Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill

Good morning, members. When we suspended last night, we were debating 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, again, is that Part 2 stand part.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Mōrena to members, despite how urgency works and we go into another day. Mōrena to everybody here. Mōrena to the Minister, and I do want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Shane Reti for such a lengthy time in the chair. He’s done his job to try to answer the many questions that have been put to him by this side of the Chamber about this particular bill. I won’t spend too much time recapping. As we come to Part 2, it’s really important, though, as we get into the real technical, or some might say—and I spoke to my daughter this morning before she went to school—the nitty-gritty, and it’s now our chance to prosecute just a few more of the matters in Part 2.

This is where I want to start. Last night, I asked a question around clause 43, in New Part 2, which is inserted into Schedule 1. The Minister’s answer was to speak to the Employment Relations Act, if I recall correctly. While I appreciate that the Employment Relations Act is there and it does what it does—it’s a very good Act and, if Labour had their way again, we’d probably make a few more changes just to continue to secure more workers’ rights—it’s really important, though, because this particular clause, clause 43, is slightly more granular, and I mentioned this last night. It does talk to policy. The legislation is there as a structure. The policy, however—and Te Aka Whai Ora in its establishment—was very clear that it was going to be for the pedagogy of a Māori world view. That means, then, that we use the Employment Relations Act as a skeleton, if you will, but, by crikey, the policies there were, first and foremost, Māori policies. I want to remind the Minister that, in clause 43, it says that 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. That’s important. It doesn’t talk about changing the law—the Employment Relations Act. It talks very specifically about policies that have a material effect on that employee.

We spoke at length last night about the plight of those employees at Te Aka Whai Ora, and the anxiety they must be feeling as the uncertainty dawns upon them that the taonga that our tūpuna—and many members in this House and particularly on this side of the House—have fought so hard for could be gone by lunch time today. So I want to just remind the Minister why that granular stuff is important. To just simply say that the Employment Relations Act—well, no we’re talking very specifically here about employment policy. Yes, the Act can help steer and direct policy, but without Te Aka Whai Ora, which was materially different in the way that it employs, the way that it looks after its staff, and in the world view that it continues to carry—so I’m asking the Minister, with the officials by his side, whether they are able to tell us exactly what that means and why it is important, because of the anxiety that will affecting, in the Minister’s own words, a health workforce that is under the pump. I think the Minister’s words yesterday were that the health workforce is “shattered.”

Well, that is why this is important, and I want to make sure that the Minister has the opportunity to address that, so that as we continue to discuss these matters with those who are employed by Te Aka Whai Ora, we can continue to support them. That’s important because very soon we’ll get to the title and commencement clauses, and if the commencement date is not until June but this law is changing now, we want to make sure that over the next four months those staff have a very clear pathway, a very clear platform for the work they’re doing, in order to continue to serve our communities. So that’s the question that I’m still seeking answers to. I want to thank the Minister, though, for his forbearance and his attempt to continue to answer the questions from this side. So, in that vein, let’s start the day off well, and that’s my question to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that you are new in the Chair this morning, I will just say that my questions from my last contributions last night haven’t actually been responded to by the Minister. The debate was closed down after that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I was watching.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you. I’m going to start on a different clause, but I still want answers to my previous contribution.

I want to talk to clause 40 of new Part 2 in Schedule 1. This is my first contribution on clause 40. I want to talk to clause 40 and to clause 43, but I may not be able to do that in the five short minutes that I’ve got. Clause 40 is about the transfer of employees, and I want to know: did the Minister consult with the unions about this legislation that has been brought under urgency?

I want to refer to a press release put out by the Public Service Association (PSA), who are saying that “The Government’s decision to ram legislation abolishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, through the House under urgency is a travesty of democracy and an insult to te Tiriti o Waitangi. PSA Te Kaihautū Māori Janice Panoho says the indecent haste with which the legislation is being pushed through shows how desperate the Government is to avoid scrutiny of [any] divisive decision that has been universally panned by Māori” and public health service experts.

I want to say that in their press release, they said that “ ‘Māori health workers, who are experts on how to address Māori health inequity, have also been shut out of this discussion … The debate about Te Aka Whai Ora goes to the heart of the wider debate about the relationship between Māori and the Crown and yet Māori, who will be the most impacted, have not even been afforded a conversation,’ Panoho says. ‘For such an important Constitutional issue it is vital that Parliamentary processes are used to allow proper public scrutiny and debate rather than to lock out people with dissenting voices.’ Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi, the Public Service Association represents about 30,000 workers in the health sector. Of the PSA’s 92,000 members more than 10,000 identify as Māori. The PSA views the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora as attack on Mana Motuhake and the ability of Māori to deliver health services for Māori in a way that works for Māori. ‘Te Aka Whai Ora aimed to tackle the well documented barriers Māori face to accessing health care. There is clear evidence of Māori health inequalities that deserves to be addressed by more than empty slogans and a rushed parliamentary process … This Government promised evidence-based decisions, but like its decision to row back smoking reforms, which also impact Māori, it would rather embrace ideology than good public health policy.’ ”—

Mike Butterick: Where’s the question?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The question was right at the beginning: did he meet with the PSA? Has he afforded the employees who are going to be impacted by clause 40, “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”—I am reading for the committee’s benefit the press release from the PSA, who say they have not even been afforded the opportunity, the decency, to have any consultation about this legislation, which is being rushed through urgency.

So my question to the Minister is: did you talk to the unions? Did you talk to any of the kaimahi? Do you think that it would have been appropriate to talk to your kaimahi Māori who work for Te Aka Whai Ora, who work in the health system, who have the responsibility, the weight, of delivering these health services for our whānau? Did you talk to them about your proposed changes? Not you, Madam Chair—to the Minister. Did the Minister meet with unions? Did he meet with delegates? Did he meet with kaimahi to talk about the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because it would appear, from the press release put out by the PSA, that that has not happened, and I think that is disgraceful. I look forward to the answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the members for their questions. I want to go back to the last question last night from member Utikere. He was asking again around the date in the future for locality plans, which is 2029, which I’d already said was a placeholder for localities. He was asking how that number came to be. I said it was just a placeholder. It turns out, in further discussion with officials, that there are certainly clear precedents for the five-year period. I won’t read through a range of legislation which has review periods of five years. One, two, three, four, five, six—probably at least seven. Then it’s also commented to me that it’s also used in international instruments—so a clear figure there.

