Sharples Pita: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Sharples Pita: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:630;Page:2536] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party rises today to speak to the motion. The provisions earmarked within the 2004-05 appropriations for Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the associated draft budgets reflect an important principle within the democratic process: the importance of independence. 
We come to this financial review debate spurred on by the report of the United Nations special rapporteur. That report demonstrates the importance of independence integrity and capability—the capacity to stand outside and make an informed contribution. Mr Rodolfo Stavenhagen has confirmed in his report many of the issues raised by the Maori Party within the House and within the general public arena. They include issues relating to the Treaty settlements to education to the foreshore and seabed to MMP and the entrenchment of the Maori seats to human rights and of course to the position of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to our country’s constitution. 
It is of no surprise that the Government has chosen to react to the report with hotheaded retorts that the committee should be abolished and replaced because of its “ill odour” that the rapporteur is out of touch with New Zealand that the report has been ghost-written and that the people who have contributed to the report are a collection of “academic radicals”. It is in fact irrelevant that the Government chooses to deny the value of an external expert opinion. All that urging to make us believe the report is fundamentally wrong just consolidates even more the view of thinking New Zealanders that the Government has made some fatal errors in imposing the Foreshore and Seabed Act on this nation. 
The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment have the same responsibility that the special rapporteur has to demonstrate the importance of independence of integrity and of the capacity to stand outside and make an informed contribution. The Maori Affairs Committee had the opportunity to receive the assessment from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General on Te Puni Kokiri. The briefing we received from the office told us that Te Puni Kokiri had received a “good” assessment from the office for its financial and service performance during the 2004-05 financial year. Like my colleague from the National Party Tau Henare I question how the assessment can be “good”. 
Te Puni Kokiri appears to have moved its focus and resources away from its monitoring role. How can it be “good” that an agency does not take seriously its responsibilities under section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act and is instead downsizing its monitoring role? Section 5 of that Act states: “(1) The responsibilities of the Ministry of Maori Development include—(a) Promoting increases in the levels of achievement attained by Maori with respect to—(i) Education: (ii) Training and employment: (iii) Health: (iv) Economic resource development: (b) Monitoring and liaising with each department and agency that provides or has a responsibility to provide services to or for Maori for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of those services.” The report that the special rapporteur has presented to this country cites “the underlying institutional and structural discrimination that Maori have long suffered.” How will the Government and how will Parliament ever be able to respond to that underlying discrimination unless Te Puni Kokiri provides us with the information to be able to make an informed judgment on that? 
The report from the special rapporteur recommends that the social delivery services particularly in health and housing must continue to be specifically targeted and tailored to the needs of Maori. He urges that there be more targeted research evaluation and statistical databases—exactly what the Maori Party has said from the beginning. That is the sort of criticism we would expect from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. On thinking about some of the knee-jerk reaction from Labour and National alike to the report there was one thing I agreed with: the concern that we have had to wait for an independent outside expert to tell us about the disparities and discrimination that occur right underneath our noses here in Aotearoa. 
In relation to the 2004-05 appropriation I briefly refer—like my colleague here—to the work programme of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The baseline increase of $400000 for 2005-06 to restore and maintain core capability is targeted to allow the office to expand its capacity to address citizens’ concerns relating to the Resource Management Act 1991 review functions. 
The Maori Party wants to give particular emphasis to the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in constructing a genuine progress index. The Maori Party has advocated for a genuine progress index—“GPI”—as providing a measure of comprehensive sustainable and inclusive advancement. The genuine progress index distinguishes between positive contributions to progress such as the building of schools and negative activity such as the building of prisons. It recognises voluntary and other activities that contribute to the expression of positive social and cultural values including all of the kaupapa that guide our party. Within the genuine progress index we see that time and resources given to family and whanau care are included in the positive outcomes. The same can be said for marae and other community activities that include whakawhanaungatanga and the expression of other values. Health promotion is positive. The use of time and resources for treating addictions though necessary is a negative. 
The genuine progress index is an indicator of net advancement and progress. The Maori Party supports the development of genuine progress indices for use at national and community levels including their use by whanau hapu iwi and district and regional councils. In that respect we are very interested in the advances of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in working with the New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics at Massey University. The centre is looking to develop a genuine progress index for New Zealand as a more comprehensive indicator of progress towards sustainable development than GDP. We understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is contributing staff resources towards that project. We believe that the initiative by the commissioner is exactly the type of initiative and proactive direction that we would expect to see from an office that understands the importance of independence and integrity and of the capacity to stand outside and make an informed contribution. 
The Maori Party supports that project as being an excellent initiative to bring about a sea change—a transformation for the better. We believe that the shift to a genuine progress index will require a shift in perception and understanding on the part of many people and organisations in New Zealand today and we support that work. We have a whakatauaki that I believe offers some inspiration in considering the issue of sustainable futures plainly: “Haere i mua mo haritaonga; waiho i muri titiro kau ana—go in front for a treasure load; leave those behind who would only look.” 
Motion agreed to. 
Address adopted.