Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, and this is the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and the “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Wow, what an effort. I first just want to acknowledge the advisers who I, actually, in this case, feel sorry for. They were part of building the whare, and now they’re being asked to dismantle it.

I want to help members across the House: when we called this the “Pae Ora legislation”—“pae” meaning horizon, “ora” meaning life or wellbeing; that’s how you come up with the term “healthy futures”. Pae—horizon. Ora—wellbeing. In debating the title, the signal this sends to our whānau outside of this Parliament is, actually, this is pae mate—pae mate. It’s the opposite to a healthy future. It’s the opposite to the horizon of life and wellbeing. It’s actually “to death”, because that’s what this bill is doing.

My proposal to this Minister is that he actually change the name of the title of this bill to “Pae Mate Amendment Bill” because that’s what this is doing to our people. It is saying that it’s OK for Māori to die seven years before non-Māori. It’s saying to my uncle, who on this very day is being buried at Ngāti Manu in Kāretu in Te Tai Tokerau, who died of heart disease, who only came out to the doctors because of the work of Te Aka Whai Ora—but, sadly, it was too late. And now we’re saying to him and his family and Māori and communities right across this country, this is actually the “Pae Mate Amendment Bill”. This has nothing about securing the healthy futures of this country, in particular for Māori and our communities far and wide. That’s my proposal to the Minister; that the more appropriate title for this bill is actually “Pae Mate Amendment Bill”.

Now, I’m going to traverse very lightly across the time line because the commitment date on this bill is 30 June—30 June. Why, then, is the Minister rushing this bill under urgency to be completed within 24 hours when its commencement date isn’t until—guess when? Matariki, the Māori New Year. What signal does that send to our people? Matariki was about a hope for this country, and what this Minister is saying is that, on 30 June, “Oh no, no hope for you fullas. No hope for you, Māori. No hope for your communities.”

So my question to the Minister is: why, then, rush this bill, under urgency, over 24 hours, when the commencement date isn’t until June? The Minister could have had a good opportunity to send this bill to the select committee. We could hear from the experts, like we have many times before, to continue to show this Government why Te Aka Whai Ora was important. But the Minister chose to do it within 24 hours.

Now, I want to point the Minister to another piece that he’s spoken to on a number of occasions throughout this debate: the Minister says, “It’s part of the 100-day plan.” Well, if you have a look at the 100-day plan, there’s 49 actions. In those actions, the word “introduce” is mentioned eight times and the word “begin” is mentioned 10 times. When it talks about the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, it says “introduce” the bill. But the Minister is rushing this bill through in its entirety. He could have introduced it through urgency to have its first reading, and sent it to the select committee, but he chose not to despite the 100-day plan saying “introduce” the legislation. What the Minister has done has rushed it through. Why? It doesn’t even meet with the 100-day plan—the words in the 100-day plan are very different to the actions of the Minister today.

The commencement date puts us into Matariki. Why, then, with four months ahead of us, couldn’t the Minister let it go through a due process? And just finally, because my colleagues will no doubt traverse this, it’s been spoken about the tribunal: that claim could have been heard tomorrow. One more sleep, that’s all it took.

I’m going to leave my contribution there. There will be plenty more on this side.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two contributions. I won’t be able to do them in the five minutes, so I’m seeking two separate calls.

The first one is on the title, “Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill”. Why didn’t the Minister put the words in there: “Te Aka Whai Ora Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill”? Names are important. Symbolism is important. As we traversed last night, the gifting of the name “Te Aka Whai Ora” and what it actually meant, what it symbolises, doesn’t even get a mention in your title.

Last night, the Minister said that he spoke with our whaea Moe Milne about the name. I got a text from her: “I did not meet with him. I did not discuss the name with him, neither did I agree to our committee disestablishing the name.” I don’t think I can say the last word in Māori, because it will be translated to something unparliamentary.

Further to that, this is about respect for our kupu Māori, our ingoa Māori. “Te Aka Whai Ora”—doesn’t even have the guts to put it in the title. But that’s what you’re doing; you’re disestablishing it.

Now, I want to read from the evidence of my uncle Waihoroi Shortland, which he has filed with the Waitangi Tribunal. He says, “When I look at Te Aka Whai Ora, I take the notion quite literally”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just stop the member there. This is about the title and commencement. I don’t think we should be traversing what’s actually being put to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: This is about the title. This is about the words “Te Aka Whai Ora”.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. This is about the title and commencement of this bill, so we’ll keep it really narrow.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: So my contribution has been a challenge to the Minister. Why has he not included in the title the words “Te Aka Whai Ora”? I am giving the Minister information about the words “Te Aka Whai Ora”, which I am arguing should have been included in the title, and it is not.