Again, the question was raised around the transfer arrangements. The transfer arrangements, as I discussed many times last night—indeed, the member who’s just taken her seat, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, has also raised the question—are consistent with the Health Sector (Transfers) Act, which was how people were transferred from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand into the Māori Health Authority anyway. In fact, member Jackson also asked exactly that same question. So it is the same process, actually in the same legislation, putting those people, repatriating them, back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

The member also asked about data probity when that information is transferred back into those two organisations. What I’ll say to that is it’s consistent with all of Government data policies—that transfer of information that will accompany the Māori Health Authority.

The member this morning raised the question around clause 43(2) of new Part 2 in Schedule 1, which was also raised by member Willis and others during the debate last night, and that’s around the “reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy”. I’ll elaborate further on that, because the reply to that wasn’t just that it’s consistent with the Employment Relations Act, but it’s also been copied across from existing schedules. It already sits there as part of the legislation—that narrative, that wording, is already there—and it just happens to be consistent with the Employment Relations Act as well.

To the member who’s just taken her seat, the question she asked at 21.46 last night, questions of timing—already addressed that, thoroughly and multiple times during this debate, so I don’t envisage going there again. The transfers Act, which I’ve just described—that describes a process by which the workforce will transfer back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

Furthermore, the good discussions I have had with the leadership of the Māori Health Authority give me every faith that they will address the concerns that the member has just raised.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I have a new contribution to our questions to the Minister. It’s in new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1, clause 36(4), and it’s really related to the CEO of Te Aka Whai Ora. We have heard, at length, the lift and shift of our kaimahi from Te Aka Whai Ora to Te Whatu Ora, but in reading the fine print of new Part 2, we can see that the chief executive officer of Te Aka Whai Ora will not become an employee of Te Whatu Ora.

May I speak to the quality of this woman, Riana Manuel. She is an inspirational wahine Māori—health leadership in action, homegrown in Hauraki, and uri of Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia Kāinga, a wahine toa. She is well versed across the health system and appointed to lead, alongside Margie Apa, our new direction forward through Te Pae Ora. I was excited myself as a colleague and former kaimahi Māori in hauora to see these two wāhine appointed to the helm of these waka hauora, Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora. And yet now we see the loss of talent to the health sector in Riana Manuel now transferring over to Te Whatu Ora, which is the right thing to do, really, because, you know, the vision was Te Waka Hourua—that Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora would move as one—taha Māori and taha tangata Tiriti. And yet in this legislation, we are losing one of our very critical health leaders who has moved us over a number of years to realising our first tino rangatiratanga model in hauora Māori history.

So I come with solutions. I’m trying to be positive in this space, despite the pāpouri and the hēmanawa that I feel within my heart for hauora Māori today, and I offer to the Minister the opportunity to take transformational leadership and appoint Riana Manuel as a co-CEO with Margie Apa to lead Te Whatu Ora into the future. How wonderful would that be for both te iwi Māori and our tangata Tiriti to work together to lead Te Waka Hauora or Te Whatu Ora. That would give effect to the transfer, the vision, that Te Whatu Ora would be that vehicle to support improving Māori health outcomes—if we honour the health leadership appointed by the boards, Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora, to lead the co-design of our new Waka Hauora.

So it is my proposal to the Minister that, actually, we don’t need this clause in the legislation and we could remove it, and she could be moved, and that we recognise the mana of this woman, and her hapū, her iwi, and her contributions to hauora Māori, and we put her in place as the co-CEO of Te Whatu Ora alongside Margie Apa. Kia ora.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and mōrena, everyone. I have a series of questions for the Minister, particularly around new section 15, inserted by clause 11—on page 4, last time I looked. What it’s saying in subsection (a) is that Health New Zealand must take “reasonable steps” and, going further, “administrative, analytical, or financial support where needed”. The concerns and the question I have is: in the absence of baseline data—which is what we have been advised; there hasn’t been performance data arranged from the locality plans. In fact, I understand that we’re still looking at data that’s from the district health board era. What is it, and how is it, that the Minister’s proposing to analyse and provide data so that this section can be met?

A question I have is: what are the outcomes of the Māori commissioning for the blueprint of Te Aka Whai Ora? These are questions that I would expect that the Minister has, or has been briefed on, in preparation for this transfer, and, most specifically, how has it been upheld? Where and how is the locality plans’ data going to be applied for Health New Zealand? If there is indeed an absence, how is the Minister going to understand the regional performances and the required investment?

Also, I guess one of the other things that we have real concerns with: if there is an absence of this data in Te Aka Whai Ora, then one assumes there is an absence of data still in the early stages of those iwi-Māori partnership boards. How exactly, in this period—and I understand there are four months for the staff. I get that. Then there’s five years and there’s going to be a review. What is the proposition for us—that we’re able to keep monitoring of the data and that there is no drop?

And, again, I have a common theme in my concerns for the preparation of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand to receive this entity and the fact that a lot of that intel will be sitting in the very hands of the kaimahi and those on the ground, no doubt. So my question isn’t asking whether there is data; my question is asking how the datasets are being gathered, how they can be reported on, and most specifically, from your perspective, how they can be monitored so that we can be assured there is absolutely no drop in performance. And what is the baseline of those?

So I just want to emphasise there has been, again, the outcomes of Māori commissioning for, and the actual blueprint that has been analysed from, Te Aka Whai Ora, and how that has been gathered to move into the Health New Zealand - Te Whatu Ora space.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I acknowledge this is the first call I’ll take in this debate, and so I want to begin by acknowledging as a first generation migrant to Aotearoa that a lot of the discourse that has landed us here is sort of a direct result of a pitting of Māori against migrant communities, particularly when it comes to health outcomes. I’m here by virtue of Te Tiriti, and I have a strong sense of responsibility to not allow those narratives to take hold, and to push back against those.

