Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:251] 
3.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he agree with the Speech from the Throne that “It is time to recognise the emergence of a new dynamic confident Maoridom.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. This Government has continued to recognise the emergence of a new dynamic vitality amongst Maoridom. We do recognise the importance of lifting aspirations celebrating and encouraging success and not dwelling on past failures. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What did the Minister mean when he said on  
Te Karere 
: “The Government is focused on Maori development if you do not include the foreshore and seabed.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not too sure which session it was—I am on it generally most days; more so than most people—but at the end of the day I am very clear on the use and worth of the foreshore and seabed. It is an integral and important part of Maori’s progress forward adding to the development of this nation as a whole. 
Dave Hereora 
: What successes have resulted from this Government working with Maori? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Several—too many to name. But there have been a number of important achievements for Maori over the last 6 years. There is the highest employment level for Maori on record. Key commercial assets in the primary production sector are now being managed by Maori with the fisheries allocation process under way. Maori enterprise and economic development are growing and last year’s Hui Taumata highlighted the progress that has been made. The Maori Language Strategy together with great support for iwi radio and a great television station put culture on the national and international stage. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Minister said on  
Te Karere 
 that the New Zealand Government is actively supporting Maori development “provided you do not include the foreshore bill” was he really saying that the foreshore and seabed legislation is bad for Maori development or does he now retract his statement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No and no. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Will you accept that as addressing the question? What the Minister just said—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is a point of order here. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect Madam Speaker I think it is important that we sort this out. We had before from Dr Cullen an answer that bore absolutely no resemblance to the question asked and therefore could not be considered as addressing it. We have a situation now whereby the Minister said “No” to the first part of the question which meant that he did not mean what he had said on television but then said “No” to the second part which meant that even though he had just said that he did not mean what he had said he did in fact mean what he had said. That is a very difficult interpretation. Some of us are quite good at “Parekura Maori” but we do need to have this sorted out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I understand his point. It is not a point of order. I remind the member of the numerous Speakers’ rulings that state that Speakers are not responsible for the quality or even the sense of the answers that are given. The important thing is that the question was in fact addressed—very succinctly. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Who are the members on the Government caucus that the Minister referred to on  
Te Karere 
 when he said: “The strength of Maori here is in trying to rectify or fix up what tauiwi have done.”; who are those tauiwi? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: They are generally sitting over there. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that we make special allowances for the Minister of Maori Affairs but the question asked where those strong Maori are. It may well be that the Minister Parekura Horomia is so ashamed of his own team that he can see strong Maori MPs only in the National Party now—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the tolerance is about to end. Members know that when there is a point of order it is to be heard in silence. The person who makes the next infraction will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister in addressing the question has said that the strong Maori members in this House are actually all sitting on the National Party benches which is probably true but I do not think that was what he was trying to say. I suggest Madam Speaker that you help the Minister and tell him that he has to address the question properly because otherwise we are just left with meaningless babble such as we have had in every answer to the questions that have been put to the Minister this afternoon. I am sure his answer was not what he intended. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We are of course once again getting into debate but at least it might be helpful if the original question was correctly repeated by Mr Hide. What was actually asked was who the tauiwi are within the caucus and it was the Labour caucus that was being referred to not the Maori caucus. I have to inform Mr Hide that tauiwi are quite different from Maori; indeed they are actual opposites. I think that for once the original point of order if there had been one might have been correctly raised. Obviously none of the members opposite sit within the Labour caucus—much as they would like to be on this side. But a number of us here obviously have to put up our hands and admit to being tauiwi. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am ruling on the point of order. I am sorry Mr Hide but I have heard sufficient. That was not a point of order. The Minister is entitled to answer the question in the way he wished to. He did so by giving an example. As I heard the question it had two parts to it and he was answering one part of that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? It had better be a new point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is. The point is—and you were correct Madam Speaker—that the question had two parts to it. The Minister addressed the second part—it has now been clarified—but how was one to know? The question asked which members of the Government caucus the Minister had referred to when talking about the strength of Maori then the second part of the question asked who those tauiwi were. The Minister pointed over to this side of the Chamber. It is because he inadequately answered the question that we did not know which part of the question he was answering. 
 The Minister was being rather economical in his point of order in suggesting that there was only one part to that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. As the member is well aware from the Standing Orders supplementary questions are required to consist of only one question though frequently members ask more than one question in their supplementary questions. The risk that members take in doing that is that any part of those questions can be addressed by the Minister. That is what happened in this instance.