Editorial: Horomia's thrift to be applauded

Opinion

It is almost too easy for Opposition MPs to criticise the Maori Affairs Minister, Parekura Horomia. Quite apart from his physical size, his circumlocution and the inherent controversy associated with the Maori development which he oversees, he is combative and unapologetic in reply. He has rightly been scrutinised in the past over his party's policies, for example on the foreshore and seabed legislation and on targeted spending offered to Maori but not to people of other ethnicities.

Yet the latest round of attacks on Mr Horomia is illogical and hypocritical. When it emerged at a select committee hearing that the minister had not sought increased funding for his ministry, Te Puni Kokiri, in this year's Budget round, derision hailed down upon him. At least the Maori Party, which led the charge, was consistent as it believes that the ministry needs more money to support Maori in a variety of ways.

The National Party's stance was less sustainable. A party which stands for "one law for all" and the eradication of race-based funding of programmes found itself arguing that it was wrong for the Maori Affairs Minister not to seek more money for exactly that purpose. One of its MPs on the committee, Tau Henare, ridiculed Mr Horomia, intimating that his admission should lead to resignation of his warrant. Those who value consistency in policy and politics must have winced at the contradictions.

Virtually all Mr Horomia's critics realise that most of the funding for Maori development is made not through Te Puni Kokiri, which is a policy and monitoring ministry, but through departments like health, education and social development. The alacrity with which they assailed the minister for not wanting more spending for TPK or indeed these other arms of state was embarrassing.

In any case, since when did it become a crime in the National Party or anywhere in Parliament for a minister to be prudent with the allocation of taxpayer funds? Mr Horomia took the advice of his ministry's chief executive, Leith Comer, that no more direct funding was required. Te Puni Kokiri would prioritise its priorities, as Mr Horomia so unhelpfully said, and work to achieve the Government's goals. Three cheers for that. And praise for both the minister and the chief executive.

For this Budget, ministers met in groups according to the Government's three strategies of economic transformation, families young and old and national identity to argue their cases for funding. This replaced the orthodox procedure in which ministers met the Finance Minister or one of his deputies in one-on-one negotiations. This time it was clear to all present that there were competing calls on Michael Cullen's purse. That is no bad thing, if awareness of the broader picture leads to less accommodation for harping ministers, their departments, lobby groups and segments of political parties.

Mr Horomia ought to be held up by a prudent Government as a minister to be emulated. That does not devalue the real need for assistance to lower socio-economic groups in which Maori are a dominant presence. As long as he and the stewards of the health, social development, housing and education portfolios focus hard on undertaking spending which achieves the maximum bang for the buck, a static budget for Te Puni Kokiri is irrelevant. Are there any other ministers out there who can claim to have shown anything near as much fiscal restraint and common sense?