But in relationship to Part 2—and I hope to make more substantive contributions in the third reading—I was interested in just the line around “all information and documents held by [Te Aka Whai Ora] are held by Health New Zealand”. I wanted to pick one of the key initiatives of Te Aka Whai Ora, Te Rangatiratanga Raraunga Māori around Māori data sovereignty. This is one of the key initiatives that Te Aka Whai Ora was running, and it recognised that Māori data is protected under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Right now, Te Aka Whai Ora is doing a piece of work with Te Whatu Ora and Manatū Hauora to facilitate and support Māori to develop some framework for Māori by Māori, and I’m interested to know how the Minister intends this piece of work to progress if all information and documents are transferred to Te Whatu Ora, effectively. And one of the key reasons why I ask this is that there have been incidents of data leaks from Te Whatu Ora, and these have compromised the personal information of people, and therefore if this work is now compromised.

I hear the member from ACT is kind of, perhaps, making a little jab around speaking to the bill, but this is around the transfer of information, and therefore this is incredibly relevant. So I invite that ACT member to, actually, maybe read the bill in full rather than make random calls that are actually not related to what we’re talking about. So thank you for those contributions that I personally didn’t welcome.

But I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on what will happen in relationship to the initiatives regarding Māori data sovereignty; how does he intend for that data to be protected as it is transferred back to Te Whatu Ora, and whether he intends, as part of the transfer of information documents, for that piece of work to continue. We have seen, through other pieces of legislation, the need to commit to continuously do—across all Government work—initiatives in relationship to protecting Māori data. So it’s not just a health issue, but I think information in relation to health is particularly sensitive, and this is why I want to bring up how a specific part of Part 2 of this bill impacts one of the key initiatives of Te Aka Whai Ora. I’m just wondering whether, if there is an intent to continue this initiative, the resourcing of that initiative would change—whether it would increase, whether it would decrease—because, otherwise, this is one of the key initiatives that I think could be lost as a result of this piece of legislation, and it would be a deep, deep shame for our health space to not be honouring Te Tiriti via better protection of Māori data.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again I thank the members for their questions. An intriguing proposition from the member—not actually possible, because (1) you can have only one chief executive for an agency; and (2) it’s a board appointment not a ministerial appointment. But I do want to reflect on the excellent working relationship I have had with the CEO and thank her for her professionalism.

To the question that the member has raised, which is really good, around Māori outcomes and what we might look to be commissioning, they will be informed by several bodies of work. They will be informed by the good work that’s already been done in Pae Tū and in Wakamaua—the action plan. There were really good outcomes in there—

Hon Peeni Henare: You’re welcome.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It was good—it was good. My Government policy statement will also express the outcomes—for example, immunisation. That will be very, very important to me. And it was another really good question around the baseline, actually. What will the baseline be so we can measure improvements? And what we will be needing to do is to inventory the data aggregation that has already occurred and what needs to occur to establish a baseline so we can measure outcomes. Part of that, as I described last night, will be dependent on the capability that each iwi-Māori partnership board has and how we need to all get them to one level, and quite quickly as well.

And the other member has, again—probably the third time the question on data probity has been raised. The data probity issues will follow exactly the same policies that all of Government is required to follow as it relates to data probity, so I do have confidence in that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tēnā koe. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing us to continue to prosecute Part 2. I want to draw the Minister of Health’s attention to Schedule 2, which is on page 18 of this bill, and it sets out there its intent to repeal seemingly innocuous titles in some of the legislation that’s listed there. It’s got the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022. If we’re going to repeal the role of the chief executive of the Māori Health Authority in those particular pieces of legislation, in light of the Ombudsman’s report, in light of the challenges that Oranga Tamariki are struggling with at the moment, I want to propose to the Minister here, if he is of a mind, that in those particular Acts it describes some of the positions that will work with respect to those Acts, in looking after our tamariki under the Oranga Tamariki Act. In fact, it names the Director-General of Health; it names Health New Zealand more broadly speaking. But it doesn’t actually put in there anything to do with the Māori directorate in Te Manatū Hauora or a role specifically to identify Māori with respect to Oranga Tamariki. And we know the statistics there; I won’t go over those.

But I wonder, and my question to the Minister is, is he of a mind to ensure that the Māori voice, with respect to repealing the Māori Health Authority and the role of the chief executive in those pieces of legislation—it’s just going to continue to silence the Māori voice there. There can be an expectation that Health New Zealand will continue its role, and that’s fine, but as I read through those particular—

Hon Willie Jackson: Madam Chair?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Sorry, I was trying to catch my breath. Ha, ha! I was trying to catch my breath. So it does describe a number of roles, but with such an important role that Te Aka Whai Ora was playing with respect to these Acts, my question is pretty simple: just if the Minister is of a mind to make sure that the role that Te Aka Whai Ora have played—he’s already talked about how it’ll be a straight transfer of those staff. It’s already been described that the chief executive won’t be. But the role was important—the role that those staff were playing in making sure that the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022 continue to do what they’re intended to do, and that’s to continue to support our whānau.

The final one I have on that one is the Therapeutic Products Act 2023. Now, we heard in the House yesterday how the Therapeutic Products Act is a bad bill or a bad piece of legislation, etc. It is quite simple in that repeal—that it once again takes out Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. The question I have with respect to that is: is the intention from this Government and the Minister, with respect to the work that was done on rongoā Māori, which was protected by Te Aka Whai Ora as it went through the Therapeutic Products Bill as we were putting it in at the time—is there any provisional thought by the Minister or this Government, and I suspect we might come there at some point in time in the future again when the Therapeutic Products Bill will be put into the House. Is there an intention to continue to offer the kinds of protections to rongoā Māori, and how can that be done if we’re repealing the role of the Māori Health Authority in that particular Act? Those are my questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member the Hon Peeni Henare for his questions. This is actually quite a narrow bill, and the question was raised around Schedule 2, which is mostly required to adapt to places in the legislation where the Māori Health Authority appears. Clearly, if it doesn’t exist any more, that legislation needs to be changed.