It says, “I take the notion quite literally. In Ngāti Hine tradition, ‘te aka kūmara’ is that part of the plant that ensures”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I’m going to stop the member. Look, the Waitangi Tribunal is a separate matter. It’s something that we shouldn’t be bringing into the title. You can talk about the member, can talk about the title and commencement, but not directly quoting from the tribunal as it happens.

Shanan Halbert: Point of order. Madam Chair, I’ll seek your guidance on this one. While acknowledging your comments regarding the live Waitangi Tribunal hearing, I take the point of the Hon Peeni Henare in this, who identified that for the commencement date that we’re discussing, the question arises: what’s the rush for the Minister to push this bill through the House?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, so got that point. Mr Halbert, the question of timing has been asked around the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s the content of the Waitangi Tribunal that is not something that we want to be discussing as part of this piece of legislation. Just a moment. I’m just actually getting some advice here. So the Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of record, but it would be appropriate to avoid directly quoting that material.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Is that a Standing Order?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s my ruling.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: You’re ruling that we cannot quote evidence that has been filed with the Waitangi Tribunal ever?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s today, while things are live with the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of record but it would be appropriate to avoid directly quoting the material that’s within that, so I’m not going to allow people to quote the material. This is simply about the title and commencement, and we acknowledge that there is another process going on alongside this, but this is the title and commencement of this bill. It’s fair to acknowledge that the timing of these two things are coinciding, but we will not have material from the Waitangi Tribunal.

Shanan Halbert: Speaking to the point of order, I want to be clear on this, because while I acknowledge your point around the content of the hearing before us, I do want to ask for your guidance that we are able to reference in this discussion the importance of the Waitangi Tribunal hearing, relevant to this legislation that is being rammed through the House on this particular day. The question arises, and the point here is: why is the Minister pushing this through at this particular time, when in two days we would be able to go through that process of the hearing?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the answer is, as I first said, you can reference the fact that there’s a hearing happening. This is about commencement and timing, and that’s fine, but do not reference any content of the hearing itself.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: So in my contribution, I am making a contribution directly to the title of the legislation. My points have been about why the Minister has not included the actual words “Te Aka Whai Ora”, which is the name—the name—of the thing we are disestablishing. He has not put that in the title, and what I was trying to provide to the Minister, for his consideration, because it’s not too late, Minister, to make changes—it’s not too late; you can do that. I tried to give you an example—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —the Minister an example—of rich kōrero about what “aka” means, and what “aka” means to a tribe like Ngāti Hine, who relies on kūmara for our survival, and one of our most esteemed orators, leaders within te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori offers explanations—deep, meaningful explanations and symbolism—of what an “aka” means. We are discussing the title to this legislation, and what this legislation’s title is doing is disestablishing, and it just says here, “the Māori Health Authority”, but what it is disestablishing is “Te Aka Whai Ora”, and I am making references to those that gave that name, that gifted that name, and the meaning and symbolism within it, but also those who have offered other kōrero about why “aka” is so important when we look at the health and wellbeing of our people. I’m not going to debate on the use of, or bringing into the contribution—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And please—specific questions.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yep, so I have—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve been very good in the last couple of minutes about specific questions—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes, there are questions there for the Minister to answer, and I would implore him, before the end of this debate, to go and read that evidence that I cannot read for you here.

So now I’ll come on to the commencement date of this legislation.

Hon Andrew Bayly: Oh, very good!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, did you not like the last part? Do you think we should not talk about the title? Do you think we should not talk about having Te Aka Whai Ora in the title? Did you think that five minutes was a waste of time, Mr Bayly?

Hon Andrew Bayly: I think you should be relevant to the topic.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, right. Moving on to the commencement date, and I’ll try to ignore the interjections from the other side and the disrespect towards us, who are doing this under urgency.

So now I’ll come to the commencement date. This is passing under urgency—all stages, no select committee process. Te Aka Whai Ora, the Pae Ora legislation, is something that took years—years—to put in place. There were multiple, numerous consultations with all parties through all the processes available. It was a recommendation of the health and disability review. It was a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal that we establish a Māori health authority. And here, in 24 hours, through an urgent process, you are rushing this through—no consultation according to your departmental disclosure statement. I can’t even see a regulatory impact statement anywhere on this bill—so, rushing it.

