Flavell Te Ururoa: Regulatory Responsibility Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Regulatory Responsibility Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10308] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora ano tatou katoa i te po nei. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to all of us again tonight. 
]  
The Maori Party welcomes the focus of responsible regulatory management as an opportunity to debate principles. We share an interest in the study of Acts and regulations seeking to observe and preserve principles that will enhance the law in a way that is coherent and workable. Uppermost in our analysis of any bill will be whether the legislation aligns with kaupapa and tikanga Maori. 
We do not have any argument as such with the rationale for this Regulatory Responsibility Bill to respond to the fact that too many Acts and regulations are a result of undue haste poor quality processes and inadequate scrutiny. Clause 6 of the bill and subclause (2)(f) in particular reinforces kotahitanga the principles of unity of purpose and direction. We absolutely agree that Acts and regulations should be written in such a way as to avoid imprecision and complexity thereby enhancing the likelihood of citizens being able to understand and comply with the law. Helping ordinary people to understand laws by moving away from legal jargon to plain English is to be applauded and it is a move that the Maori Party at least fully supports. But we are not convinced that this bill is the only vehicle for achieving that change. 
Clause 6 in particular has generated some concern for us; subclause (2)(f)(vi) to be precise. It states that one principle of regulatory management is that Acts and regulations: “respect the principle of equality under the law to which end legislation is to be general and abstract and is not to confer rights or benefits on particular categories of persons per se whether on the basis of gender race creed religion time place or otherwise.” 
We have a saying: “kia ngaki i te mate” which loosely interpreted means “to make right that which is wrong”. The provision of affirmative action is consistent with such a principle. It is a means of balancing out an uneven playing field; a field in which one-half of New Zealand owns 95 percent of our total net worth. And the other half? Well unsurprisingly it is Pasifika peoples and Maori the young and the members of single-parent families who are left to fight it out for the remaining 5 percent of our national wealth. As it stands clause 6(2)(f)(vi) disallows legislation from conferring “rights or benefits” on particular categories of persons. We believe that this point needs some consideration. 
You see the clearest statement about the equality of New Zealanders is in article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi where the Crown extends to Maori the Queen’s protection affording to Maori “all the rights and privileges of British subjects”. The ideal that everybody is equal should of course translate into people being treated the same but there are enough examples to demonstrate that this is not actually the reality for many many people. Just this morning it was reported that there is a rate of pay for workers being dubbed “the South Auckland rate” and guess what? The rate is less than that paid in any other part of the country where the firm concerned has outlets. Further the workers are the working poor many of whom are Maori and Pasifika. 
Equality depends on that level playing field—the basis from which one assesses the right to equality. As any analysis of our nation today would confirm all are not equal. Just as wealth is not evenly distributed so too are many of the victims of crime. Unsurprisingly again those most at risk from crime are Maori and Pasifika peoples the young the single solo parents—those living in the most deprived deciles of our community. 
What this nation really needs to engage in is a debate about how substantive equality is achieved in practice. Equity of outcomes may require differential treatment because we know that justice is not served by a simple matter of equality of treatment. 
We have considered seriously the bill presented by the ACT party and we were certainly keen to cooperate in supporting different ideas and different views going to the policy table as a part of the formula of the MMP environment. But we need to say that any proposal that cuts across initiatives to support the poor the brown and the disadvantaged minority cultures is not a proposal that we believe to be in the best interests of a healthy nation. We will be looking at this matter very closely. 
Finally regarding the rights of people there are already well-established principles we think that are meant to protect the individual rights and the collective rights of indigenous peoples as recognised at common law. Unless this bill specifically recognises indigenous rights experience shows that they will not be protected and indeed that they would be subordinated to the individual property rights of Pakeha as happened in the foreshore and seabed legislation. Therefore I say to Mr Hide that the question for the ACT party would be whether it is willing to acknowledge the distinct nature of indigenous rights and thus acknowledge the broader notion of tino rangatiratanga. 
The Maori Party has considered Mr Hide’s bill and will support the motion for it to go to a select committee in the hope that it opens up the debate but we ask that the concerns we have expressed at this point in time be taken cognisance of. We like Mr Tanczos appreciate the efforts made by Mr Hide to consult us over this matter. Kia ora tatou.