We’ve talked about the Māori voice quite extensively through the debate yesterday, and so I don’t envisage covering that again. However, even though people will transfer, of course many of those functions will also transfer into health. We shouldn’t imagine that those functions are disappearing. They’ll transfer into Health New Zealand; they’ll transfer into the Māori Health Authority. There were some questions around the Therapeutic Products Bill, but it is outside the scope of this bill.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. I’m glad you’re enjoying our questions. We’ve got quite a few more, so thank you for your response.

I wanted to come to Schedule 2 again. Last night, I spoke about transfer of undertakings, which is an incredibly important area, particularly for those of us who’ve been involved in the union. This has been a huge kaupapa for many of our workers. But I just wanted to elaborate on what our tuahine Willow-Jean Prime talked about in Schedule 2, in terms of the consultation particularly with the PSA. In a former role, I was the Minister of Employment, and that work was embellished by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. In that role, myself and Minister Sepuloni, we rolled out employment strategies that were incredibly important. Now, that hasn’t been touched on in the debate so far, but they were incredibly important, and I’m proud of the work I did and proud of the work that Minister Sepuloni did in terms of our workers. They tapped into every area of the workforce. And in this PSA area—and I felt the Minister has only lightly traversed that. My chair at the time was a woman by the name of Janice Panoho, and Jan was a tremendous chair—

Sam Uffindell: Oh, come on, Willie—just the question.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I know that member over there is not interested, because we know they’re not interested in workers. But Janice Panoho, who was a long—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They can laugh at it, but we treat this very seriously. Jan’s a longtime chair of the PSA. She was in touch with me. She’s been in touch with me over the bill, and she has made it very clear that there are real concerns for kaimahi, for workers. As I said, Jan’s been with the PSA close to 40 years. She wants to know how some of those cultural obligations are going to be traversed; what type of respect, given the rhetoric from particularly the coalition partners in terms of the disrespect to the reo—you know, they’re not interested in the Māori language being at the front of anything. How are those workers’ cultural backgrounds going to be respected in terms of the transfer? Is the reo going to be respected? Is the way that they work, which is a unique way, a different type of way, a different type of style, going to be embraced in the new entity?

On top of that, I need to draw the Minister’s attention, in terms of new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1, to clause 43, “Employment Policies” on page 13, subclause (1)(b), where it is very clear that an employee—and it says very clearly—and I don’t think this question has been asked. It says very clearly that an employee “may be replaced by Health New Zealand by written notice to that employee.” That goes against everything we know that is right in industrial relations. There cannot be some unilateral declaration, no unilateral declaration from anyone, with regard to workers. You cannot say, “Well, there you go. See you later. The job’s over.” We work in a world, in terms of our fair bargaining, where there has to be some consultation, there has to be a reciprocal relationship, and a worker has to have some rights. Particularly in this area where there are cultural obligations, reo obligations, community obligations, hapū obligations, iwi obligations, surely an employer doesn’t have that unilateral right just to send a letter to say, “There you go. No more job. See you later; you’re on your bike.”?

I need some clarity from the Minister over this so that we can give some guidance to workers out there, so that Janice Panoho, who today is still soldiering on despite what’s happened—she’ll work with what’s in front of her; that’s the reality. Whoever’s the Government, our people will have to work with them. But she needs some security and some support with regard to how the workers will be treated. What is the security over this? Are we going to just have this type of clause or will that clause be reviewed? Will there be some meaningful—as my tuahine Willow-Jean Prime has said—meaningful consultation with our Māori entities, Māori workers, and the union movement?

This is a huge kaupapa, Madam Chair, so I urge the Minister to meet with our people. But I ask that question again: clause 43(1)(b), in terms of Health New Zealand, do they have their unilateral right? Yes or no?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually have two questions which I will try and squeeze into the five minutes, with the risk that I might not get 10 minutes to cover them.

I want to ask—and it’s my first time asking—questions about replacement section 43, inserted by Schedule 1, and employment policies. My point is a different one to those that have just been raised and have been raised about this section by other members. I have been listening to the entire debate, so I know that this one hasn’t been covered.

So replacement section 43, inserted by Schedule 1, is about employment policies: “The employment policies of the Māori Health Authority—(a) continue to apply after the commencement date—(i) in relation to an employee who becomes an employee of Health New Zealand by operation of clause 36; and (ii) with all necessary modifications;”. What are the necessary modifications?

It also says that they may be replaced by Health New Zealand by written notice to that employee. I do want to add my support for the questions asked by the Hon Willie Jackson regarding that simple replacement by a written notice.

But an employment policy that I want to ask about in particular is for te reo Māori bonuses. So we heard the Minister for the Public Service very early on in this term of Government say that she was seeking advice on how to stop the bonuses being negotiated in the future. We know that the Public Service Association, once again, on behalf of its many members—not just Māori but, in fact, all of those who think it is important to have fluency in te reo Māori for their jobs—is deeply disappointed with the threat from the new Public Service Minister to remove allowances recognising competency in te reo across the public sector.

What my question to the Minister is: will Te Aka Whai Ora staff who are being transferred to Health New Zealand be entitled to te reo Māori competency payments and allowances? Will they be eligible for te reo Māori training and learning? I note many comments from others who waded in on this debate about whether this should be taxpayer-funded or not, saying that this Government actually campaigned on getting rid of them and stopping them in, as the Minister said, circumstances where they are not relevant.

To the Minister: is proficiency in te reo Māori relevant to the mahi that those working in Te Aka Whai Ora do, the services that they provide? Will policies regarding that transfer to Health New Zealand? Will they be honoured, or will there be necessary modifications, and could it simply be replaced by Health New Zealand providing a written notice to that employee?