But when we look at the commencement date, this isn’t actually going to commence until 30 June. So why, Minister—and I know you’re going to just get up and dismiss this as “I’ve answered it in other sections.”, but this is under title and commencement—are we passing this under urgency when it’s not going to take effect until 30 June? That would have allowed ample time, in your rushed processes, to have a select committee process, to stop and do some consultation. But, no, we’re rushing it through today, because, as I said last night, there’s something taking place, or should have been taking place, tomorrow: a planeload of the Minister’s relations are coming down to present to the Waitangi Tribunal their submissions—their opposition—on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora—his own hapū, Te Kapotai, a named claimant in that urgency hearing to take place tomorrow.

Is the Minister confident that that hearing tomorrow, that should take place tomorrow, has absolutely no bearing on the decision to pass this through urgency, all stages, last night and today? Can he, hand on heart, say that that wasn’t a single factor in the decision to do that right now? The Minister says this has been on notice for some time—that they intend to do this—but not once did the Crown file in the Waitangi Tribunal that it would be happening right now, because if they had been honest, and if that was the direction, then that would have been filed very early on in the proceedings, but it wasn’t. It took everybody by surprise last week to find out that it was going to be introduced and done under urgency this week. It leaves us with no other conclusion except that this has been done deliberately to undermine the Waitangi Tribunal, to undermine the Minister’s own relations, who are named claimants in that claim.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re not going to make personal comments about the Minister. You can talk about the Government’s intentions but no personal comments about the Minister. Thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. The Government, which this Minister is part of, which this Minister is responsible for—he is the leader of this; he is shepherding this legislation through. It is not coming into effect until 30 June. So why are we doing it today?

Point of order. I deliberately waited until the end of the contribution from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, and I will note before I make this point of order that the advice that Madam Chair provided in regard to the Waitangi Tribunal was accepted by the member, and she followed that advice through the remainder of her contribution. But I think it is important for the committee’s understanding if you could please provide further explanation of that ruling. Specifically, it would be helpful, I think, if you could refer to the Standing Order or, indeed, the Speaker’s ruling that that’s based on, because there does seem to be some concern around the conflation between the courts, which is clearly not in question, and the inclusion of the Waitangi Tribunal, which came as somewhat of a surprise. Given the nature of this debate, which does appear to have some time left in it, I think it would be useful for all members to understand the basis of that, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I come back to you on that. I’m just going to take the Hon Dr Shane Reti.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to speak to why Te Aka Whai Ora doesn’t appear in the title, it’s because it doesn’t appear in the Pae Ora legislation either and the amendment bill has to refer to the legal title in the statute.

Madam Chair, wishing to speak to both name and the commencement date, I’d like to share how ripped off I feel for te iwi Māori and the people of New Zealand knowing that we have so little time as members of New Zealand to contribute to this debate because we’re locked out. Our communities are locked out. And despite the commencement date being in June, we are in urgency, and we are tired, and we are pukuriri, and we are here passionately speaking to save something that our people have invested so much into. So I reflect on the 4,685 submitters to the Pae Ora legislation, who took the time to provide their local voice, their hapū, their whānau, their marae, their community voice, the health providers who contributed to the building blocks of Pae Ora.

What is in a name? A name such as Pae Ora is tapu. Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) means so much because Pae Ora came from so much—Waitangi Tribunal findings and recommendations, as well as a full health systems review that all came together and gave the name, the new path, Pae Ora (Healthy Futures). And to now know that we are being ripped off as the people of New Zealand by not being able to submit. As a member of the Health Committee I was looking forward to the opportunity to see the bill introduced in order for it to come before our committee and open the floodgates for our community, for iwi Māori, for health providers and health professionals to tell us why we should retain Te Aka Whai Ora. So my koha is short but it is to express responses to the communities that have contacted me saying “Why? Why”—because the bill, or the legislation doesn’t come in to place until June 2024—“would this Government rush in urgency to see Te Aka Whai Ora disestablished today?”

