Mahuta Nanaia: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5605. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It gives me great pleasure to speak to Vote Māori Development. The chair of our committee has aptly summarised the report. However if one was to look in further detail at the issues confronted by the Māori Affairs Committee and indeed throughout the country in relation to the most important factors affecting Māori development then we would simply hinge this particular discussion around the framework that the Government has used to address Māori development.In He Kai Kei Aku Ringa—The Crown-Māori Economic Growth Partnership there are six goals. Those goals in part align to what one might expect Te Puni Kōkiri to be doing. However we question only the significant areas that the vote affected. I raise the issue of He Kai Kei Aku Ringa because goal one of this is probably one of the most fundamental elements of what is going to help propel Māori development and that is the education of our people our kids—lifting skills in training. I was somewhat disturbed by the lack of contribution by the Minister for Māori Development certainly in the estimates debate about how he saw the contribution of Te Puni Kōkiri going forward in this period towards lifting Māori participation and education especially in the early childhood area. I raise this also because one of the most topical debates right now is around the reorganisation and restructuring of kōhanga reo which is a significant contributor to the positive advancement of our children on a Māori-medium language pathway into education. The Minister was absent in terms of his contribution in this space before the select committee.Secondly the committee spent some time investigating the issues around Whānau Ora and more particularly with regard to the Office of the Auditor-General’s report. Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have had $43 million transferred to them in this vote. The questions of the select committee were quite simple: was the Minister satisfied under phase one that enough had been done to evaluate Whānau Ora as an initiative in order to make that substantial decision to transfer the funding obligation to these Whānau Ora commissioning agencies?The Auditor-General’s report helped with the questions at select committee level. We were concerned about a number of areas. Firstly it is very difficult to define what Whānau Ora is. So if it is difficult to define what it is how can you evaluate the outcomes? People who are well versed in this particular area will point to a whānau outcomes framework and a shared outcomes model. But the question is quite simple: did Te Puni Kōkiri have confidence that the phase one evaluation gave it sufficient confidence to be able to make the transfer to the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies? When I asked the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri whether it raised any risks with this decision the chief executive nodded her head and said: “Yes risks were raised with the Minister.” We will come back to that particular point.The second point is that in the Office of the Auditor-General’s report one of the insights that the Auditor-General observed—noting that there were innovations in this particular model—was that shifting the funding framework model currently adopted and used by the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education from individual to collective outcomes was going to be a significant challenge. In fact Te Puni Kōkiri recognised that as well. It remains an issue for the Government to confront. If the aspirations of Whānau Ora as an initiative are to work towards shared outcomes whānau-based outcomes then that would require those other ministries to change their funding framework model. That was highlighted in the report.The other aspect was the success of the Whānau Integration Innovation and Engagement Fund (WIIE) plans that were in the phase one stage of the model. Those members who have travelled throughout the country and have visited with various of these Whānau Ora providers will have heard numerous bits of feedback about how successful this particular part of the Whānau Ora initiative has been because it allowed whānau themselves to identify some of the outcomes they were seeking at a very small level. So being able to coordinate services and collaborations around whānau in order to address the issues in the WIIE plans became fertile ground for learning about how to improve service delivery. Interestingly enough in the phase one evaluation and the transfer to forward funding in these estimates the WIIE initiative was actually not picked up. It was only the navigator component of the Whānau Ora funding.In so far as that is concerned here is a question that remains for the Minister to respond to: in respect of those Whānau Ora providers that were successful in phase one but have not been funded in phase two can the Minister explain why that has occurred and whether he is satisfied that the network of services especially in rural areas can be achieved despite the inequity of funding towards navigators in this space? The Minister for Māori Development is I think putting his mind to this particular challenge because he knows like we know that the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have not addressed this issue and that there are significant gaps especially in rural areas about how Whānau Ora providers can significantly meet the obligations of their whānau when they are not getting the same flow-through of funding through the navigator fund.I will come to the issue of Treaty settlements. I agree that the post settlements commitments unit provides ample opportunity to assess the positive implementation of a number of Treaty settlements throughout the country. Notably just last week the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Groupannounced a high-level memorandum of understanding with Local Government New Zealand which I think foreshadows just how beneficial some of the mechanisms within Treaty settlements will be at a local government level and that they will have a positive impact in their area. However can I say is this: it is probably salient at the front end of the discussions if co-governance and co-management with local government is going to work that local government is included in some of those particular discussions. Given that we have some hefty issues around water around representation around procurement of services at the local government level and also around the funding for utilities infrastructure if there were a front-end participation role for Local Government New Zealand in that space then co-investment strategies with iwi could be a really new opportunity to help support regional development.I know that the Minister is aware of all these issues. I am looking forward to the Māori Affairs Committee monitoring further the role of the post settlements commitments unit to ensure that an even-handed application of the mechanisms within Treaty settlements in so far as local government is concerned can happen in the way that it is intended to.The last part of my contribution is in the space of housing. There was some $7 million appropriated to the Māori housing development initiative and $4 million to the rural and Māori housing component of the role that Te Puni Kōkiri currently undertakes. It seems to me that at a local government level there is still an uneven response to the way in which papakāinga development can continue. Also the whole resource consenting and planning process can make better provision for this. I know this because I submitted to the Hauraki District Council on its papakāinga development plan as well as on the Waikato District Council development plan. There are exemplars throughout the country but it is not even-handed. Here is a really easy space for the Minister for Māori Development to send a signal to councils that best practice is actually the real opportunity if we want to ensure that Māori can build on their own lands to be able to provide housing at a low cost and to be able to meet some of the real challenges of homeownership amongst the Māori population. Again the Minister was silent on that.My last point: both Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform and Te Reo Māori bills have been an absolute shambles. The Minister has had to delay and defer the report back of the bill for Te Ture Whenua Māori because he knows that it does not meet the needs of those Māori landowners to be able to move their land into a productive space. My colleague Meka Whaitiri is championing that particular issue for our team. In the Te Reo Māori space the poor old Minister is having to do a bit of backwash to save face for the previous Minister who made an absolute kibosh of the issue. He introduced the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill into the House at the eleventh hour and with I think very little robust consideration around the proposals there. We have had to revamp that. It is going back to Cabinet for further consideration. Poor old Minister Flavell has made a wee mess of it—