Sharples Pita: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Sharples Pita: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14849] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I have been wondering whether this Budget Policy Statement 2008 will be top of the pops on the 6 o’clock news bulletin or will the really pressing issue for New Zealand be naming the MPs who are travelling on the so-called taxpayer junket to Eastern Europe—and good luck to them. Meanwhile across the world all eyes are on the controversial list published in  
L’Osservatore Romano 
 the Vatican newspaper. After 1500 years the Vatican has added seven new sins as having appeared on the horizon of humanity. Alongside lust gluttony avarice sloth anger envy and pride we now have ruining the environment carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments social injustice that causes poverty and the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few. 
When I looked at this report on the Budget Policy Statement for 2008 I wondered whether Pope Benedict XVI had received an advance copy for there are certain areas within the small print that make us query whether this Budget Policy Statement has the balance right. The Maori Party is particularly concerned at the information in the report relating to the supposed growth in household incomes. Earlier this morning the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia issued a press release in which he said: “What we need to do is get out into Maori communities and show whanau the real benefits of saving.” In the interests of cross-party communication I would like to suggest some pointers to the Minister about this critical issue of savings. There is absolutely no point in going out there and scolding Maori whanau telling them what to do and how to save for a rainy day if there is nothing in the piggy bank to start with. The reality is that the income levels for Maori come nowhere near the new deadly sin of excessive accumulation of wealth. 
The New Zealand Income Survey shows that Maori aged over 15 years earn just 73 percent of what Pakeha earn. In dollar terms Maori earn $197 less a week. Although this Labour Government may crow about the participation rates for Maori growing to 68 percent we always have to ask for the fine print—what does that mean in terms of putting bread on the table? The fine print means for example that when on another day Labour puts out its policy on affordable housing that requires homeowners to earn at least $70000 a year to service a mortgage in an “affordable home” the constituents in my electorate laugh—or maybe they just cry. What it comes down to is who is being factored into the average. Which New Zealanders comprise low and modest-income earners? The 2006 income data for my Tamaki Makaurau electorate counts us out. Median family incomes in my electorate are just $60000—$10000 short of meeting the grade for low and modest-income earners. 
Why does all this matter? Remember the Pope’s new sin: social injustice that causes poverty. A month ago the Early Childhood Council came out and agreed with the Salvation Army that the availability of early childhood education is heavily biased against poorer urban communities adding that it was “madness that we are not targeting more substantial resources at these children.” The council’s chief executive Sue Thorne was outraged by what she described as “pathetically little” of the money given to early childhood education being targeted at the most needy of children making the clear link between low access to early childhood education in the most needy areas with Maori children being 2.7 times more likely than Pakeha children to be stood down from school for disciplinary problems and that there were wide achievement gaps between low and high-decile schools. 
A fortnight after those comments the Canterbury District Health Board’s Executive Director of Maori and Pacific Health Hector Matthews declared that the gross disparity between Maori and non-Maori health was largely due to socio-economic conditions. It was his analysis that more than half of all Maori are located in the poorest three deciles in Aotearoa meaning that the cost of their primary health care for conditions like asthma could be out of their reach. Maori children were also more likely to live in cold damp houses and as a consequence hospital admissions for very young Maori asthmatic children were a horrific 60 percent higher than for non-Maori. So when it comes to the Minister’s wisdom in showing Maori families the benefit of saving he may like to tread a bit more carefully. 
I return to the comments in the Budget Policy Statement that outline three different scenarios in just one paragraph related to the growth of household incomes. First we have the Prime Minister’s promise that household incomes will increase by 25 percent over the next 4 years. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update indicates a real increase in wages of 2 percent over the same period. Then we have the Salvation Army forecast of 5 percent growth over 10 years. What is it: pick and choose or the best offer on the day? There is a world of difference between 2 percent 5 percent and 25 percent when people are looking at whether they can afford to get the car registered or to stay living in a house where the rent has dramatically increased. It is exactly these types of questions that we the Maori Party will continue to raise in differentiating between the fiscal priorities of how much total income we seek from taxation and the expenditure. We have always argued that the pattern of expenditure and the allocation of moneys should be fair and determined by both signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
In determining whether we have a surplus or a deficit it is incumbent on both parties to take account of the methodology we have promoted within the genuine progress index. Such an approach would question the scope of negative expenditure say on monitoring punishing and constraining youth as opposed to investing in their development prospects. It would throw open the question of establishing a new entity Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand financed out of the wallets of Maori Trustee beneficiaries but for the benefit of Government ratings. It would ask why the Government is exerting considerable efforts into offering iwi assets such as forests to top up funding in line with the relativity clause of settlements or making a huge deal out of new arrangements for foreshore and seabed territorial deals when in the first instance the basic foundations of either policy are fundamentally flawed. The fact that iwi have made the best of the current legal situation and have negotiated agreements under the law does not alter the fact that the law is unjust and should be repealed. It is quite consistent to support iwi agreements under the Foreshore and Seabed Act while at the same time seeking the repeal of that Act. The Maori Party already supports iwi to get the best deal they can from the Treaty settlements process even though it believes that the process itself breaches the Treaty. 
Budgets are times for weighing up both sides of the ledger for attaining a true and accurate record of the state of the nation a genuine indicator of the health and well-being of people. We cannot escape the irony that the Budget Policy Statement gives lip-service to the concept of our unique national identity and states a commitment to foster a cohesive society when in reality in the lives of tangata whenua the inequities are painfully apparent and ongoing. It is not acceptable it is unjust and it is unfair. We know that the incomes of low-income families have been allowed to erode and that our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are continuing to live in severe or significant hardship. We agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that what we need most is a poverty prevention success story. This Budget Policy Statement is not that.