So my plea is to the Government to consider the legislation that they are rushing through urgency for their 100-day plan, to give the people of New Zealand a chance. Where is the chance for the people of New Zealand, let alone te iwi Māori, to share their whakaaro on the legislation? What, we’re up to number 16 now in urgency and we’ve got more to come next week. So, me tū patu tātou, me tū patu. I think it’s important that we all front our communities and we own decisions made in this House, and I look forward to the meetings that will occur after this because this has been rushed through far, far too soon for the people of New Zealand and te iwi Māori. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to the commencement date in my contribution and I share the concerns of my other parliamentary colleagues in the House today about this piece of legislation being rushed through in urgency. And I know the Minister will feel it in some sense; it’s a sensitive kaupapa that we are debating in this Chamber in urgency, and I know that he does have a heart and, as a health practitioner himself, he certainly will be looking with interest in this.

Elections are elections, and what you campaign on, of course you have to deliver. But the point here is the sensitivities of what we are discussing today. This is a matter for all of Aotearoa New Zealand. Māori, yes, is a very important part of this. And I share the concerns of my tuahine, Hūhana Lyndon, who talks about our whānau being locked out of this place. It makes me sad that today, when we’re talking about such a sensitive kaupapa, none of our people are here—that the wairua that we normally feel within these chambers at such an important time is missing. And that makes me sad today.

The commencement date is months away—we’re talking about Matariki. It enables an opportunity for us to talk to the communities, the people that are important, and we’ve acknowledged the communities, we’ve acknowledged Maōri, and, particularly today, I think part of the gap in our conversation here and the opportunity to feedback is from practitioners themselves, health practitioners. So the question for the Minister is really: what is the rush here? How did he determine that urgency was required? Did he consider the sensitivities of this particular bill, that Maōri wouldn’t have the opportunity to contribute, that his health colleagues alike—and I think about practitioners like Rawiri Jansen, you know; like my better half, Dr Anthony Jordan, you know; like my tuahine Lily Fraser—good Maōri health practitioners that have the same goal, no doubt, Minister, that you have in mind. They don’t tend to have the politics, but, most of all, to address the health inequities in our system, they will support you to achieve. I just ask you again: did you consider this in making this decision in urgency? Is it purely political? How do you intend to recover from that to ensure that our health practitioner voice is a part of this when we look at the commencement dates, albeit months away?

Madam Chair, I feel a bit nervous talking about the Waitangi Tribunal hearing without a ruling in regards to what Kieran McAnulty just—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s OK if you just stick to the timing of it for this—at this point.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you. And I do think that that is another sensitive point—that through this process of urgency we haven’t allowed that process to occur where Māori will go to raise their concerns, where we will be able to debate in this Chamber, actually, the evidence that comes before that hearing, and it’s a missed opportunity in this debate. I go back to the way I started, that this debate is about Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s about everyone and certainly it’s about Maōri health outcomes as an important part, but the missed opportunity here is the opportunity for everyone—Maōri, non-Maōri, health practitioners alike—to contribute.

So I’m concerned that while the goals may be there for the Minister, his approach to this and the influence of politics on choosing to move this through agency is where my questions lie.

I want to help the Minister out here with regards to the title and also have a bit of a kōrero about our commencement date. I saw that the Hon Peeni Henare gave a very useful recommendation in terms of what the new name of the bill should be. It’s called Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill; he wants to call it “Pae Mate”.

I would respectfully disagree with the former Minister. I’d get rid of all of the Māori words altogether, and I think a better name would be the “Pākehā Māori Health Authority”. No disrespect to the Hon Peeni Henare, but I think it would be a better title that the Minister should consider given the rhetoric we have heard from this Government with regards to Māori names being at the front of anything. We don’t want to upset the Hon Winston Peters here.

So that’s why this is a serious recommendation, because I think if we rename this the “Pākehā Māori Health Authority Amendment Bill”, then everybody would be happy because, you know, we can’t push the Māori language out there. We’ve changed—what did we change?—Waka Kotahi. Well, we got rid of that and we’re getting rid of the different Māori names right across the spectrum. So, I’m seriously saying—although I do like what the former Minister Hon Peeni Henare said: “Pae Mate”. I think if we’re going to go down the reo side, that might be a good description. The Government should be brave here and stick to their guns. They’ve made it very clear that they have no time for te reo Māori. They are making changes everywhere; some of our Māori language speakers out there are not going to be compensated for their expertise in terms of te reo Māori, so they should be true to that and put a title up that encapsulates the philosophy of this Government at the moment.

