Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16172] 
8.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How many Housing New Zealand Corporation staff following their 2-day training completed their 30 days of affirmations and meditation aimed at “deepening your understanding and application of Maori core values as explored in the Tiriti/Treaty Two-World View Framework.” and what is the total cost to date of these training courses including staff time? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Sixty-seven staff voluntarily attended a pilot training course on the history of the Treaty of Waitangi. The overall cost was $111821 which included travel and accommodation. That represents less than 0.02 percent of the corporation’s operating budget. Offering such voluntary training courses has been common across the public sector for some years as it was under the National Government—which was supported by ACT—in the 1990s. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister tell the House exactly how 30 days of affirmation and meditation about a “two-world view” helps Housing New Zealand Corporation staff provide even one New Zealander with a warmer safer drier house? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member may not like the language used by the contractor in this case. The word “meditation” I understand means thinking and the word “affirmation” means concluding. Many people do not like the language that the ACT party uses and that is why they do not vote for that party any more. I have made it clear throughout this issue that the reason the Housing New Zealand Corporation asks or encourages its staff to take opportunities to learn about its client base is that it has a very diverse client base and it serves the corporation well if its staff understand its clients’ cultures and values. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that the training course included a survey question for participants that asked them to tick “True” or “False” to the statement: “Public statements from the current Leader of the Opposition have put all initiatives targeted at Maori development under the spotlight.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is not my place to evaluate training material. I understand that training material used in courses such as this is not put in place because people approve or disapprove of points of view but rather to stimulate points of view. For example back in the 1990s the then National Government provided money to IHI Communications and Consultancy Ltd which was Donna Awatere Huata’s company and the corporation went about providing information to public servants based on Donna Awatere Huata’s material. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Why is it important for Housing New Zealand Corporation staff to have an understanding of the perspectives views and values of its clients—for example its refugee clients as well as its other clients? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an interesting question and it goes to the heart of the matter. The Housing New Zealand Corporation is a public service. It is the largest landlord in the country. It services the needs of a very diverse population and therefore it attempts to ensure that its staff are in touch with its clients’ diverse needs. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister be directing the Chief Executive of the Housing New Zealand Corporation to terminate this programme and also the requirement apparently in employment contracts that treaty awareness be taken into consideration; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member may have missed that I mentioned at the beginning that this course was a voluntary course that 67 people attended. It was a pilot course and pilot courses have evaluations. I think it is appropriate that the corporation evaluate its own training materials. In relation to the way that people are employed by the department I am advised that in no circumstances do people find themselves getting a job or being turned down for a job on the basis of their answers to questions about their treaty knowledge; they simply are asked about it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I heard nearly all the answer to that question but there was some noise at the beginning of the second part. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat the last half of the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and this time he will do it in silence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding in relation to the appointment of staff by the Housing New Zealand Corporation is that people are asked questions around issues such as the Treaty of Waitangi but in no way are their answers the basis upon which the decision is made whether they will get or not get a job. 
Heather Roy 
: In relation to his answer yesterday to a supplementary question by Gerard Eckhoff does he accept now that he has had the opportunity to see the training material concerned that under the Treaty of Waitangi Maori might reasonably have expected that: “The bulk of the country would still belong to the tribes which would rule themselves as they wished with some Pakeha settlers there by agreement and observing Maori law.” as was taught in the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s training programme for staff? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Apart from the fact as my historian colleague points out that that is a fact can I point out that material used in courses like this is used to ensure that people are stimulated to have discussion and to think about issues; it is not saying what is right and what people should think. I looked at the material. It is pretty much the same as that used by Donna Awatere Huata’s company—a member of that member’s party—back in the 1990s when that member was supporting the National Government to stimulate thinking amongst public servants then. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I wonder whether the Minister would further elaborate on that answer given the fact that I have in my hand a test from the Waitangi education programme that his staff had to sit. Would he tell the House what the correct answer is to question No. 2: “Which statement best describes the Crown’s intent of the Treaty of Waitangi? (a) It was a colonial device to take over the country and facilitate large-scale settlement of British people. (b) It was designed to provide the chiefs with a solution to the behaviour of unruly settlers. (c) It was designed to provide a settled form of civil Government in order to protect Maori and Europeans alike. (d) It was to bring the benefits of British civilisation to Maori. (e) It was designed to prevent Maori from killing each other as a result of the introduction of muskets.”; if the Minister cannot give us the correct answer why does he expect his staff to be able to do so? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned that is a very tenuous area as far as ministerial responsibility is concerned. The question itself went on for far too long but the Minister might like to give an answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take great exception to your deciding to comment on this question. I say to you that I do not accept the idea that a Minister of Housing has no responsibility for what is actually being spent by his department or the ideology that is being fed to its staff members or the fact that actually to fail this course meant that those staff members’ careers were blighted. You as Speaker have said that the Minister has only a tenuous responsibility for that; I say that he is the Minister and if he cannot answer a question that he expects his staff to answer the honourable thing for him to do is to resign. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member was taking my remark just a little bit further than I had intended it to go. The Minister can be asked about the suitability of the material. He does not actually have to say which of those options he thinks is the correct answer. He can certainly be asked about the suitability of the material. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is perfectly reasonable for me to ask the Minister whether he is able to answer the question. Only one answer is allowed under that test and I am really interested to see whether the Minister can give us that answer and a justification for it. You and I both know—we have both studied history—that that question is absolute bunkum. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the Minister comment. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The 67 people who were on this voluntary pilot course— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Answer the question! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will have the opportunity to answer what was a very long question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I noted that the member on the way through his question said that people who did not answer that question correctly had had their future careers placed at risk. It is therefore important for me to say that this voluntary course done by 67 people within the Housing New Zealand Corporation had within it questions of the kind that he just raised but I say to the member that my understanding is that that question was asked as a way of stimulating discussion. Personally I would probably have picked the answer about balance—I think it was answer (c). But my understanding is that Donna Awatere Huata’s course which the member approved of all the way through the 1990s used material to stimulate discussion; the same was done here. 
