Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2500] 
5.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he stand by his statement: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. Yes I most certainly do. As the Minister of Maori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Maori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was listening very carefully to that answer and you will probably realise why. We have previously had an exchange in this House about what the responsibility of the Minister of Maori Affairs was and what questions he could be asked in that light. We have had both a question and an answer now which accepts the point that I made at that time—that is the Minister of Maori Affairs has a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people. His responsibility is across all those areas of policy that affect Maori people and he can therefore be questioned in this House on those matters. We have now had that confirmed by the Minister himself in the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: As I understood it the Minister said he has interests in those affairs that affect Maori people rather than responsibility for them. Perhaps it is a matter of looking at the  
Hansard 
 to check the statement. I think there is a big difference between an interest and an understanding of the affairs that might be raised across the board throughout the country as opposed to those affairs that he has responsibility for. I ask you to have a look at the  
Hansard 
 to consider that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it is a matter of how far a Minister takes an interest. If he takes an interest so far as to call for reports or ask for briefing notes as Minister of Maori Affairs he then has responsibility for those reports for which he has asked. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker I refer you to the principal question. The Minister was asked to stand by his statement: “I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people”—as Minister of Maori Affairs. That in fact is the position that has been well understood for a long time but which was questioned previously by the Minister in trying to avoid giving answers. He has established clearly that he can now be questioned in this House on any matters that might impinge upon the views of the Maori people because he has a responsibility to represent those views as Minister of Maori Affairs. He has now defined his own responsibility. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are still considering a point of order and members should respect that please. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is no surprise to me that they applaud when I get to my feet! I think the point Dr Cullen makes is an interesting one. But there will equally be occasions when Dr Sharples will find that he speaks in a different capacity just as Helen Clark found that rather than speaking as Prime Minister and therefore in the interests of all New Zealanders there were occasions when she spoke as leader of the Labour Party. There were occasions where the Hon Jim Anderton spoke as leader of the Alliance and where any number of others who supported previous Governments spoke while being a Minister as somebody else. 
If we look back through  
Hansard 
 we will find some very interesting discussions led by Jonathan Hunt from the Chair about which hat was being worn at which time. Most people at the time found that ridiculous. 
The fact the Opposition now reaches that conclusion some 6 or 7 years later should not materially factor in the point that there will be times when Dr Sharples quite legitimately speaks for members of the Maori Party. That is quite obvious so trying to get a clear position on the issue that any time Dr Sharples opens his mouth to speak on an issue he is deemed to be speaking as Minister of Maori Affairs is extremely unreasonable in an MMP environment. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I think the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is drawing a very long bow by trying to stretch the definition of responsibility with the answer to this question. If we go to what the Minister said in the statement he stands by we see that it states: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs”. Of course he did that because the Minister of Maori Affairs was on the Cabinet committee that received the royal commission’s recommendation and was considering it. And I can tell the House that the Minister of Maori Affairs spoke strongly and forcefully for his views. He did so— 
Hon Members 
: What’s the point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister is pointing out the issues around responsibility and why there is certain responsibility here. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: So he was voicing his opinion then as the Minister of Maori Affairs because he was on the Cabinet committee that was considering the royal commission’s recommendation. His statement then goes on: “because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people”. The Hon Pita Sharples clearly has that responsibility and I say that so do all of us. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is some difficulty I think in trying to follow the logic of that position. Of course the Minister may well have been speaking in Cabinet as the Minister of Maori Affairs but if he had chosen to speak on this matter publicly as the co-leader of the Maori Party saying in fact that he has a responsibility as co-leader of the Maori Party to represent the views of the Maori Party of course that would have to be quite an obvious statement. But he chose to say that as Minister of Maori Affairs he has a responsibility to represent the views of the Maori people. We on this side of the House certainly do not confuse the Maori people with the Maori Party. They are not one and the same thing at all. Indeed if people have any doubt on that I simply refer them to the last election in relation to the party vote for Labour versus the party vote for the Maori Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank all members. I allowed that point of order debate to go on for some time because this is an issue that will always be a little difficult in the House. I believe that we were not heading towards difficulty with this question because clearly the Minister in making a statement said he made it as Minister of Maori Affairs