So I’d like the Minister to seriously consider that title change. Don’t use our reo when it suits; just go down the track that you’ve been going down—that the Government’s been going down—and call it what it is. I think I heard from someone from the Māori Party there, my good friend over there, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who said that this is about encapsulating whakaaro Pākehā. So call it a Pākehā name, an English name, and everybody on that side of the House will be happy: the “Pākehā Māori Health Authority”.

In terms of the date, 30 June, I do not get this date. I’d ask the Minister to reconsider this. This is an affront to te ao Māori, to our Waitangi Tribunal—and thank you for the clarification with regards to the tribunal. This tribunal is very dear to many of us; very dear to us, very dear to our people who have nowhere to go sometimes. They have nowhere to go so they put all their eggs in the basket—our koroua and kuia through the years. Some of them have mortgaged their homes in terms of taking their submissions to the tribunal, and I would ask this date to be reconsidered—two more days.

It is very personal to us; very personal to me, the tribunal. I was the Minister who appointed many of these tribunal members over the previous three years; many of them are good Pākehā people like Professor David Williams, who has been an advocate for kaupapa Māori. We know all our other people on there, like Professor Linda Smith, Derek Fox, who I appointed last year. These are people who have given their life to the tribunal, who are being denied the opportunity to critique this properly.

Yes, they’ll be doing it, but they’ll be doing it after the event. It upsets them and it upsets us as a Māori nation, as Māori people right across the spectrum. So much time into this tribunal, and here their mana has been walked over right now.

So I ask the Minister: why the rush? Why couldn’t we wait a couple of days to show the due respect to a tribunal that has been very much a part of our people’s lives? Kia ora, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Hon Kieran McAnulty, for your patience. It is true that the prohibition on reference to proceeding in Standing Order 116 applies in respect of New Zealand court and the tribunal is not in that category. Members need to consider whether it’s in the public interest to discuss such matters, and I’m aware that the matter is live before the tribunal and that is relevant. I suggest the way forward is for members to share valuable insights that they may have become aware of in light of the tribunal’s work, but please avoid directly citing material as it is part of the tribunal’s proceedings. I would also remind members that we are on a part of this bill that’s around title and commencement, and we want to keep this part of the discussions in the Parliament to title and commencement. If it’s about the tribunal not being able to have that opportunity, then that is relevant to this piece of the legislation.

Point of order. Madam Chair, this is actually a really important point, because the starting place in debate is that this House is free to discuss any matter, and the ruling you’ve made is of considerable significance in curtailing that right. Now, the Speakers’ rulings are clear, and at 38/6 it makes it very clear that “The House is not debarred from discussing a matter that is before a royal commission as would be the case if [it] were before [the courts].” Now, the Waitangi Tribunal is a standing commission of inquiry with recommendatory powers only, and your ruling is now cutting directly across an existing Speaker’s ruling. I think, with the utmost respect, Madam Chair, that this needs to be looked at with real care, because the Waitangi Tribunal is entirely distinct from a court and the sub judice rule has no part to play. I would refer the House to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand at section 19.9.3, which lists the bodies to which the sub judice rule applies in an exhaustive fashion, and it does not include any tribunal, any commission, any commission of inquiry. This is a very important point about the privilege of this House to debate topics freely and refer to any material it chooses, so I would respectfully suggest that the utmost care be taken before making any ruling on the admissibility of any matter, including evidence that is before the tribunal.

Hūhana Lyndon: Madam Chair, point of order.

I’m just going to respond to the Hon Duncan Webb, so just bear with me for a second. It is true that the House is not debarred from that discussion; that is accepted. But I’m asking members to exercise restraint out of respect for that institution. Please consider whether it is appropriate to directly state that the material being used is part of a submission. That’s all I’m asking for, the respect for that institution, and also reminding members that we are talking about title and commencement in this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hūhana Lyndon: Point of order, in addition, please, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a new point of order?

It is a kōrero tāpiri. I am new to the House, but I wanted to share with the Speaker that at 6 o’clock last night the Waitangi Tribunal notified applicants and the Crown that it vacated the inquiry so is no longer live. It ended last night at 6 p.m. due to the jurisdiction, so just wanting to note that.

