3. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
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 Māori Affairs) Link to this
Yes. This Government has continued to recognise the emergence of a new, dynamic vitality amongst Māoridom. We do recognise the importance of lifting aspirations, celebrating and encouraging success, and not dwelling on past failures.
What did the Minister mean when he said on Te Karere“The Government is focused on Māori development if you do not include the foreshore and seabed.”?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
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 Māori’s progress forward, adding to the development of this nation as a whole.
Dave HereoraHon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Several—too many to name. But there have been a number of important achievements for Māori over the last 6 years. There is the highest employment level for Māori on record. Key commercial assets in the primary production sector are now being managed by Māori, with the fisheries allocation process under way. Māori enterprise and economic development are growing, and last year’s Hui Taumata highlighted the progress that has been made. The Māori Language Strategy, together with great support for iwi radio and a great television station, put culture on the national and international stage.
Gerry BrownleeWhen the Minister said on Te Karere that the New Zealand Government is actively supporting Māori development “provided you do not include the foreshore bill”, was he really saying that the foreshore and seabed legislation is bad for Māori development, or does he now retract his statement?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you accept that as addressing the question? What the Minister just said—[ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERWith 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 Māori”, but we do need to have this sorted out.
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.
Who are the members on the Government caucus that the Minister referred to on Te Karere when he said: “The strength of Māori here is in trying to rectify or fix up what tauiwi have done.”; who are those tauiwi?
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that we make special allowances for the Minister of Māori Affairs, but the question asked where those strong Māori are. It may well be that the Minister, Parekura Horomia, is so ashamed of his own team that he can see strong Māori MPs only in the National Party now—[ Interruption]
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.
The Minister, in addressing the question, has said that the strong Māori 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 Link to this
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 Māori caucus. I have to inform Mr Hide that tauiwi are quite different from Māori; 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.
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.
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 Māori, 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.
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.