11. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Deputy Prime Minister
Does he stand by his reported comments that the report of the United Nations special rapporteur for indigenous issues is disappointing, unbalanced, and narrow and that the special rapporteur himself is “out of touch … with New Zealand”, and will the Government make a complaint to the United Nations?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; the Government will provide an appropriate response to the United Nations.
Why does the Government, every time a report affirms Māori rights, discredit, deny, and dismiss both the report and the report writer—and, in this case, the United Nations committee that the report writer represents; if the Government’s concerns are so strong, will it request that another international expert be invited to report on indigenous issues in New Zealand; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
In answer to those four questions, and perhaps some implicit other questions, firstly, no, we do not do that. Secondly, the committee referred to is in such ill odour that it is being abolished and replaced because it is seen as quite inadequate in terms of its performance over a number of years, and, in fact, the report is littered with errors of fact and interpretation. I recall, for the information of the House, having Mr Stavenhagen in my office. He was quite stunned to find out that most Māori live in towns and cities. After being around the country, he thought most Māori lived in isolated rural settlements.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the report refer to a “law on indigenous rights” when there is no such law; is that one of the reasons why a number of UN countries are looking to a new human rights council—something that might have credibility in the future?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Yes, my understanding is that that reference is made, and that law clearly does not exist. There are many errors within the report that are simple errors of fact, not least in relation to the legal decisions regarding foreshore and seabed, both pre and post the Ngāti Apa decision and pre and post the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Will the Minister confirm which of the following people he was referring to on National Radio this morning as “the usual collection of academic radicals”, given that the consultation included himself, Parekura Horomia—
Madam SPEAKER—Nanaia Mahuta, chief executives and senior officials from 12 Government departments, the Human Rights Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Māori Land Court, paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu, and kaumatua, kuia, and leaders of Kāi Tahu, Hauraki, Ngāti Whātua, Taranaki, and many other iwi throughout the motu?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I noticed, and noticed that you noticed, that Parekura Horomia interjected during the course of that question. Having had your very harsh sanction, I wondered why you chose not to take any action.
I heard several people making comment during that question. That is why I said “Order!”. I did not identify any particular person at the time. If every person who made a comment or laughed during that left the Chamber, we would probably have few left. So I ask members please to respect those who are on their feet asking the question.
Hon Trevor MallardNo, I ask Dr Smith to please withdraw and apologise for that statement. I try very hard not to have different rules but to maintain order in this House.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The people referred to by the member cover a very wide range of political views. It was certainly my very clear impression, when I talked to the UN rapporteur, that he was mainly influenced by one or two academic radicals at Auckland University and a few other people he had met. I asked him whether he had actually talked to any large numbers of urban Māori. He seemed somewhat surprised to hear that there were large numbers of urban Māori.