Yes, I’m aware of that—I’m aware of that, yeah, and I just ask members to bear that in mind. Thank you.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you very much for what was clearly a considered response to both my point of order and that raised by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Just for absolute clarity, your response to Dr Duncan Webb was an amendment to your original ruling, and I think it goes some way to addressing the concerns that we raised, but for the absolute clarity of the House, I just want it to be made clear that what you responded to the point of order from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb overrules the advice that you originally gave. That original advice was slightly more restrictive than where you’ve landed now, and I don’t think that—given the importance of this, we can’t have any confusion as to where we stand.

Yeah, no, look, accepting what the member’s saying, all I’m asking is for members to exercise restraint out of respect for the institution, but also to remember that we are talking about title and commencement here as well. So that’s where we’re at. If someone’s got a call on that basis, I’ll take it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are discussing title and commencement, and I wanted to take a moment to speak to my Amendment Paper because I have a specific amendment around the commencement date. My amendment would move the commencement date from 30 June 2024 to 30 June 2025. There is a very specific reason I’ve put this amendment in place. I’ve been discussing this legislation with members of my community who work in the health sector—and I see we’re having a switch, so it’s Mr Chair now. So I’ve been discussing the removal of the Māori Health Authority with health leaders in my community, who have shared concerns with me. One of the matters they’ve specifically raised with me is that providers who have been receiving direct funding from the Māori Health Authority have actually been rushing over the last few weeks to complete what we call in the sector “the accountability documentation”. For those new to the House, or new to this, who are watching, the accountability documentation is documentation that NGOs, community providers, have to provide to funders.

So the reason I raised this in relation to the commencement date is that we’ve also had discussion and there has been reports since the introduction of the Māori Health Authority that have focused on, I guess, the effectiveness of the authority in its infancy. We’ve been talking about its infancy. One of the things I would like to recognise is that when you do introduce new agencies, new organisations, there is always a transition time where it takes time for things to get up to speed.

One of the reasons I am asking the Minister to seriously consider delaying the implementation of this legislation is because I know those agencies that have received funding have actually just been completing their accountability documentation. What that would do would allow health officials and others who assess it—like the Treasury, for example—to be able to look at that accountability documentation that providers are currently working on and assess it and determine if this bill actually needs to be put in place, or if there are other changes we would potentially like to make to it.

Because we are pushing this through under urgency, we don’t have that select committee process, and there are matters that could normally be considered. I think one of the things that is really important is to actually get a sense check—is the authority working? Is it working as we intended? So a delay in the commencement date of a year would allow that to happen. So that’s why I’ve specifically put in place this amendment, from 30 June 2024 to 30 June 2025. Because when I’ve been talking to providers and to health leaders who work in the health system in my community of Nelson, they have raised that concern with me around the speed of the legislation, both coming through the House but also its implementation time frame—so on the back of those accountability documents. And we all know they look at saying, “Have the outcomes been delivered? Has the money been spent in the intention it was supposed to be spent?”

I think, if health officials—the Treasury, the Minister, and his officials—were to see the outcomes that had been delivered by some of those providers, it may lead to a rethink on whether, first of all, this bill is even needed in the first place, whether there were other tweaks that could be made to it, whether we said, “Actually, we’re not going to introduce it like we are now; we’re going to do something slightly different.” And I think it would allow everyone to take a breath. Because I think that’s what we need to do here: we need to take a breath. Because I think we’re hearing from—within the House—the voices of our communities who are saying, “This has not even had its opportunity to shine, this authority. Give it some time. Give it some time to breathe. Give it some time to grow.”

So this is probably the last opportunity I will have in the Chamber to speak on this very important bill. And I just want to place on record, as a Pākehā New Zealander whose father was one of the first Pākehā leaders in the health system in New Zealand to sit on a committee as the only Pākehā leader to work on Māori health initiatives by Māori, for Māori, I am so proud of his contribution—he is devastated and I am devastated. This is a shameful, shameful bill, and I bring the voice of my father, Jonathan Boyack, and his mahi into Māori health in New Zealand, here, today, to say, “We should not pass this bill.”

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. I am wanting to speak to the title of the bill, if I may, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry to interrupt. Just because a new speaker is speaking on a matter they haven’t spoken on before—when we look at repetition, we look at who else in the debate has spoken on the same thing. Just a wee reminder that new to the member is not new to the debate. So I’ll just start your time again. I apologise for that.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have the perhaps terrifying task of disagreeing with the more experienced members in this House from the same side, Peeni Henare and Willie Jackson. But in the context of what I will propose as the title for this bill, there has to be an understanding of the foundational obligation we have in allowing the fulfilment of tino rangatiratanga for Māori, which is a constitutional, foundational basis. This bill is taking away that right of self-determination for Māori in terms of their health.