I believe te reo Māori is so important in the delivery of health services to our whānau that this is something we need an assurance on. We need a guarantee that that will be honoured by Health New Zealand, and in Minister Willis’ review that she’s doing of this, with an aim to ensure that there is a stop to any bonuses being negotiated in the future, what assurance can the Minister give us that te reo Māori competency will be encouraged by kaimahi transferring from Te Aka Whai Ora into Health New Zealand, and that bonuses for that proficiency of te reo Māori, their competency, the skills that they bring to that organisation will be honoured?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the members for their questions—again, questions around replacement section 43, inserted by Schedule 1. The member over here was further probing around the appropriate transfer of people and their functions into the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.

There are several parts to that. First of all, the Ministry of Health has maintained a Māori health directorate, led by John Whaanga, and he, amongst others, including myself, will keep oversight and overview of the appropriate transfer of people from the Māori Health Authority into the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.

Furthermore, in replacement section 43(2), I’ve been advised that the particular words “material effect on that employee” are specific words that trigger good faith expectations. The member who has just taken her seat was also asking questions around replacement section 43, and I’ve been advised that existing terms and conditions will carry across.

I actually just would love to get a little more information out of you on that advice, Minister. I was interested because it looked like there was an assumption that this was a technical redundancy. While the policy I looked at is something that requires further consultation, the movement of people across isn’t.

Yet there is such a fundamental change here, because people have really engaged in something that has a kind of passion principle behind it. This is something where there is a cultural interest that is so strong. So there will be a whole lot of people in the situation now where they’re going to be looking at whether they even want to be in the new structure. What it does is it gives you a workforce that are forced into a situation that they might be suspicious of; it may be that, if there wasn’t urgency and there was time and there was consultation, we might be able to bring those people and their goodwill with us. After all, that’s really what good faith is about.

So I wondered if you had had advice about this being a technical redundancy—because you’ve treated this like it’s a technical redundancy. The Minsters and advisers seem to have treated this like it’s a technical redundancy; so we’re just replacing the name of the company with another as if it didn’t matter. But actually, in the world that we live in, I think what we have learnt very much in the employment law space is that it’s incredibly important that we are dealing with individuals and we use the best of their talents.

What I’m concerned about here is that, because of urgency, which is sort of aggravating the situation quite a lot, there is no period where the Minister and the Ministry of Health will go through a process of opting in and out based on the substantive needs. So I wondered what advice the Minister had had on whether this was to be treated like a technical redundancy or whether this was something that was much more substantive and important, and whether there was advice as to other ways of treating the situation. That will probably feed into the proposal that I’ve got to amend this.

I would be interested in whether there is an appetite for amending the process here so that there was a process that people went through and talked through the implications for their own role and whether that materially affected their own role and their desire to do it in the current structure. Because it’s going to be so important to whether this actually works in bringing up the health of Māori people; that the people involved are not dragged horses, they are actually participants—willing participants—and are giving their absolute best.

We know that this is a field where people don’t earn as much as they should. We’re not flush with money in this country—[Interruption] We are not. It’s actually a shame, and it’s one that I will stand by: that my purpose for being here is to make sure that we start to reprioritise people like this, we start to value this kind of work, because it’s incredibly important. When I hear the sniggering on the other side, I am worried, because it’s flippancy; it’s treating people like they are commodities. It actually comes absolutely back to what I am saying, because it is all about not treating people like they are commodities.

They are precious in this space; there are far too few of them with the capacity to do this job well and to have the sensitivity, and to treat them like a commodity and just shift them across to an entirely different mentality without that kind of discussion and time to come to terms with taking a very different role, perhaps, or perhaps there is a negotiation of their role—all the good that can be done by that process.

I would be interested to know whether there’s been advice on that issue and whether the Minister would have an appetite for an amendment, which I could draft easily, that gave them the right to crystallise a redundancy if they didn’t like the job that they were doing or to actually negotiate a role in the new environment that’s going to work best for New Zealanders and for Māori, who have the lowest statistics. Thank you.

Before I take the next call, I’d just like to reiterate something that the member in the Chair last night explained to members in the House: the five-minute limit is a limit, not a target and, in order to keep the flow of interaction between the Minister and members, we target questions—so just to put that reminder out there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I heed that request and that advice that you’ve given. I will note, though, that we have tried to engage in backwards and forwards questions with the Minister, but he didn’t actually take us up on that, so you’ve seen us revert back to five-minute contributions. There was an invitation last night to have that question exchange, and it didn’t actually happen. So if the Minister is now prepared to have that backwards and forwards with us—there has been some hesitancy, for fear that the debate will collapse or time won’t be given to carry on that questioning, because we haven’t actually seen the Minister being prepared to engage in a series of questions like that.

However, I’m coming on to a new part—[Interruption] Go back and watch the Hansard—you’ll see it. I’m coming on to a new Part, Schedule 2, “Consequential amendments to enactments”. This was raised by the Hon Peeni Henare, and he used the example which falls in one of my portfolios, which is Oranga Tamariki. And the Minister, in his response to that, was very flippant and, basically, said that all it is doing is deleting the references to the Māori Health Authority, as if they are inconsequential to the Acts that they are in, the roles that those organisations play, the functions that they perform. So, without repeating the contribution from a previous member, I picked out another piece of legislation—“Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act 1975”—where, in Schedule 2 “Consequential amendments to enactments”, it says it will repeal the definition of the Māori Health Authority in section 2; in section 4(e), it will delete the Māori Health Authority; in section 25C(3)(d), it will delete the Māori Health Authority.

Now, of course, we are doing this all off our phones and tablets at the moment. I’ve gone and pulled up that particular piece of legislation where this consequential amendment has effect. And it’s to section 4—I’m just picking out one of them. It is not simply removing a reference to the Māori Health Authority and that it is inconsequential—that all we’ve done is remove that—because, when you look at what the purpose of having the Māori Health Authority listed in that Act actually is, when you just simply remove the Māori Health Authority, you are removing them from performing a function under that Act to deliver what is expected.

