Flavell Te Ururoa: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2153] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I rise to make a few points about the bill based on concerns about its process content and themes. It took just 43 minutes to sign away a managed approach to economic development in New Zealand’s first multi-party agreement with the Asia-Pacific region. My understanding is that three submissions were made to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee all of which expressed concerns about the process and substance of the agreement with one stating that it was “ill-conceived and irresponsible” and another claiming that the scrutiny given to the agreement was insufficient. Comments were made on the limited time frame and the hearings committee was urged to conduct an independent inquiry. Those comments reflected the context of criticism that the Government received when challenged about the secrecy of the process associated with establishing New Zealand’s closer economic partnership with Singapore. 
How did committee members respond? They reported that a standard approach was used in that they had advertised for submissions in national newspapers. It seems to me that the level of opposition contained in those three submissions even on their own should have provoked the committee to take a more proactive approach and not just to apply the old standard formula. It is hard to engender any confidence in how an agreement spanning four countries across Asia and the Pacific will improve strategic and economic opportunities for Aotearoa. 
In the first and second debates on the bill the Maori Party attempted to describe tangata whenua history and the experiences of strategic economic partnerships nation to nation. I myself talked about the impact the agreement could have on Brunei’s indigenous communities and the effects of local identity becoming subsumed under flows of global trade colonialism and assumptions of universalism. My esteemed colleague Dr Sharples also raised the thorny question of definition and interpretation of Treaty responsiveness—the application of the Treaty of Waitangi in international trade and tariff agreements. 
Today we want to focus more particularly on the international treaty examination that was undertaken in the report to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The Maori Party has taken particular note of the advice and analysis provided by Professor Jane Kelsey from the law faculty at the University of Auckland. Professor Kelsey described the agreement as the latest attempt to bind the policy options of present and future New Zealand Governments to a global liberalisation agenda that is facing a crisis. She advised the committee that global trade and investment liberalisation is not delivering on poverty reduction and that the trade agreements restrict the Government’s ability to regulate in several areas. 
Again the select committee’s response was fascinating in terms of what it did not say. The report states: “… the Government is aware of trends in the global political economy and the limits of what is possible for a small country.” I am wondering where the reference is to poverty which is a key outcome of possible arrangements like that. My research tells me that at the United Nations millennium summit in 2000 all nations agreed to put effort into halving extreme poverty by the year 2015. The Maori Party believes it is all about priorities. Global military expenditure last year was US$1035 billion—on average more than $2.8 billion every day. The need for all Governments rich or poor to reprioritise their spending to meet human security rather than military security has been agreed by United Nations member States since 1945 but it has not been put into practice. By neglecting to mention it we certainly do not address it let alone reduce poverty. 
That tendency to fail to mention to ignore or to be silent on things that matter is a theme the Maori Party has been returning to over and over again in its scrutiny of Government policy. When one looks for the word “Maori” in the international treaty examination for this bill—and one has to look fairly hard—one sees the references are all couched in the negative. So we see: “… there is also a general exception to ensure that the Trans-Pacific SEP will not prevent New Zealand from taking measures it deems necessary to fulfil its obligations to Maori including under the Treaty of Waitangi.” Rather than reflect or support the honouring of obligations it is worded in the negative—it fails to “prevent”. That is later diluted further: “Provided such measures are not used for trade protectionist measures the Trans-Pacific SEP also gives successive New Zealand Governments the right to adopt measures they deem necessary in relation to Maori including in fulfilment of Treaty of Waitangi obligations.” That may be just words but one has to ask what sort of measures will be considered necessary in relation to Maori. Are we talking measures to advance Maori or to impede their progress? Failure to name the positive means we will forever be hopeful that the opposite is not intended. 
Following on that theme the Cultural effects” section of the treaty examination notes that: “The Trans-Pacific SEP contains safeguards to ensure that there are no adverse effects on New Zealand cultural values including Maori interests.” The power to name our own world and to be clear in saying what we mean and what we want is absolutely central to self-determination. To take it further we asked the Government yesterday in the House what it means to live and succeed as Maori—a simple enough question one would have thought and clearly one that most New Zealanders understand. As reported by a UMR Insight survey released on Tuesday there was strong overall agreement—in fact 66 percent agreed and 12 percent disagreed—with the statement that: “In addition to having the same rights as all New Zealanders Maori have the right to live as Maori.” Clearly the people know what it means to live as Maori. 
So how did the Government respond? The response of the Minister of Justice was to say that to live as Maori was to: “… fully participate in and to have the economic social and cultural benefits of a full healthy and wholesome life in New Zealand.” Do members spot one little difference? The difference is the word “Maori”. 
Another definition comes from Dr Mason Durie who discusses the goal of living as Maori as: “… being able to have access to the Maori world that is access to language culture marae resources such as land tikanga whanau and kai moana. Being able to live as Maori means being able to identify oneself as Maori and to also be prepared to participate in Maori society. It is not simply to learn about Maori but also to live as Maori.” 
That question was not a trick question. The Maori Party has been watching the Minister of Finance exclude the word “Maori” from his Budget and watching the Minister of Foreign Affairs exclude the word “Maori” from policy on indigenous people so we thought we would aim for third time lucky. 
The celebrated Brazilian educator the late Paulo Freire believed that we should all have the freedom to name the world and he included the voiceless. He believed that possessing the ability to name the world inevitably meant that one could take action to intervene and transform the world. Since coming to this House I have become aware of the awesome power of voices we have in naming and therefore in defining the world. But the questions I ask are: whose world is it that we are defining and who are we defining it for? 
The Maori Party stands on a platform of giving voice to the voiceless and although it is a Maori voice it has resonated like the haka with non-Maori. Our belief in the voiceless naming their world is what drives us to continually go back to our people to listen and to hear what they have to say and to act for them. Being named out rendered invisible or couched in the negative is not an option. The Maori Party will stand up for the right to name Maori in this bill on strategic economic partnerships and indeed in every sphere of influence we take up. The Treaty of Waitangi means something to us. It brings with it rights and responsibilities that will not be ignored. We will not focus just on economic and trade partnerships without considering the impact on people particularly the indigenous people of the nations involved. 
"