Parliamentary Questions 15/11/05   TE URUROA FLAVELL (Mâori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Tenâ koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tâtou katoa. Ko taku pâtai ki te Minita o ngâ Take o Tâwâhi, e penei ana: [Greetings, Madam Speaker, and greetings to us all. My question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is as follows:] 'Âe rânei, kâore rânei, ka kôrero mai te Kâwanatanga ki te tangata whenua mô ngâ kaupapa kôrero i a ia e kôrero ana ki te United Nations?'. Does the Government consult with tangata whenua on relevant issues when attending United Nations forums? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): United Nations forums cover a vast range of issues. The Government has a policy— Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fully accept the right of the questioner to ask his question in his chosen language. Even though it is written on the speech the Standing Orders require that the question is read as written on the sheet. Many members in this House have been pulled up by the Speaker in the past for not complying with that Standing Order. I would have thought that at least the question should be repeated to us by a translator. Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order. In future the question should be read as it is on the Order Paper. If there is then to be a Mâori translation at that point, it may be given. Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that for the guidance of the Mâori Party it should be clearer than that. It would be quite acceptable for the question to be written in Mâori, and then it can be asked in Mâori. The difficulty we have is that the question as it appears on the Order Paper is written in English. I think for the future guidance of the Mâori Party the requirement should be that it be written in Mâori, and then it can be asked in Mâori in the first instance. For those of us who are still struggling with te reo maybe the Clerk or the Mâori Party can arrange for an English version to be sent to us all in the morning. Madam SPEAKER: My ruling still remains. If the member wanted the question on the Order Paper to be in Mâori then he should have lodged it in Mâori. Maybe that will be the course in the future. Gerry Brownlee: The translation should be given. Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is already translated. Madam SPEAKER: He did it himself. That was the point. He actually provided the translation, as he is perfectly entitled to. The legitimate part of the member's point of order was that he should have originally read the question as it was on the Order Paper. [Interruption] The member may well disagree, but I have ruled on that. I now ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer the question. Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: United Nations forums cover a vast range of issues. The Government has a policy of engaging, where appropriate, with Mâori on issues that they have identified as being of interest to them. Te Ururoa Flavell: What consultation with Mâori had occurred prior to the New Zealand delegates describing the draft declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples as 'unworkable and unacceptable' in the sixtieth General Assembly held in New York on 20 October? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I understand that there was a great deal of discussion. Of course, discussion and consultation do not lead to those with whom the discussions occurred having their views necessarily reflected in the submissions made elsewhere within the United Nations. The Government, whoever it may be, is free to arrive at its own conclusions, and present those conclusions in the appropriate forms. Hone Harawira: Tenâ koe te Kaikôrero, tçnâ tâtou te Whare. Taku pâtai e penei ana. [Greetings to the Speaker and greetings to the House. My question as follows.] What was the rationale for New Zealand's statement at the sixtieth General Assembly that New Zealand could not agree to a document that suggested there were two standards of citizenship, or two classes of citizens, particularly in the context of the Prime Minister's statement that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed so that two peoples could coexist in one nation and we still have work to do in honouring the treaty? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, we do, but that does not lead to an assumption of two classes of citizenship or two sets of rules. Te Ururoa Flavell: What events has the Government sponsored to recognise the second decade of the rights of the indigenous peoples, which started in January this year? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have any particular information in front of me in that respect. Perhaps the member could put down another question and I will try to get that information for him. Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Government invite Rodolfo Stavenhagen to New Zealand after ridiculing the UN report that accused the Labour Government of discriminating against the interests of Mâori over the foreshore and seabed legislation? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The UN Commission on Human Rights suggested that we issue a standing invitation for the thematic human rights special rapporteurs to visit here. At the beginning of 2004 we issued a standing invitation to the thematic human rights special rapporteurs, which I should emphasise is United Nations language, not New Zealand Government language. Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked why. Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There was no special invitation to Mr Stavenhagen in this case. There is a standing invitation to the class of people of which Mr Stavenhagen is one. Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for the clarification. Gerry Brownlee: Is the Government prepared to change the Foreshore and Seabed Act on the potentially embarrassing recommendations of Professor Stavenhagen, or is the Government prepared to accept that the United Nations is not always right about every single issue? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We will listen carefully to any recommendations that Mr Stavenhagen makes. The United Nations is not infallible. Should Mr Stavenhagen, for example, recommend changes to the Cabinet Manual, I doubt that we would take too much notice of them. Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That may be an enormously humorous answer as far as Dr Cullen is concerned, but the simple question was: if he makes recommendations will the Government act on them? If the Minister would like me to rephrase the question so that he can give the House an answer then I am happy to so. Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Listen to the answer. I said we will listen carefully to any recommendations that he makes. Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member. Gerry Brownlee: Will the Government change the foreshore and seabed legislation in order to comply with any recommendations from Professor Stavenhagen? Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We will carefully consider any recommendations that Professor Stavenhagen makes. If the recommendations are consistent with Government policy we will certainly look at that possibility. If they are not it is most unlikely that we will do so—unlike the National Party, which was prepared to give away every part of its Mâori policy before the election to try to secure the votes of the Mâori Party, but once that fell through it was back on scratching the old issues.