So, in this case, it says in section 4 of the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act, the aims of the Minister and the director-general: “Without limiting in any way the functions and powers conferred on the Minister or on the Director-General by this Act, the aims of the Minister and the Director-General in the exercise of those functions and powers shall include—”, and it lists them, (a), (b), (c), (d)—for example, “(a) to assist and encourage disabled persons to become socially and financially independent: (b) to promote schemes providing for the assessment, work experience, training, sheltered employment, and other suitable activities of disabled persons: (c) to promote the general well-being, recreational opportunities, and welfare in the community of disabled [peoples]”, and it goes on. It says in section (4)(e)—the one that we are repealing. And we’re simply just deleting the reference to the Māori Health Authority. In this Act, it is “to foster close working relationships, and (as appropriate) consult, with government departments, Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and other bodies, organisations, and professions concerned with rehabilitation and training of disabled persons and their placement in employment:”.

Now, I would argue that the reference to the Māori Health Authority in this piece of legislation was not tokenistic. There was a deliberate intent as to why to include the Māori Health Authority in the list of organisations that the Minister for Whaikaha and the director-general will foster relationships with those organisations. Why is that? So that they can have better communication, they can be better informed, they can take into account Māori perspectives—hauora Māori and wellbeing, for example. So, by deleting the reference to the Māori Health Authority and not replacing it with something like—I mean, Health New Zealand is already there. So, if Health New Zealand could already do this, why did it also list the Māori Health Authority? Because this legislation recognised that the Māori Health Authority provided something unique to what the—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Kia ora koutou. E te Māngai o te Whare, thank you for this opportunity to take a call on the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. It was around about this time last week that we all were shocked and are still in disbelief about the sudden passing of Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, someone who I’ve known for over 30 years; a son of Samoa, a strong advocate for Māori, and a strong advocate for South Auckland. I know that, if Fa’anānā Efeso Collins were still here, he would be in this Chamber, debating this bill, because this is one of those things that he was a strong advocate for.

If I could just say, one of the things we know about young Māori men, including young Māori Pacific—many of us have Māori in our blood as well, because the mix between the Māori Pacific is quite prominent right now—is too many of our people die very young. We die younger. Māori die younger than general New Zealanders.

I would like to just acknowledge just how much of a leader Fa’anānā Efeso Collins was, and how much of a strong leader he was.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this bill. One of the things that I actually have, as a person who worked in the health sector—and this will age me—is I worked in an organisation called North Health in Auckland, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, which was established in the 80s. During that time, North Health was the funder which actually funded “by Māori, for Māori” health services for the first time. Te Whānau o Waipareira in 1984 was funded by North Health. It was under the leadership of Sir Rob Cooper and Gwen Tepania-Palmer. One of the reasons why “by Māori, for Māori” health services was created was because, as a country, Aotearoa New Zealand, we did not know how to serve Māori people in the right way. The inequity that was then, in the 1980s, and actually going back to the 1840s—we still see such a huge disparity between Māori and non-Māori. The reason why “by Māori, for Māori” was funded was because there was the hope that at some point in the future, they would be better served.

Sam Uffindell: How does this relate to Part 2?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Can I say that my questions to the Minister—I will come back to the bill. I would like to ask questions of the Minister about Part 2—clause 41 of new Part 2 to Schedule 1—which is about employment being continuous for the purpose of certain entitlements. My specific question is basically—I would like the Minister to outline this—what are the transitions that are in place for current employees of the Māori Health Authority following its disestablishment? This is important because we also need to highlight the welfare of those Te Aka Whai Ora employees, the Māori Health Authority employees who are currently working right now. When they are being transitioned to Health New Zealand, there is also that issue of ensuring that they are actually served quite well.

The second question for the Minister is: what specific support measures will be implemented to support these affected employees that are being disestablished, in terms of Te Aka Whai Ora?

Third question: how will the Minister plan to maintain and enhance Māori health initiatives and outcomes without specialised focus provided by the Māori Health Authority, in terms of employment and in terms of ensuring project continuity? Because the Māori Health Authority are the ones that actually hold the contracts with “by Māori, for Māori” health providers. How do we assure, as a country, the services at the end of the day? Because we are in here to serve our people. How do we ensure that those services continue, that the welfare of the staff is actually enhanced and continues on as they transfer to Health New Zealand? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To address some of those questions—the member raised the question of transfer of staff to the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand—I’ve already described, in my first and second reading speeches, the hopes I have that staff will “join me and guide me in the pathway forward for Māori health and Māori health outcomes”. I have a very clear hope that what we’re proposing here is something that they can say: “I want to be a part of that; I believe in the outcomes. This is a different way to what I was anticipating, but I want to be a part of that”.

The member raised the question of legislative compliance, using the example of disability, and clearly, in her own words, said Health New Zealand will still be consulted. So, remember, the parts of the Māori Health Authority—the substantial operational parts—will still transfer to Health New Zealand. So, of course, they’ll still be consulted. That expertise will still be there.

To the last member, who asked the question—it had already been covered several times previously—the first question: existing terms and conditions transfer across. As I’ve said before, the Māori Health directorate, inside the Ministry of Health, will have input into the appropriate transfer of people, into the two respective homes. I’m very focused on continuity of services. That’s really important. We’re going to pick up from the learnings that we’ve had and advance them forward. It’s really important we’ve got that continuity. On one level, the $50 million immunisation project that we announced before Christmas is an example of that.

Mōrena, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.

Just to the Minister’s previous comments on hopes, and the “hope” of one thing and the “hope” of another thing for Māori. It’s a good title for a song, but it certainly does not give us a surety. The “hope” of how Māori will work together and do our best is not good enough to be sure, and that’s demonstrated very much in the title of this bill: the “Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority”. Those words are so frightfully offensive, and I find it difficult to even repeat. But it is the disestablishment of Māori. So if we can just let that sink in a bit. What that says, the message to Māori, is: you do not matter in the way in which you thought you did and that you hoped that you did, in this way.

