te Aka Whai Ora is that, actually, the unique way that they were able to look after their kaimahi—their workers—in order to serve that community, it is a specifically and uniquely Māori view here.

We’re looking for something far more detailed from the Minister with respect to his answer, when it clearly says here in clause 43(2) “Health New Zealand must undertake a reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy that is reasonably likely to have a material effect on that employee.” Well, I can tell the Minister with experience—oh, actually, the Minister will know this—across Māori health providers, of course Māori health providers do things in a specifically Māori way, in particular to look after their kaimahi. Those are their employment policies that they look to employ in order to make sure that their unique Māori view—in particular with respect to Te Aka Whai Ora—is actually seen as a strength and not a weakness in the way that we employ kaimahi.

So the question here is very specific about the consultation that Health New Zealand will undertake so that there is no material effect on that employee. I think that’s really important, so I’m going to leave that question for the Minister, and hopefully get that micro kind of answer that we’re looking towards as we think about employment.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is in relation to clause 40 in new Part 2 of Schedule 1, which is “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”, and it says here that “(1) This clause applies to an employee of the Māori Health Authority if, before the commencement date, the employee is notified in writing by the chief executive of the Māori Health Authority that—(a) this clause applies to the employee; and (b) on the commencement date, the employee will become an employee of Health New Zealand.” I cannot imagine the stress and worry that Te Aka Whai Ora employees are suffering at the moment. We’ve heard about lift and shift for Te Aka Whai Ora staff. Is the Minister going to guarantee employment security for staff and their existing conditions?

When I read what’s in this document, I don’t see something that gives me great confidence. So I’d like to hear from the Minister as to his clarification on Health New Zealand’s reasonable consultation process that we’ve just heard there because of the material impacts that’s going to have, because back in December, the Government passed legislation to bring back 90-day trials for all employers and the Government has already pushed many more people and communities into precarity. This is a real concern for our nation.

So in new subclause (4), it says, “To avoid doubt, subclause (3)—(a) does not entitle an employee who was not covered by the earlier agreement to be covered by the new collective agreement; and (b) does not prevent the parties to the new collective agreement from varying or terminating the agreement in accordance with the terms of the agreement and other applicable law.” I think we all deserve clarity on the employee’s exposure to risk in the new arrangements. I would really like to hear from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to take a call and talk to different parts of the schedule that we have in front of us tonight. So I do want to say that is going to happen.

But the Minister said that he had met with our whaea Moe Milne, and that he’s going to heed the advice of her committee on what to do with the name Te Aka Whai Ora. But I want to know: is he going to heed the advice that she has for him through her evidence in the Waitangi Tribunal? She said, “This Government has been totally disloyal by disproving and denying Māori any sense of ownership and influence over Māori health”. She said, “The hurt. The first sense that I had when I heard the announcement was real hurt. I wanted to sit down and cry when I heard that. How dare this Government negate us? How dare they withdraw and unwind aspirations in the hope that we revert? We are not going to revert.”, and she said, at clause 7, paragraph 7, “Our disappointment is that some of this is being directed by people who have whakapapa to Te Tai Tokerau, to our home. It is a violation and a betrayal”.

The clause that I want to ask about in particular is the interpretation—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yes, you will be back more specifically on the—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I’m on it—I’m on it. I was just responding to the Minister saying that he had met with Moe Milne around the name Te Aka Whai Ora—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): From here on, let’s just stick to the bill.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Happy to, Mr Chair. I have got that now on the Hansard. What I want to talk to is clause 32, which is interpretation and commencement date—it means the date on which the amendment Act comes into force. I want to talk to it specifically in this schedule, not in its own clause, in the schedule, because that’s what the interpretation of this is. What I find absolutely unbelievable is that the commencement for this—well (1) I don’t like what’s happening, but (2) the commencement for it is not until 30 June.

So why, why, Minister, are we hearing—why are we dealing with this piece of legislation under urgency today, and now going into tomorrow morning.

Miles Anderson: That’s not a new question.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: It is a new question. Listen up! Who is not listening?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’re actually not on to the commencement.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, we’re in the interpretation, and the interpretation in the Schedule—I’ve read it out, and it’s clause 32. So, here, for the ones at the back that don’t know, is new Part 2, inserted into Schedule 1. Part 2, “Provisions relating to Provisions relating to Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Act 2024.”

Hon Member: What’s your question to the Minister?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: You know, he thinks I’m not in the right clause. Clause 32, “Interpretation”, “In this Part,—’amendment Act’ ”—what does that mean—and “commencement date”. That means the date on which the amendment Act comes into force. Now, what is that date? That date is 30 June 2024. So why?

Why are we having this legislation introduced this evening, passed—likely—tomorrow morning, when it’s not even going to come into effect until 30 June? I know why. It’s because there’s a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, where all of the Minister’s relations are coming to present their evidence in opposition to the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. Why is there no select committee process? There is time, but, no, we’re going to pass it all under urgency by tomorrow morning, but it’s not actually going to come into effect until 30 June. So that would have allowed us ample time to have a select committee process, because apparently you only allow, like, one day for submissions.

The Minister has decided to rush this through under urgency, with no consultation. Your own departmental disclosure statement says “no consultation”. You had an opportunity to have a select committee process—no, thank you! You know there is a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry about to take place on Thursday, but no: “I can introduce this legislation today, and we can curtail the mana in the authority of the tribunal to be able to inquire into that evidence.”

I can see I’ve got 10 seconds on the clock and I’m not finished on this point. So the tribunal would have been, if was allowed to have its hearings scheduled for the—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair, and apologies to my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime for taking over the call, because I think she was keen to—and I know she’s got a lot of new material to continue bringing to the debate. But I was just reflecting, Mr Chair, on your advice to the committee of the whole House earlier around engaging in a little bit of quick-fire with the Minister of Health, so I’m quite keen to do that, and so I’m hoping that the Minister might take me up on that opportunity.