so there was no issue about responsibility. But we cannot lock in today exactly how all questions will be handled in the future because where a Minister denies ministerial responsibility I as Speaker have to accept that. The Speaker cannot say—I am not allowed; I cannot say—“I disagree with that and I am not going to accept it.” Where a Minister makes it clear that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility I have to accept the Minister’s word. But the House can rest assured that I accept the point raised by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that initiated this discussion; it is an important point. I accept fully that when he first raised this issue some weeks back his points were made on good ground. We must treat this issue seriously as we move ahead but I believe that today’s questioning should not be that difficult because the Minister has accepted responsibility for the statement he made as Minister of Maori Affairs— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you if possible—and I am not seeking here an early retirement from the House—to consider what you said in that last judgment. You said you have to accept that if a Minister denies ministerial responsibility then he or she has no responsibility. Now there must be limits upon that. If the Minister of Finance was to get up and say that he has no responsibility for the Budget one might well ask which Minister does have responsibility for the Budget. I think you have to accept that at a certain point you cannot avoid being drawn into the issue of a Minister saying that he or she is not responsible for X when it is blatantly obvious that the Minister is responsible for X. The Minister will be forced to reply on that particular matter. Otherwise we could have weak Minister after weak Minister popping up saying that he or she has no responsibility for that and we sit here wondering whom we now try to ask about that matter. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That point pushes it far too far. It is quite an absurd position. That would mean that for example the Minister of Women’s Affairs could be expected to speak as Minister on absolutely everything—similarly with ethnic affairs or consumer affairs. One might find all sorts of other links between ministries—so that position simply cannot stand for a House rule. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the points are made with goodwill on this issue because it is a challenging issue for the House. But to come back to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s point I am sure that if a Minister denied ministerial responsibility for something that was clearly his or her responsibility he or she might not be Minister for much longer. I think there are natural forces that come into play. I dare to suggest that if a Minister denies responsibility for example as Minister of Finance for something that is clearly his responsibility clearly his future as Minister of Finance may not be great. This example applies to all Ministers. There are natural boundaries around these things. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How can the Minister claim to act with integrity when on the one hand he is railed against the scrapping of Maori seats in Auckland and on the other hand he signed the confidence and supply agreement promising not to pursue the entrenching of the Maori electorate seats in Parliament? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It is very simple. I reflect the views that have been given to me by the Maori leaders of Auckland City and I make their case for them. I am surprised that a party that purports to represent Maori like Labour does has not made the same move. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Which of these statements best reflects John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Maori seats from the new Auckland Super-city Council: the one calling the decision “institutional racism” or the other calling it “integrity in action”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have no responsibility for the Prime Minister’s statements. Those statements were my statements. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it is not long since the Minister made those statements about institutional racism and integrity in action but it was in fact he who made those statements not the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I am to understand the question correctly there was more than one statement involved in it and if one of the statements was not that made by the Minister his answer is perfectly in order. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the comments of Associate Professor Ann Sullivan that “At the local government level Maori are unfairly inequitably and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils.”; if so does he think that the Minister of Local Government’s decision to remove Maori seats and mana whenua seats will have a further negative impact on Maori representation? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I totally support the advice from Associate Professor Sullivan and it has also been my experience in trying to get Maori on to the various city councils in the Greater Auckland area. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Has the Minister received any reports from Maori living within the Tamaki-makau-rau region responding to the Government’s decisions announced yesterday? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes. I have seen Maori leaders—mana whenua—on television saying they do not agree with those views. I have also had phone calls from those leaders. I have been asked to convene a hui on their behalf. There is total support for the stand I have taken and it is a wonder that Labour has not done something about it itself—amazing. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the complete absence of Maori seats in the proposed Auckland super-city a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Well the Waitangi Tribunal is the forum that would decide that and I understand that some people in Auckland want to take the issue before that forum. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Members 