When the Te Aka Whai Ora idea came to be, many Māori providers got really excited and organised and got themselves prepared, because it’s based on “by Māori, for Māori”. This bill is about “by non-Māori, for Māori”—that’s what this bill is about. It has this “all New Zealanders”, which I keep hearing around particularly the left side of the House, and it is offensive, because what it suggests is that we are all the same. It takes us back into “We’re all New Zealanders, therefore we’re all the same”, and “the same” that it talks about is the white same. It’s the Pākehā same. It is not the Māori same. So I want to make those points.

We call that, in our reality, a white-out. That’s what this bill is telling us. This is a white-out. This is taking us back into a ministry. And why I can talk like this with confidence is because I worked for Ngāti Hine Health Trust for more than 20 years, under the grace and the kindness of Erima Henare, of Rob Cooper, of many, many Māori leaders that said the systems, the pedagogy, the theories failed us. Unfortunately, this bill is taking us right back into that, and it is forcing us to swallow it yet again.

I was asked this morning on radio why do I think this is happening, and I said because the left side of the House believes that they know better for Māori. They believe that they know better; that we couldn’t possibly make up our own Māori minds about what works for us.

Sam Uffindell: That is what the left side thinks.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: So despite the nonsense carrying on while I’m speaking, as a Māori—and I can carry this conversation better than any other Pākehā in this room. And excuse me, Madam Chair, I’m talking like this because every time I hear “all New Zealanders”, that just whites out Māori people, so we all become this great big “all New Zealanders”—whatever that is. We are Māori beings. We are human beings. We are Māori beings. We are sovereign in that regard. We are the other partners in Te Tiriti. We are the reason why—we are the reason why—any non-Māori gets to live here.

So I want to make these points really clear. We don’t want any more of this “We know better for you, Māori mā, so can you just keep quiet”, right? And, by the way, we’re going to move all of the staff that are Māori over to this Pākehā system yet again, and they’re going to have to tolerate and swallow it.

I know this is not as granular as where the stages are in the bill, Madam Chair—I realise that—but I wanted to speak on a more grandeur level, which is a Māori, mana motuhake level. I wanted to take it there. Because the minute we get into granular, we forget who we’re here for. We can. It tends to take us right down into the technicality of it all, forgetting that ko te mea nui, ko te tangata tēnā [the most important thing is humanity], which is why I want to make these points in this particular way.

If we go back, which it seems like we will, it will take us back into a system that failed us. Why do I know? I fought against it for more than 20 years.

Te reo Māori is an issue, so the point that my colleague made earlier—“Te reo, what’s that got to do with it?” It’s got everything to do with it. When our people were punished and stopped from speaking Māori, what they were stopped from was being Māori—when our people were stopped from speaking Māori, they were hindered and stopped from being Māori. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question, Minister, is a supplementary in a sense to my colleague Willow-Jean’s point about tāngata whaikaha. We know, as she has pointed out in the consequential amendments, the removal of the Māori Health Authority for the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act has the effect of amplifying the intersectional harm that we see to Māori. Underpinning it is the perverse logic that taking further rights from those whose needs are being least met somehow makes us a more equal country, and it does the opposite of that.

So my question to the Minister in terms of tāngata whaikaha, our disabled Māori community, is: to what extent did you speak to them and approach that community and understand the importance—

Tom Rutherford: Point of order. I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the clock actually hasn’t started after the member’s time.

STEVE ABEL: I’m OK with that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: My question to the Minister is: to what extent has he communicated directly with that disabled Māori community? To what extent has he considered the impact on that community, whose needs are particular? And there’s very good literature that shows the need for access to health services that provide cultural, holistic connections to te ao Māori, an essential to maintaining hauora and wellbeing for tāngata whaikaha.

Sam Uffindell: What clause are you on?

STEVE ABEL: I’m on the consequential amendments to enactments, in Schedule 2. There’s a specific opportunity here for the Minister to recognise the importance of us representing that community, to recognise the failure of the current health system, to recognise those holistic needs of Māori in a wider sense but particularly this community, and both tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua disabled communities are poorly having their needs met in our health system. So, also, my question to the Minister is: how does he intend to ensure that tāngata whaikaha Māori and whānau hauā are represented on the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee? Are they represented? How will they be represented? And, if the Minister is going to remove the Māori Health Authority as a reference in the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act 1975, what is he going to replace it with to ensure that that community is fully represented and understood so that the intersectional harm and intersectional failings we have in our health service do not continue to be perpetuated?

It is bad enough that we are getting rid of the Māori Health Authority—or rather, the Minister, this Government, is getting rid of the Māori Health Authority—but let us not amplify the harm on those who are most vulnerable within that system, which includes that community of our tāngata whaikaha. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I’d like to table an amendment to the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. My amendment follows on from my kōrero earlier: that, in new Part 2 in Schedule 1, delete clause 36(4), page 10, lines 39 and 40 are deleted. And it goes back to my kōrero on the importance of the CEO of Te Aka Whai Ora being retained within the organisation and the lift and shift of Te Aka Whai Ora staff over to the new entity. E te Minita, he tono tēnei kia pupuri tonu ki tēnei rangatira hauora o tātou. Kia haere tonu āna mahi i roto i Te Whatu Ora. Ināianei me ngā tau kei te haere mai. Koia taku tono. Kia ora, tātou.

[Minister, this is a plea to you to hold on to this esteemed health leader of ours, so that their work may continue within Te Whatu Ora, now and in the years to come. That is my plea. Thank you all.]

Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you very much. Can I tautoko, first of all, the words of the Hon Jenny Salesa. The Efeso Collins death has had a huge effect, I think, on this Parliament. I congratulated Parliament the other day, actually, on TV—people right across, from all sides, who paid their respects, which I think brought the best out in Parliament. We’re all feeling those effects, and many of us, from all sides of the House, will go and pay our respects tomorrow. I support what the Hon Jenny Salesa said: Efeso Collins would have been right in here asking questions about the effects of this bill on our communities. I have a specific question, of course, that I’m going to come to now. And we have traversed the area in terms of transfer of undertakings, which are incredibly important, and I think the Minister of Health has tried to answer that, or has answered that.