Because we’ve been talking around employment relations, I’m specifically interested to know if the Minister has met with any of the unions that represent the workers that are affected. Specifically, has he met with the Public Service Association, has he met with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, or has he met with any other health unions—or have any of his officials—to specifically talk through the transfer and the employment rights for those who will be transferring from one agency to another? I’m hoping that the Minister may engage in some of that quick-fire with me now.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tēnā koe. The Minister hasn’t answered my question regarding resourcing for localities up into the date of July 2029. I ask this again as a member of hapū and iwi in Whangārei who wait to be resourced by Te Whatu Ora to do this very important work. So I’d like to receive an answer: if there will be resourcing to allow us to do this work up into this date.

Further, he inoi tēnei ki te Minita e pā ana ki te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora. I haere ahau ki te whakatuwhera, te whakarewatanga o te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora ki Waitangi. He hui nui, he hui whakahirahira mō te iwi, mō te motu whānui. Ki reira ka rongo i ngā kaikōrero e whakamārama ana i ngā kupu ōhākī o rātou mā, me te whakamārama i te ingoa “Te Aka Whai Ora”.

Kua tono mai taku whaea, Debbie, “He aha te tikanga kia whakamoea te ingoa ‘Te Aka Whai Ora’?” Nō reira he tono tēnei mai i tēnei uri o Te Taitokerau: me hoki anō te kaupapa ki Waitangi kia whakamoea te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora, ka tika. Kia ora.

[Further, this is a request to the Minister with respect to the name of Te Aka Whai Ora. I attended the opening, the launch of the name of Te Aka Whai Ora in Waitangi. It was a significant meeting, an important meeting for the people, and for the wider nation. There I heard the speakers explain the parting words of those who have passed on, and also explain the name “Te Aka Whai Ora”.

My Aunty Debbie asked of me, “What is the reason for putting the name ‘Te Aka Whai Ora’ to sleep?” So this is a request from this descendant of Northland: the initiative should return to Waitangi so that the name of Te Aka Whai Ora may be put to rest; it is the most appropriate thing to do. Kia ora.]

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Hūhana Lyndon, who has just taken her chair. As I said, I’ll take advice from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee on the best way to return that taonga, and I do understand that.

I also want to talk to the two members Peeni Henare and Scott Willis, who raised the question around clause 43(2), inserted by new Part 2 into Schedule 1, around a reasonable consultation. I’ve been advised that that terminology copies provisions of existing schedules and the consultation mirrors the Employment Relations Act.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Kia orana. Look, it’s a pleasure to contribute to this debate that’s moving through the committee through urgency at the moment. I want to take a call because I received a message from one of my constituents in Palmerston North that was concerned that the House was using its time where they were not able to have an opportunity to perhaps submit on this process. [Interruption] So I do want to acknowledge the fact—and members opposite might not like the fact that people in electorates are unhappy with this process, and that’s exactly why we’re here tonight at the late hour on their behalf to ask the questions of the Government and to put these issues to the Minister, because they have not had an opportunity out in the community to actually put forward their views.

But I do want to just put to the Minister. He has responded to some of the issues around the localities and the locality planning, but there is still, I think, an outstanding response from the Minister, and I implore him to consider responding, which is, he has indicated that he has, effectively, randomly selected a date at some point in the future. It’s still not quite clear, Minister—in light of some of the feedback and the questions that have been put to you—whether you’re still comfortable with that date, at some point in time, given some of the issues that have been raised. So I think that’s still an outstanding point.

My colleague Rachel Boyack and also the Hon Willie Jackson touched on some of the transfer of entitlements, and there’s still an outstanding question around what level of engagement with worker representations and unions has actually been undertaken by the Minister in light of the fact that this will have implications. Now, it might appear on face value that these implications might just appear on paper, but we are talking about a change in the workplace which may come with a change in the culture in the workplace. And surely there must be an opportunity for those who are going to be directly impacted as new, or potentially new, employees in a new entity—even though the entity is an existing one—the opportunity to be heard. So I’m just interested around that as well.

Minister, I note that in terms of the new proposal, which is clause 36(1)(b), this is relating to, effectively, the transfer of assets and the transfer of information. I note that paragraph (b) talks about all of the information and documents that would be held by the Māori Health Authority are, effectively, held by Health New Zealand. What I’m not quite clear on are two things: one is how that information is securely retained, and it might be that it is actually answered in paragraph (d) further down there. But there’s no indication about—OK, the information might be held by Health New Zealand, but what about the access to it? So on what basis can the information be accessed on an ongoing basis, and also will the information have some indication that it previously was part of a former entity that no longer exists?

The reason why I ask the Minister this is that there are many pieces of information that would be retained—well, not retained. It would be obtained by a new entity that might actually have some archival or former relevance. I note that there is reference in this bill that relates to the context, unless the context otherwise dictates or indicates.

But there is still some uncertainty about not just the retaining of the information but how it is going to be accessed and how it might be used, because there are other implications potentially—I don’t know. I mean, that’s why I think it’s important, Minister. If you were to take a call to respond to that in terms of not just holding the information but how it might be accessed, I think that might be quite not just unique but important.

So those are the questions that I suggest the Minister may wish to take a call on, but I’d be very interested on behalf of the constituents of Palmerston North for a response given that the House is, effectively, sitting under urgency without an opportunity for scrutiny this evening.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. I’ll give the Minister the opportunity to more fully answer that tomorrow. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you for your work tonight.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).