Stephen Franks 
: As the Minister is aware of the staff exam questions in that course has he considered the question that reads: “Legislation that breaches the treaty. List five pieces of legislation and their impact directly on Maori.”; as I am allowed only two questions I will make it easy for the Minister: can he tell us just two pieces of legislation that are in breach of the treaty and what diverse need of Housing New Zealand Corporation clients does this knowledge serve? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to raise this point about the previous question but it is even clearer in this question. This Minister has no responsibility for what legislation past or present breaches the Treaty of Waitangi. That question might be referred to the Attorney-General who has responsibilities in those areas but certainly not to the Minister of Housing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question was not in order but the second part was in order and I was going to allow that second part—I have just consulted on it. Would the member ask the second part of his question once again so that the Minister can understand it? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect what you are actually ruling is that the Housing New Zealand Corporation should not be doing this sort of work that it should be done by the Attorney-General and that therefore we cannot ask questions about it. Well the fact is the Housing New Zealand Corporation has given up housing people and is now doing exams on the treaty and that means we are entitled to ask what the right answers are to those questions. The Housing New Zealand Corporation is now stating to its staff that there are five pieces of legislation that are in breach of the treaty with an impact on Maori. It appears to me that we cannot ask what the five pieces of legislation are because that would be out of order but the member asked about just two of them. It should be a piece of cake for the Minister to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister of Housing is not responsible for other legislation; he can be asked whether it was appropriate for the material to be used in the first place. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The 67 people who went on this pilot course to explore the Treaty of Waitangi were doing something that for about 20 years now I understand—including under the National Government—has been quite common for public servants to do. This was not an exam; this was a 2-day course where people simply had their knowledge of the treaty stimulated. That was all that happened. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister believe there is a correct answer to the question that required course participants to tick “True” or “False” in terms of the following statement: “The settler Government soon discovered that legislation was a much cheaper way to obtain Maori land than war.”; and how exactly does answering that question help the Housing New Zealand Corporation staff in their work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The people who went on this pilot course to learn about the Treaty of Waitangi were answering questions like that I understand as a way of provoking discussion so that they could think about the issues. That is all that happened. It is a very common way of doing it. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister give the House an unqualified assurance that no Housing New Zealand Corporation staff members have had their reasonable career expectations curtailed because try as they might they like the majority of their fellow New Zealanders have a “one-world view” not a “two-world view”; and if he cannot give that assurance then surely those staff members have a potential substantial claim in the Employment Court because they have been unfairly discriminated against? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The 67 people who attended this pilot course have in no way had their career expectations shortened or changed. Can I say that the way in which this question is being posed from the ACT party which clearly does not support anything to do with New Zealanders’ gaining understanding of the treaty is to me a disgusting approach to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may well be the case but the question that was asked was whether any person would be discriminated against— 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I said no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister now get up and say “No”; then I will have heard the answer. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek the leave of the House to table that questionnaire. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question—[ 
Interruption 
] Do all members want to seek leave to table their particular questionnaire? Having a series of members getting up on points of order to do so is wasting the time of Parliament. If they all wish to have them tabled I shall take it as one question because there seems to be no objection. Do they all wish to table those questionnaires? 
Stephen Franks 
: Yes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not only is it an insult for you as Chair to suggest that we are wasting the time of Parliament in bringing the Government to account on such a serious matter but we have a right to seek the leave of our fellow parliamentarians to table information. For you as Chair to imply that that is wasting time is I believe not very appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member and I apologise for the comment I made.