Flavell Te Ururoa: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8598] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatoukua hui mai iteneipo. Greetings to everyone tonight. I rise to follow on from the co-leader of the Maori Party Dr Pita Sharples and the Supplementary Order Paper so I will probably go off at a tangent away from the discussion that has been happening tonight. That is the first point—just to take over from Pita Sharples. 
The second point is that as a new member of Parliament I was taken a little bit aback by the fact that the Government has exercised its right under Standing Order 319 to place a financial veto on our Supplementary Order Paper which is really disappointing because we try to take most of these matters that are put before us fairly seriously. My understanding is that the right to move a financial veto is taken up on rare occasions. The last occasion was in June 2006 and prior to that it was in 2004. So obviously the Government takes this particular issue seriously as do we. 
The fact that our Supplementary Order Paper cannot be voted on is really disappointing. I suppose we are happy that at least it can be debated but the fact that it cannot be voted on is pretty disappointing and in that sense we are wondering what the rationale is for moving towards this sort of action. Can the Minister perhaps explain at some point why this course of action has been taken up? The rationale that has been presented in the certification or whatever the document is talks about costings and that our Supplementary Order Paper may well have financial constraints or repercussions and that seems to be the rationale for the “no vote” on this particular amendment. 
We think that money is obviously an issue which we would argue but the Minister might tell us about that. Dr Cullen announced in December 2006 that the improved position meant that the country would have available around $1 billion for extra headroom for the 2008 Budget on top of the $2 billion allowance that was set aside in 2006. He also said that the 2007 Budget will continue our progress in building a unique national identity. 
On Budget day the Government announced another big operating surplus—$8.5 billion in 2005-06 and $5.8 billion in 2006-07—yet we are still unable to support a clause that is all about trying to give support to the Treaty of Waitangi. So we reckon that we might have put the Government in a bit of a corner actually—either support the Maori Party on one of our initiatives or run the risk of voting against the Treaty in te reo Maori. So unfortunately from what we see and the Minister might give us an explanation this is the “get out of jail free” card—an attempt to get out of a political corner. 
The reason we put up this particular Supplementary Order Paper was that we mentioned in a number of speeches that the Treaty of Waitangi is the nation’s founding document—a constitutional blueprint for nation-building through relationships; relationships between tangata whenua the Crown and newer immigrant groups. So given this context we believe that an awareness of the Treaty of Waitangi and its practical implications for daily life in Aotearoa is highly beneficial to newcomers. We hope that the Minister might respond to the view that we hold as the Maori Party that any moves to better prepare migrants for life in Aotearoa by having access to well-equipped immigration advisers is advantageous to all involved including the nation at large. We believe that nation-building is an ongoing project and it requires new initiatives to imbed a sense of national identity and harmony in the face of increasing cultural diversity. So the Treaty of Waitangi and a respect for the indigenous people of Aotearoa is one of those anchors. 
We submitted the Supplementary Order Paper in the knowledge that tangata whenua often refer to the Treaty of Waitangi as being the first immigration policy document for this nation. We mentioned also that Dr Ranginui Walker has described the preamble of the Treaty as the original charter for immigration and that it allows immigration to Aotearoa from Europe Australia and the United Kingdom but requires consultation with Maori as the Treaty partner for any variation. Dr Ranginui Walker also argues that the Government has ignored the notion of partnership by unilaterally deciding who can enter New Zealand without consultation with Maori. We say that the Treaty sets the scene by which all subsequent migrants and communities can survive and prosper in Aotearoa. In essence the Treaty is our first immigration document because it enables all others to come here. With that in mind our Supplementary Order Paper provides for the establishment of a cultural education programme including the Treaty and basic tikanga and te reo for immigration advisers. 
 Alongside this it established the Maori Immigration Education Council to facilitate and oversee the programme. We thought that was a pretty good idea. The council would be an expert council of up to 10 members appointed on recommendation by iwi runanga. We thought this was an exciting opportunity to develop a cultural education programme that would be a model for all other nations. It gives tangata whenua a real chance to be involved in immigration matters and this is a call that for too long has been unanswered. We believe that this sort of idea enabled immigration advisers to become proficient in providing a full service to those wishing to make Aotearoa their home. 
Finally the key point in submitting this Supplementary Order Paper is in response to concerns from Maori that immigration policies have been made at the expense of Maori without consultation with Maori and of unproven value. If we are committed to restoring any harmonious relationship between Treaty partners we must honour the importance of creating effective and mutually respectful relationships. If we honour the spirit of the partnership explicit in Te Tiriti o Waitangi surely the Government must give recognition to the need to give effect to Maori involvement in immigration policy. 
We thought that our Supplementary Order Paper responded to that imperative. We are obviously disappointed that the Government has taken a different tack by moving to have our Supplementary Order Paper ruled out of order. I ask the Minister to at least give us some explanation as to why our Supplementary Order Paper has been blocked at that stage believing as we do that if the Treaty is at the heart of this whole notion of nation-building surely the idea of having an immigration council based around education was a common-sense idea that would allow the nation and indeed those coming here to have a good baseline knowledge about Aotearoa and our nationhood. 
The fact that fiscal constraints have been used as a buffer to take our Supplementary Order Paper off the Table does not seem to match with the fact that the Government even by its own reports over a period of time says that the money is there. We also recognise that somebody has done some costings. I am not too sure where those costings have come from but the costing on the certification says $1.5 million per annum yet there is plenty of money in the kitty from the sound of it. We ask that for the purposes of nation-building surely that amount of money—and it is a figure that has been put up without too much research we think—would be a good investment in the future of the nation. So we leave that for someone to take a call on. Kia ora tatou.