In my original speaking to the first reading, I referenced Joseph Banks in 1770, who acknowledged the excellent health of Māori as he perceived them: their diet was “accompanied with moderation” and “must be productive of sound health, which indeed these people are blessed with in a very high degree”. But he made a very interesting other observation. He said, “Such health drawn from so sound principles must make physicians almost useless.” His observation was there was no need for doctors, but he wrongly perceived that there was not already medicine being practised by Māori. There were obviously tohunga, there were obviously rongoā, practices being made.

This is what brings me to the suggestion of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke that this should be called the “Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0”, because what it does is it fails to recognise that Māori have their own mātauranga, have their own knowledge and systems of understanding how best to apply health to their people. When they had free rein to do it, they had the most excellent health that could be observed.

So that is my suggestion. The context also for this, Mr Chair—and I realise you’ve asked me to keep it tight, so I will—is that underlying the logic behind the removal of the Māori Health Authority is the snake oil equality concept that for us to be more equal we have to take away the rights of another group, and the group from whom we’re taking the rights is the group who have the supposed privilege of dying seven years younger than non-Māori, of having twice the rate of cardiovascular disease of non-Māori; who have the privilege of having child health impacts at 1.5 times the rate of non-Māori. So that lie that somehow there is special privilege here in recognising the right of Māori to determine their own health and manage their own health is absolutely betrayed by this bill and is why it should be called the “Tohunga Suppression Act 2.0”. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start this contribution by saying that in my first contribution, I was talking directly to the title, to the name; and, in my second contribution, to the commencement. In my first contribution, I was trying to talk to the title, to the name, to the importance of kupu, of words, of symbolism, of meaning. I have carefully considered the direction from the previous Chair that it is at my discretion whether I use any of the kōrero that we have from the Waitangi Tribunal in this debate. And I believe that the kōrero I was trying to share is absolutely relevant to the legislation that we are debating today, under urgency—shortly going to be passed.

So, with that—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If that’s sort of an inferred question, then I have followed fully the debate to date, and what I’ll be looking for is a reference frequently to any material to the title and commencement.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Absolutely. So, given that I was stopped in my contribution earlier, I would like to return to the contribution I was making about the word “aka”, and why it is important, and why I believe it should be in the title. I agree with the suggestion from the Hon Peeni Henare that the name should be changed to “Pae Mate”, and that Te Aka Whai Ora should be referenced in the title. I heard the Minister’s explanation for why it is just the Māori Health Authority, but he can choose to put whatever additional words he would like to put in there—he can hyphenate it if he likes.

Now, I have been provided this kōrero. They are happy for me to use this kōrero here. So I am referring to uncle Waihoroi Shortland, who says, “When I look at Te Aka Whai Ora, I take the notion quite literally. In Ngāti Hine tradition, te aka kūmara is that part of plant that ensures the health of the crop it produces. It is the part of the kūmara plant which provides sustenance from above and below the ground. For Ngāti Hine, the kūmara is synonymous with the people. Therefore, Te Aka Whai Ora was seen as a means of delivering wellbeing to the people. The aka root system is unseen—it is underground. It ensures the crop will be healthy, will be worth harvesting, and then will sustain the people above the ground. When you look at the connectivity of the parts of the kūmara, the only means through which to maintain the health and wellbeing of the kūmara itself is what the aka is able to do. You do not know what is happening below the earth, but you can assess it based on what is happening above the earth. At a point in time, the foliage will wither—the crop is ready to harvest. We can rejoice in how good the crop is and take the seedlings to generate the next year’s crop. The future crop is always envisaged as being better than this year’s. A good aka will deliver good, healthy people—people well-sustained to enhance the wellness of all it serves. Good Government investment in Te Aka Whai Ora means the people can thrive. Te Aka Whai Ora’s job is to get the investment to deliver a robust crop. So the notion that Te Aka Whai Ora not being there and not being part of the system that nourishes the crop at the end of the aka is tantamount to leaving the fruit to die on the vine.”

So, with that contribution and those words from our uncle Waihoroi Shortland, I support Peeni Henare’s suggestion that we, in fact, change the title of this legislation to “Pae Mate”—the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora: the Maōri Health Authority.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading