1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by the answer given on his behalf that “The National-led Government has a strong relationship with its support partners”?
Hon BILL ENGLISHDoes “working together in good faith” continue to be part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Māori Party; if so, why did the Prime Minister say no to Māori seats on the Auckland Council in April, then in June set up a special subcommittee to hear submissions on the inclusion of Māori seats on the council, raising the Māori Party’s hopes, and then in August, before the report back of the committee and with only a few hours’ notice, slam the door shut in the face of the Māori Party, saying that Māori seats on the council were not National policy?
In our experience of the relationship with the Māori Party, it has sufficient dignity, strength, and mana to look after its own interests, and it does not need Labour patronising it.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a highly political answer about Labour patronising the Māori Party. [ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERMy point of order was that the Minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister went nowhere near answering the question I had asked. He said the Labour Party was patronising the Māori Party, and that had nothing to do with the question I had asked. He could have addressed at least a little bit of the question.
I hear what the honourable member is saying, but she may reflect that in her question she used language like “slam the door shut in the face of” a political party, which is bound to elicit a less than objective response. The question itself was less than objective. That is my dilemma. If I insist on Ministers being objective in an answer to a question that had fairly tough overtones to it, then I start to get into some difficulty. I invite the honourable member to ask a further question. If it is more objective, I will try to make sure a more objective answer is given.
Was there an option put forward by the Minister of Māori Affairs that allowed all Aucklanders to select two Māori seats at large, thus meeting the Minister of Local Government’s requirement for one person, one vote where everybody got the same ballot paper; if so, why did the Government not accept that option, which would have demonstrated its strong relationship with the Māori Party?
The relationship with the Māori Party is strong because it is based on respect, not always agreement.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked for a straight question. There was nothing political in my question; it was dead straight, and that was a crooked answer.
I think it is unfortunate that that comment was made in the point of order, because I was about to ask the Hon Bill English on behalf of the Prime Minister to be a bit more forthcoming in his answer. But how can I do that when the member in her point of order slung across the House that the answer was crooked? I have to show even-handedness, and a point of order should not allege that an answer was crooked.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I withdraw that remark. Would you like me to read my question again with no remark at the end? [ Interruption]
Was there an option put forward by the Minister of Māori Affairs that allowed all Aucklanders to select two Māori seats at large, thus meeting the Minister of Local Government’s requirement of one person, one vote where everyone got the same ballot paper; if so, why did the Government not accept that option, which would have demonstrated its strong relationship with the Māori Party?
As I said before, the Government’s relationship with the Māori Party is a strong one and that is demonstrated every day. A range of options was looked at in respect of Māori representation on the Auckland Council, and those options were debated in an atmosphere of respect.
Hon Peter DunneWhat lessons has the Prime Minister learnt from earlier confidence and supply agreements that he has applied to his current governing arrangements and working relationships with support parties to ensure stable government?
Yes, we have looked at how previous Governments operated, particularly the last Government. The current Government’s arrangements are more inclusive. There is a greater participatory role for support parties through full membership of Cabinet committees. We have more frequent consultation, particularly between Ministers and members of support parties, instead of everything going through the ninth floor, and we have a more open relationship with the leaders of support parties.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Which of the Prime Minister’s support parties, if any, does he expect to vote for his proposed amendments to the emissions trading scheme?
In light of the Prime Minister’s recent flip-flops on the issue of Māori seats, what is today’s National Government policy on such seats, given that its confidence and supply agreement with the Māori Party states that it supports Māori seats as long as Māori want them, and given that on Monday the Prime Minister said that Māori seats would be against National Party policy?
Rahui KateneDoes the Prime Minister consider the relationship with the Māori Party to be a mature one with mutual trust and respect, with differences, when there are any, aired on a face-to-face basis and not through the media?
Yes, he certainly does. I think the most important element of the relationship is respect, and that is something that National has offered to Māori representation that the Labour Party never has.
Hon Rodney HideCan the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Regulatory Reform have worked closely together to produce a Government statement on regulation that will cut red tape and provide higher living standards for New Zealanders?
Yes, he can confirm that. I would like to thank the Minister for Regulatory Reform, Rodney Hide, for the focus and the energy that he has brought to that task. I think it will make a real difference to the quality of regulation over the next 10 years that this Government is in power.
Is the Prime Minister concerned at the deteriorating relationship between his party and his confidence and supply partners through the media, as seen in comments made by Tau Henare, who called the ACT Party leader, amongst other things, a “buffoon”, a “jerk-off”, and a “….”; Hone Harawira’s claim that “We do not wish to work alongside ACT because of the lies they have fed us and also because of their racist decision.”; Pita Sharples’ comments that Rodney Hide’s actions are “over the top”, “unfair”, and “undemocratic”; and Tariana Turia’s comments that Māori seats are a “non-negotiable” issue?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take serious and grave offence at being called a “….” by the acting Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think we should ask John Carter to explain. He was the last person to use that word in the House.
If National’s policy on Māori seats is so clear, is the Prime Minister aware that the Māori Party announced this week that it intends to introduce legislation to entrench the Māori seats in Parliament, and would that not contradict the confidence and supply agreement?
I am quite sure that the Māori Party will discuss with us, as it always does, what its intentions are, and I do not think it is too worried about what the Labour Party thinks of it, quite honestly.
Can the Prime Minister see the irony of the situation that if the Māori Party introduces legislation to entrench the Māori seats in Parliament, there would be enough numbers for the bill to pass if the ACT Party were to stick to the principle it espoused before last year’s election that it would support the entrenchment of the Māori seats, leaving his comments about a “positive forward relationship” with the Māori Party as nothing other than empty rhetoric?