Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10719] 
12.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Did she provide the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s office with a copy of her speech to Te Ngawari Hauora yesterday and what response or reaction has she received from the Prime Minister since the delivery of the speech? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 My office provided the Prime Minister with a copy of my speech at the time of delivery. The Prime Minister has stated publicly that she thought my speech could be read to have a multiplicity of meanings. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In this multiplicity of meanings which groups of immigrant communities did the Minister refer to in her speech—or are not all New Zealanders immigrants whether they came yesterday or 1000 years ago? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: That is probably correct. In the speech I gave yesterday I stated that we welcomed the contribution that all diverse cultures and communities bring to our nation and I specifically referred to the Italian and Shetland Island communities of Island Bay. 
Mark Peck 
: What was the reason for her visit to Te Ngawari Hauora yesterday? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I was presenting to Te Ngawari Hauora its certificate of accreditation from Quality Health New Zealand. Te Ngawari Hauora is a community organisation providing a range of quality health services and I congratulated the trust on its tremendous achievement. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Minister not believe that the same laws should apply to all New Zealanders? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: As the Associate Minister of Health I do not have any responsibility to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister could perhaps be a little fuller in her comment on that particular question. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I understand that the questions I am being asked are in my capacity as an Associate Minister of Health. I am happy to answer questions relevant to that but not questions outside that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She is being questioned as Associate Minister of Health. As such she gave the answer she gave and that was her answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Unless you are ruling that the Associate Minister of Health has no obligation for her administration to follow the law—which may be the case—of course she has an obligation to answer. The question she was asked—it must apply in health as well as anywhere else—was whether or not the law of New Zealand applies to all New Zealanders. Maybe in health it does not; maybe there is a different law for different New Zealanders there. But if that is her policy surely we are entitled to know it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say again the advice I received was that the member was replying as Associate Minister of Health. She gave an answer and that was her answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No matter what position she may hold while she holds some sort of warrant from the Queen she is bound to give an answer as to the views that she may hold on the question of the laws of the country and whether as the question asked they apply equally to everyone. The Minister can by her Associate Minister status avoid answering that yet a full Minister cannot. I do not see the distinction. The fact is that she holds a warrant from Her Majesty the Queen. She therefore has an obligation to answer the question which is a pretty simple one. Why is she having difficulty in answering it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that I have in front of me the delegated responsibilities of the Hon Tariana Turia which are all policy matters relating to Maori health policy implementation Maori health service development the national radiation service and the New Zealand Blood Service. She can only be asked questions in her own right relating to matters delegated to her. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean an Associate Minister who goes out and makes a speech from which a “multiplicity of meanings” can be taken cannot be questioned by the House as to exactly what was meant in that speech when it was delivered by that person as a Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No but any member is quite entitled to ask the Prime Minister about that and I think that was done. As far as the Minister is concerned members are entitled to ask about matters that are specifically delegated to her. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Heather Roy’s question was not restricted in any way. It asked about the justification for discriminating under the law between different groups of New Zealanders. That form of discrimination exists in the health sector. There is no reason why the Minister should not make a comment about the justification—if there is one—for that given that she has made a speech in which she said that one group of New Zealanders does not accept the sovereignty of the Crown in respect of the seabed and foreshore. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as the question is confined to her delegation—and I assume that it now is—I ask whether the Minister would care to comment on those matters specifically referring to those she has delegated responsibility for. Perhaps Heather Roy could restate the question. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Minister not believe that the same laws should apply to all New Zealanders? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is in relation to the Minister’s particular area. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I do not recall saying so that that member can make an inference that I do not believe in one law for all New Zealanders. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why did the Minister in a speech to Te Ngawari Hauora a health organisation say: “... there is no way that tangata whenua will ever give up our rights voluntarily or allow them to be subject to anyone else's authority. We will never agree that the Crown or anyone else should hold them on our behalf.”? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: That was a clear view that was expressed by tangata whenua at the 11 consultative hui held to discuss the Government’s earlier proposals. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that she spoke to a health organisation about all those 11 hui does she then as stated in her speech believe that management rights convey to tangata whenua some form of control over the beaches and the foreshore and what would that mean for all other New Zealanders? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Mr Speaker I need your guidance on this. Am I answering this in relation to the speech I made or as the Associate Minister of Health? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has been asked the question as Associate Minister of Health. She can be asked the question in relation to the delegation that she has. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Could the member repeat the question? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that the Minister’s prior answer specifically referred to the 11 hui does she believe that the exercise of management rights referred to in the speech provides some form of control over the beaches and the foreshore and what does that mean for the rights of all other New Zealanders? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: That particular comment was related to the beliefs and practices of my constituency. I was merely telling the people at the hui of that situation. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the Minister who holds a Crown warrant be voting for the Government proposals which will inevitably limit in some way tangata whenua rights—which have after all often been claimed to include Maori ownership of the seabed and foreshore? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have any responsibility for that particular area within her delegated responsibility. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She must have responsibility over how she votes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has responsibility only over the matters that are delegated and listed to her and I have read those out. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I will rephrase the question then. How will ownership of the seabed and foreshore as claimed by Maori—which is extensive—be affected by the Government proposal which will inevitably limit it? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What does that have to do with it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is somewhat of a new ruling to us today that Associate Ministers can answer only questions confined to their delegations even though they are out in public making various speeches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That ruling has been there for about 100 years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We learn something every day. Once again this is an issue that is of considerable public import. We have been allowed to ask a supplementary question and I would appreciate the opportunity to re-ask the question of the Hon Tariana Turia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has already had a go. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He was interrupted during that process by all sorts of catcalls from the Government side of the House. I do not think he was given a fair go. He was put on the spot fairly quickly. It is only reasonable that on the last day of the year and in the case of the last supplementary question of the year we get to ask the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In the spirit of that I will allow the member to ask it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In exercising her delegated responsibilities for health given that the Government proposals will inevitably limit in some way tangata whenua rights how will the Minister be voting on those issues? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The member will have to wait until March to find out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will note that the speech Tariana Turia made the other day was entitled “Sharing and Partnership: the Value of Maori Custom”. I recall very well her “holocaust” speech about which her questioning in Parliament did not meet any such limitation at that time. Now in December 2003 we find that all of a sudden the Minister has been cocooned by a new ruling: she can say any old thing in the country as a Minister yet not be questioned on it. I do not believe that in any other Western Parliament—certainly not in that of the UK or Australia—such a ruling would be given in order to give a Minister that sort of protection. Otherwise she could literally say any old thing at any old time at enormous embarrassment to the administration—and to Lianne Dalziel as well but she is not dealing with that right now is she; that is a bigger problem really—either domestically or internationally and get away with it. It cannot be that she can go out and make a speech like that one and not be subject to parliamentary questions on it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not answerable for her speech in question time unless it relates to her delegated responsibilities. That is no new rule; it has been established over all the time I have been in Parliament.