Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to confine my remarks to Part 2 clause 53 with regard to the change in the defined term from Polynesian" to "Pacific person". I raise this because I understand that there have been changes to the Pacific Islands Polynesian Education Foundation Act 1972. I note that in the original Act it refers to Polynesian and the definition of "Polynesian" in the original Act "means a member of the Polynesian race living in New Zealand who is both—(a) a native of any island of the Pacific Ocean". This begs the question whether it is just the Polynesian we include here because there is Melanesia and Micronesia. Now that we have moved away from using the word "Polynesia" and we are using the word "Pacific" others may ask about the Solomon Islands—are they Pacific? I was not part of the select committee so I do not know what the thinking was—whether it was supposed to be encompassing with the new definition including "Pacific" rather than referring just to the Polynesian sector only. That is what I wanted to ask there.The other thing is this: in the original Act it also makes reference to a fund. There was a fund a foundation established which would be under the Minister of Education with the Minister having responsibility for the management or the governance of that particular funding. I am asking whether we know how much money is in that fund because the purpose of that funding was to help Pacific communities and to be able to provide support for their educational aspirations. I am not quite sure whether any member of the public is aware that that fund exists and that it sits with the Ministry of Education under the Minister of Education's jurisdiction. That begs the question then: is that fund going to be available for the Polynesian grouping or is it now going to include the wider definition of "Pacific" which includes only the other islands that are now part of the new definition—Cook Islands Fiji Niue Samoa Tokelau Tonga and now Tuvalu and Kiribati? I say that because as small as these other populations are they do exist and they do live in Aotearoa New Zealand.With the growing Pacific population expected to reach significant numbers in the next 10 or 20 years I think it is a concern for those of us who want to see the potential of the Pacific community improve significantly in the years to come because of the dependency of this nation on that Pacific—or brown—workforce. To save me the trouble of having to write out a written question it might be useful if the Minister was able to provide some answers to that.I also note that in the subsequent clauses—let me refer you to the constitution of the board in clause 60—it makes reference there that if a member appointed to the board is absent from any meeting the member may authorise any other person to attend the meeting in the member's place. I am not sure what the purpose of that is whether it was to maintain a quorum but under normal circumstances if you are the member appointed and you cannot attend you table an apology. I do not know what the purpose is of an appointed member now being able to authorise another person to represent them in the likelihood that they will be absent from a particular meeting. What was the reason for including that?I am generally asking these questions because the submissions on this took place at a time when I was not a member of this select committee so I have not had the privilege of being part of that and hearing the ministry's explanation as to the amendments to this Act but I would be really interested to know. I dare say I have heard of some times where a Solomon Islander would say "Am I not a Pacific person?" or a Vanuatu person would say "Am I not a Pacific person?"."