Paraone Pita: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParaone Pita: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5609. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Tēnā koe. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member—you can go for dinner. Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Tēnā koe te Whare. Kia ora mai tātou tēnā tātou katoa. Members before the dinner break we were debating Vote Arts Culture and Heritage Vote Internal Affairs Vote Māori Development Vote Pacific Peoples Vote Sport and Recreation Vote Statistics Vote Treaty Negotiations and Vote Women and matua Pita Paraone had the call. All but 4 seconds of it was cast in the pre-dinner break but he has 4 minutes and 56 seconds remaining should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.PITA PARAONE: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I ask for the 4 seconds to be added on to my—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No. I am sorry there is no discount.PITA PARAONE: —lot because I had difficulty understanding from your predecessor his pronunciation of my name and I took time to correct him.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well I hope that you have not had that problem with me. You have 4 minutes and 56 seconds remaining.PITA PARAONE: Tēnā koe Mr Chairman. Reluctantly I will have to accept that. Before the dinner break the speaker before me Chris Finlayson had a bit of a hissy fit at the comments that my leader had made. Quite clearly he took them out of context because reverting to diversions and straw men in some vain attempt to avert attention from cross-expenditure items to individual Treaty settlement negotiations simply will not do. What Mr Peters was referring to—and he did not name any names other than to say that two of the negotiators had received in excess of $1 million during the period of their tenure as negotiators. That was the only comment that he made. If people want to know the details of what each negotiator got I am quite prepared to table that but that is public knowledge so I do not need to do that.I want to focus particularly on the area of Whānau Ora. That was some discussion during the review of the Māori affairs portfolio. Right from the outset New Zealand First has had some doubts about the programme and how that fund has been used. I want to say that in the 2015-16 Budget $50 million was added to the Whānau Ora programme. The question that I am asking this Committee and perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett may be able to give me some answer is that in terms of receiving that $50 million for this programme no evidence and no application was actually made for the funds. If I was an operator in another ministry I would certainly be asking: “Why is it that if I want extra money for my ministry I have to put up a case for it and yet for Māori development they get that extra money without any evidence as to justifying the need for that extra money?”.The other thing that came out during the review when asked of the officials what the major task was in order for Whānau Ora to progress onwards was the answer that they needed to inform the public as to what Whānau Ora was all about. We found that quite surprising given that this programme has been around for some time and here we have officials having to tell us that the public are not quite sure of what Whānau Ora is all about. I just want to have it on record that this is I think pandering to the wishes of a particular political party rather than looking at the issues and whether or not Whānau Ora is a programme that justifies extra funding without a proper case being put to have that extra money.I also want to say that in advancing Whānau Ora I note that the Ministry of Health has put together some comparisons in terms of some of the programmes that the health ministry is responsible for. I need to say that Whānau Ora providers compare very well with general providers so in some respects that is a good point for Whānau Ora to carry on. But at the end of the day what our concern is from New Zealand First is whether or not the funding that has been allocated to that programme is properly administered. As we in this Committee all know if funds are not properly administered then the whole programme falters. We certainly do not want to see that under our watch.In terms of the Treaty settlements I just want to make the comment that although a number of settlements have been made—