I have another specific question—and we’re looking at new Part 2, clause 40, in Schedule 1—and it’s in that transfer of undertakings area again, and I’ll come down to subclause (3). You’ll see, Madam Chair, the points that are made: “(a) on the commencement date, Health New Zealand and the union are parties to a new collective: (b) the terms and conditions of the new collective agreement are the same as the earlier agreement, subject to any necessary modifications:”. My question centres around paragraph (c) of clause 40(3), where “the employee is covered by the new collective agreement as long as they remain a member of the union.”

Now, of course, that is something that we, as a Government—and I’m here with our main spokesperson, Camilla Belich—would insist on: that that type of clause be in any type of agreement. So we’re pleased with that. But the different set up in terms of Māori and Māori health actually has seen a number of our people not in unions. I’m a person who will always try and organise them and get them involved in unions, but for whatever reason some of our people choose not to go down that track, which is something the other side would always support—they’d always support them not being in unions. With that being the case, what are the plans for these types of workers who transfer across?

I’ll ask the Minister so it’s very clear—paragraph (c) of clause 40(3): “the employee is covered by the new collective agreement as long as they remain a member of the union.” So, if they’re not a member of the union—as I said, many of our workers, kaimahi, choose not to be, which is disappointing—what are the plans from the Minister and the organisation with regards to those people? Those people still have rights. They’re still upholders of our culture, of our reo. They’re still advancing the kaupapa in terms of Māori health. They’re an integral part, have been an integral part, of the Māori Health Authority. Will those workers be dismissed? Will they be sidelined? What is the plan? Has the Minister thought outside the box with regards to this, given that that point is very clear? “The employee is covered by the new collective agreement as long as they remain a member of the union.”

Now, as we know, the National Party are not particularly good supporters of anyone who joins unions. In fact, the strategy has been to discourage these people from joining unions, because they’re into individual rights and the free market and everyone making a choice. So that type of decision, some of our people, for different reasons, find that culturally offensive—they see that’s a breach of their rights as an individual. So, again, I ask the Minister: what is the plan for those kaimahi and our people who decide that joining the union is not an option for them?

I just want to mention to the committee that I’ve been watching the debate very closely, and I also was in here last night as the debate was going through. I’ve heard many calls on dissatisfaction over the bill itself, I’ve heard the Minister answer questions about employment and the structural changes that he intends, and I’ve also heard answers around the disability questions that have been asked. I am looking for very new questions, not speeches of dissatisfaction. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for that guidance. I’ve got three distinct questions that I hope to get addressed. I totally understand we cannot, for the Minister of Health to answer—and I understand the answers I may get may not be satisfactory, but when I asked about one of Te Aka Whai Ora’s key initiatives around Māori data sovereignty, I only had the part around data breaches being addressed. So I’m just—not with the hope of being repetitive, but just in the hope that it actually gets addressed, around whether Te Aka Whai Ora’s initiative around Māori data sovereignty will continue, and commitments from the Minister around the initiative continuing as we see Te Aka Whai Ora being disestablished. As I’ve said, this is because it is a key Tiriti obligation of the Crown to protect Māori data sovereignty, and so I’m keen to get a sense of where that is heading.

The other question I had was—I know we’ve been canvassing employment issues with a degree of detail, but I was interested in particularly getting a sense as to the ethnic wage gap, which we know that different agencies have—because there’s different levels of reporting around the ethnic wage gap, yet we know that it is quite present across Government agencies and in the private sector as well. But I’m curious to get a sense of what level of commitment and analysis the Minister has engaged on the impacts of reductions of the ethnic wage gap as part of the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, because Te Aka Whai Ora presented an opportunity, by having a “by Māori, for Māori” approach, to actually address that ethnic wage gap, and gender wage gap as well, that is present particularly in the health sector. So I wanted to get an understanding of whether any analysis was done in relation to the ethnic wage gap in particular.

I also wanted to pick up on a comment—and sorry for the shuffling of the papers, because I wrote it down; here we go. One of the previous answers from the Minister, where he reiterated his comments in the first and second readings of this bill in relation to employment, was that he hopes he’ll be joined and guided by those workers. I take the Minister’s personal commitments, and despite, obviously, our opposition to the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, is the Minister confident that those assurances are enough in terms of safeguarding that ongoing feedback loop that he is committing to? For example, should the Minister be replaced by one of his colleagues who has perhaps been far more outspoken in anti-Māori rhetoric, there are no safeguard mechanisms, then, beyond the Minister’s own words around being guided and joined by the workforce to address Māori health outcomes.

So, look, I take the Minister’s personal commitments, but that doesn’t necessarily speak to the safeguards in this bill that would protect, say, another person coming into his role who may not hold those same views actually then being led by the workforce to address Māori health outcomes. So, beyond those personal commitments, I’m keen to get an understanding of what safeguards exists to ensure that, no matter who is in his role, there is that feedback loop that he is committing to creating to address Māori health outcomes.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve started a vote, so I’d ask the member to resume his seat, thank you.

Point of order. I’m just inviting the Chair for some reflections, because as soon as you came into the Chair you invited us to proceed with the debate within some specific guidelines. There was, I believe, just one call of mine, I think, after you indicated those guidelines, and in my case, I made it really clear that I had three specific questions. I didn’t keep my remarks to reflections of why I dislike the bill and I made sure that these were things that I believed—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: But my point of order is I’m just inviting you to reflect on why you would come into the Chair to make a reflection and then only allow for one call, rather than in good faith allow the members to scrutinise—

Could I ask the member to resume his seat. I did say that I’d been watching the debate. There are a series of Speakers or Chairs sitting in the Chair, and I did say that the employment issues had been well traversed [Interruption] and I heard repetition in the member’s speech, and so—

Ricardo Menéndez March: That big wage gap was not—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please do not argue with the Chair. I’ve made a decision, thank you.

Now, for Schedule 1, where there is no debate, the question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 deleting new clause 36(4) be agreed to.

We come now to Schedule 2, also with no debate.