Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:651;Page:724] 
11.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Kua tau nga whakaaro o te Minita ki te arotahi o Te Puni Kokiri mo te pumanawa nohopuku Maori? 
[ 
Is the Minister satisfied with the focus of Te Puni Kokiri on Maori potential? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
Katahi ano ka timata nga korero a nga apiha o Te Puni Kokiri ki a ahau. Haere pai ana nga korero engari ka marama pai ahau ki tenei kaupapa te pumanawa nohopuku Maori a  he pai ki ahau. He tino pai ki ahau tenei pumanawa ataahua. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have not had an interpretation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Quite right. I beg your pardon. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Talks between Te Puni Kokiri officials and me have just commenced. Good progress has been made and I am better informed about the Maori Potential Approach. I am impressed by it. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What does he consider has been achieved by the Maori Potential Approach? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The Maori Potential Approach has promoted a conscious shift across Government—also a mind-shift—identifying positive outcomes for Maori going forward and has provided a very strong platform for effective relationships between Maori and the Government. It was developed from within the Te Puni Kokiri policy area and has its focus totally on the positive areas. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how the Government’s law that takes away the rights of workers in their first 90 days can possibly help Maori reach their full potential? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: As the Minister of Maori Affairs— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just check with you about the relevance of that question to the primary question. The primary question focused on Te Puni Kokiri and its approach into the future. I want to check whether the question from the previous Minister is appropriate under that banner. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The primary question asked whether the Minister was satisfied in terms of the focus by Te Puni Kokiri on Maori potential. That opens up questions around Maori potential and indeed on advice that the Minister may have received on certain matters relating to Maori potential. I realise it could be a difficult question but it is perfectly in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes that the primary question does have a range of possible openings in it. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Our party as a party spoke against that law and as a Minister seeking to promote potential amongst the community I also voted against it. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How does the Minister think the Government’s tax changes can possibly help Maori reach their full potential when the vast majority of Maori who earn between $24000 and $44000 are worse off because of the law he supported last week? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I do not think they help Maori at all but Maori are not worse off and let us be clear about that; they are still in exactly the same position. But I would point out that those changes were part of the agreement on confidence and supply that we entered into and we know exactly where we are on that issue. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Did the Minister receive any advice from his Maori Party MPs on what benefits will be delivered to Maori earning between $24000 and $44000 that will lift Maori potential? 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following the line taken by other members earlier the question asked about the views of the Maori Party and that is outside the realm of ministerial responsibility. I ask you to consider that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The question asked whether the Minister had received advice from certain people. Who those people are is actually quite irrelevant. One could ask whether the Minister had received advice from these people those people or any people. It was a perfectly legitimate question. Ministers may seek advice from anybody. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: As a member who is new to challenging some of the decisions in our House I noted earlier Mr Speaker that you talked about parties explaining party policy. The question talked about members of the Maori Party and under that view is the question still relevant and in order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am happy to rule on this point of order. In so far as the Minister was asking whether the Minister had received advice from anyone that is a perfectly fair question and the answer can be yes or no as to whether there was advice. But asking about advice from party people as distinct from officials would not be in order because the Minister has no responsibility for any advice he might receive from party members. He does have responsibility for advice he receives from officials. I am sure members will understand the difference. Members can ask him as Minister whom he received advice from; the answer to that may be yes or no. But only advice from officials is relevant to his role as Minister. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I certainly do not want to question your ruling but I would like to seek some clarification. Of course it would be completely inappropriate to ask Dr Sharples about National Party policy because Dr Sharples is a co-leader of the Maori Party. We have always been able to ask questions about Mr Key and National Party policy. Mr Key asked questions about the previous Prime Minister and Labour Party policy because obviously she was the leader of the Labour Party in the House. So it does seem to me that we would be in a rather strange position if a Maori Party co-leader who is a Minister cannot be asked questions about matters relating to Maori Party policy and input from his colleagues on policy. Similar questions to those have been asked in the past in the context of the Labour Party the National Party or whatever party it may be. We now just happen to have Ministers who are not members of one of the two major parties. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is almost a contradiction of what Dr Cullen has so eloquently argued in the past. It would seem that the question simply is whether question time is confined to Dr Sharples’ responsibilities as a Minister or whether it is open to members asking Dr Sharples anything about anything he has spoken of in a political sense. I would make a strong case as Dr Cullen has done in the past for delineating between the responsibilities that Helen Clark had as leader of the Labour Party as opposed to her responsibilities as Prime Minister and suggest that in Dr Sharples’ case his responsibilities as a Minister inside that portfolio or any of the portfolios for which he is responsible should be the limit of reach in the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If one was asking about Dr Sharples’ interaction with his colleagues about a matter outside his ministerial portfolio then to object to that would be perfectly appropriate. But the question was about his discussion with his colleagues about matters inside his portfolio—that is in relation to the actual nature of the question asked which was about Maori potential. That is broad but then that is the very nature of a policy ministry; it covers a very wide range of areas and any areas that are relevant within that ministry’s work can come up. Mr Speaker I would find your ruling very strange because if we take that point then we could ask Dr Sharples whether he had sought advice from various iwi leaders about Maori potential and whether he had sought advice from local authorities about Maori potential but not whether he had sought advice from his own Maori Party colleagues about Maori potential. I would find that a very strange position for us to end up in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that members have raised a serious issue and it is obviously one that we need to think about very carefully. The Minister clearly has responsibility for Government policy but he is not responsible for members of the Maori Party in this House because those members are not party to the Government in that regard. He has no responsibility as a Minister for the actions of the Maori Party. That is where we have to be a little careful and I want to be very careful in my ruling not to expand what has traditionally been the accepted scope of question time. As I said before I saw nothing wrong with the Minister being asked who had given him advice but the question as I heard it related to the nature of what certain Maori Party people had said to the Minister. I believe that the point of order raised by Te Ururoa Flavell was a valid one in that the Minister is not accountable in this House for the advice given to him by those Maori Party members. If it had been official advice—from officials—that would be different. I do not believe I have changed the accepted interpretation of the Standing Orders. I am very happy to discuss the issue further with members of the Opposition because it is an important issue and it is not going to go away and I want to make sure that I am fair to all sides of the House. But on this occasion I will accept the point of order of Te Ururoa Flavell and rule the question out of order. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Did the Minister receive advice from any Government Maori MPs on the benefits of what would be delivered to Maori earning between $24000 and $44000 to lift Maori potential; if so did he agree with that advice? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is absolutely at liberty to answer the question in a way that he chooses. “Yes.” was a perfectly adequate answer. He does not need to add to it. 
Hekia Parata 
: Ka pehea te Minita Maori mohio ai ki te tutuki angitu te pumanawa tipuranga Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
How will the Minister of Maori Affairs know when Maori potential is being successfully achieved? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kua hangaia e Te Puni Kokiri nga tikanga kia taea e tatou te kite kua haere pewhea tenei kaupapa. Ka taea tatou te kite i te pumanawa o te Maori hei te wa ka tu rangatira ai te Maori i roto i ana kaupapa matauranga oranga tangata whakahaere kaipakihi me te hanga whakataunga ia ra ia ra mo tona ake oranga a komua me te eke ki enei taumata ia ra ia ra kare anake i te wa kotahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Te Puni Kokiri has created measures that will enable us to assess where the potential is. We will see Maori succeeding in education in improved health and well-being in owning and operating their own businesses and in making powerful decisions every day about their quality of life in the future. Achieving these will become a daily thing not just something done on a one-off basis. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ki te Minita he aha etahi huarahi ke atu e whakaarohia nei hei whakahihiko i te ara pumawana mo taua te Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What robust changes will he make to the Maori Potential Approach for us in Maoridom? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Mai ra ano Te Puni Kokiri e rapu tikanga kia tutuki ai nga wawata nga tikanga tumanako o te iwi ahakoa ko wai te kawanatanga tenei kawanatanga tetahi atu. Ko te mahi nui maku pea te tuhituhi i nga tikanga a te kawanatanga nei me nga kaupapa here o te tari ki nga wawata ki nga tumanako o te iwi Maori. Kia haere ngatahi ai i te whakaaro kotahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Te Puni Kokiri has for a very long time looked at strategies whereby people’s hopes and aspirations are fulfilled regardless of who is in Government— whether it is this one or that one. The most important thing for me to do is perhaps to align this Government’s manifesto and the department’s policies in respect to the aspirations and hopes of the Maori people so that they go together with the same thought in mind. 
]