: What’s your policy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I point out to members interjecting that the Speaker does not have a policy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Very wise Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister of Maori Affairs continue to describe his relationship with the National Government as mana-enhancing when both his views and the views of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance have been rejected without any consultation with any of the people in Auckland affected by that decision and when other decisions made by the Government—the 90-day fire-at-will bill the lack of tax cuts for low-income families and growing Maori unemployment—mean that this Government has not delivered mana-enhancing benefits for Maori people? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The agreement that the Maori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. We agree to disagree and to not talk behind each other’s backs. We have an open honest policy. We agree to disagree. We have done that and at all times there are no surprises and that is why our relationship is growing stronger every day. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Te Ururoa Flavell is asking a supplementary question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I did not hear all of that answer but I am hoping that it did not cover my question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Did the Minister support the recommendations from the royal commission for designated Maori seats on the super-city council; if so why? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes I most certainly did because I believe that the Government has a responsibility to make sure that the Maori voice particularly mana whenua is heard at the top table—right at the first level. That is why I supported them. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that answer does the Minister believe that his Government’s rejection of separate Maori representation for Auckland indicates that any signing up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by his Government will at best remain aspirational and at worst could be interpreted as a form of covert institutional racism? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Why did you not sign the agreement when you had the chance to sign it? 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Nanaia Mahuta is raising a point of order. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: The Minister may think that was a flippant response but he should answer the question that he was asked. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that the House takes this issue seriously but we must have some silence. I ask the honourable member to repeat her point of order in a way that is not provocative please. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: My question was very clear. It required a response. The Minister did not attempt at all to provide a response to the question that he was asked. If he cannot answer it he should simply say “I don’t know.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the honourable Minister to answer further because in his answer he asked why the Speaker had not signed the declaration and the Speaker is in no position to do so. I invite the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to further answer that question. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The answer is that for the past 3 weeks the Maori Party has been in negotiations with National over that very document and we are hoping that something will be released very soon. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand National this morning that disagreement between the Maori Party and National on this issue strengthens relations between them and does this mean that the relationship will achieve the status of a marriage made in heaven if there is total disagreement? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I would expect that member to draw that conclusion from that statement. I did make that statement and I totally stand by it. You see this is the bit about integrity and honesty. We can disagree in public because this is a matter still in progress. This is a matter that is not completed and this is the time that we disagree with each other. Until that legislation is passed in Parliament I will keep putting forward my view. There you go. 
Hon John Carter 
: Has the Minister received any reports that a senior Labour member of Parliament made a statement yesterday that Labour would not have accepted and implemented the royal commission’s recommendation of three Maori seats? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Actually I do not remember whether I have but I can imagine that that is exactly what those members would say. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I seek leave to table the questions that the learned Minister has forgotten he made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that I can possibly seek leave for that because it is not a document and I think that is— 
Hon Members 
: A list of questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member describe for me what he is seeking to table. Is he seeking to table a list of his supplementary questions? 
Hon Members 
: His statements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please tell us what he is trying to table. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I seek leave to table the statements that the Minister made that he has forgotten. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is really trifling with the House and because—[ 
Interruption 
] Members for goodness’ sake! If the member is seeking leave to table the statements that the Minister has just made they are available in  
Hansard 
— 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove will just get a little less excited please. Could the Hon Parekura Horomia please make clear what on earth he is trying to table. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may recall that the member asked a supplementary question quoting two statements. One was in relation to institutional racism and there was another statement. Those statements were made by the Minister of Maori Affairs who appeared to have forgotten that he had made them. Those are the statements being referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. Is that the document that the member is trying to table? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That is right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table such a document. Is there any objection? There is objection.