McAnulty Kieran; Kuriger BarbaraHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to have an opportunity—my first chance actually—to be able to contribute to this committee of the whole House stage.I've taken close attention to the debate. I was watching before the dinner break and have been here since the start of the dinner break. And since it is my first opportunity to contribute I think it's pretty important that it is noted in the Hansard how disgraceful I think this bill is. It's very clear I think to anybody that looks at the stats for Māori across Aotearoa that the health system as it's stood has not delivered—that with health stats and life expectancy it hasn't worked for whatever reason. But there was a very clear message that the country got during COVID that a delivery model that was delivered by Māori and designed by Māori was effective. So in establishing the Māori Health Authority there was actually something in place to deliver the things that the Minister has promised the committee are his priorities here tonight.Now there's one thing that sticks in my mind—before I get to my question—and it's that as many members who have been here a while know our rural communities are particularly important to me and therefore so too is the equitable access to health. I alongside some of my colleagues played a pivotal role in ensuring that the requirement for a rural health strategy was included in the legislation that set up the reformed health system and I'm incredibly proud of that because we recognise that those that live in isolated and remote areas simply do not have the same level of access to health. The same rationale applies here and I cannot help but think that if this were an Act that had established a rural health authority would this Government be repealing it? You've gone pretty quiet now Joseph Mooney. The fact is they wouldn't because rural people vote for this Government and Māori people don't and the National Party is like a river: it takes the path of least resistance. When it comes to talking about any issue that requires or that establishes something that focuses solely on Māori instead of taking leadership they took the easiest path and that is reflected in this repeal bill.The question that I have is specific to clause 35. It is looking at replacing section 89 with three parts outlining the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. It says here in new section 89(2) that The committee comprises 8 members appointed by the Minister after consulting the Minister for Māori Development." At what point does this outline that the people who are going to be on this committee are going to be able to deliver the same level of expertise and insight that the Māori Health Authority did? If the Minister truly believes—as he has outlined on a couple of occasions; not all occasions but on a couple of occasions in his contribution during this stage—that he feels that what he is outlining is going to deliver better what protections are in this clause? What protections in clause 35 of this bill would stop a future Government imposing eight members that know nothing about Māori? They might not even be Māori. There are no protections in this.Now the Minister may say that the selection criteria is exactly the same as it has been. When you're talking about a Māori Health Authority that clearly outlines the requirements and the expertise that is required for the people that are involved in the decisions and the advice that are provided it's pretty clear cut. We're not now. This Government is getting rid of this. We have a committee to advise the Minister when he requests it. Now the Minister may be offended by this suggestion that he wouldn't select people but what's protecting future Ministers? What is protecting a future political party campaigning on the basis of identifying that there is some unease in the community about this idea that there's something specific to Māori. In the future it is entirely possible that a political party might find that it is in their interests to campaign against something that focuses just on Māori—even though deep down they may or may not know that it is the right thing to do—and get elected on that basis. What is to protect a future Minister from stacking this committee—to try and demonstrate a Māori-specific focus to health which I assume is the intent of this committee—with people that will undermine it because they don't have the expertise that's required to deliver the purpose of this and then stand up and say "See it doesn't work."?Now I repeat I'm not suggesting at all that this Minister—who I believe is a man of integrity; I fundamentally oppose what he is doing here. But what is to stop a future Minister doing that? Three simple sentences here; they just simply talk about the number and a very brief requirement that they consult another Minister but there's no protection. I think the committee deserves to know an answer to that.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I call the Hon Peeni Henare I just want to say that we are still getting some new questions about some new clauses and we are under urgency and as long as I keep hearing new clause numbers and questions that are new questions we can allow a little bit more time for this debate."