Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3669
New Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic
groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā tātou katoa. New Part 5 is a very grave part
of the bill, because it points to the delinquency and the severity of the complete
disregard for the history, constitutional, and demographic importance of Auckland in
the planning for Auckland’s future mega-city status, and the complete level of
ignorance about the future character of the mega-city of Auckland. That is why we
stand with a degree of hope that is clouded by the bad decision-making that has guided
the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, to date, which has resulted in his
isolating, marginalising, and completely neglecting a growing percentage of Auckland’s
population.
In 1867 Donald MacLean derived a response to the growing unrest amongst iwi that
the Crown was governing the country without any inclusion of a meaningful nature of
Māori. That was when statutory Māori representation—after the failure of the rūnanga
experiment early in the 1850s—took root. This part is an extension of that. Why would
a modern nation want to provide distinctive Māori representation in its largest city, as it
seeks to use that city as a catalyst to transform the wider economy? Why would it want
to do that? Not only because of heritage but because the reality is that these are the
people whose population percentage is growing disproportionately faster. They are the
Asian proportion, they are the tangata whenua in a broader sense, and they are the
Pasifika people. So what is being asked for here is a continuation of that proud tradition
that exists at the level of national Government.
Nā reira, ko tāku ki te Whare, he aha oti te raruraru me whakaae tātou kia
waihangatia wēnei tūranga Māori hei noho, e kitea ai te kanohi Māori i te aroaro o te
motu; ngā tūru Māori e rua, mā te marea me tētahi atu tūru motuhake mō ngā tāngata
whenua? Nui noa atu te pōuri ahakoa te moe tahi a Te Pāti Māori ki ō rātou hoa, kāhore
he paku aroha e puta ana ki a rātou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[So, mine to the House; what problem is there that we agree to create these Māori
positions to enable the face of Māoridom to be seen before the nation—the two
positions for Māori, for the public, and a special one for the people of the land? I am
greatly saddened that although the Māori Party has bedded together with their
colleagues, they display no compassion for them.]
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise. This is a
matter in which I have no expertise, but I think, from my limited knowledge, that we
might have had a slight miss in the interpretation right at the end. I think the “two” that
my colleague outlined was for Māori seats and the “one” was for mana whenua. I think
it is important that we get that right.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. If there was a wrong
interpretation, I am sure that when the member resumes his speech he will pick up on it.
I am leaving that to the discretion of the Hon Shane Jones. Was there a mistake in the
interpretation, or was it accurate? If there was a mistake, you have an opportunity to
correct it.
Hon SHANE JONES: I shall take that opportunity. With due respect, this
correction, I am sure, is not included as part of my formal speech. I mean absolutely no
disrespect to the interpreter, a senior scholar of our language, but the essential point is
that my proposed new part corrects the absence of tangata whenua and mana whenua
representation, and provides two slots for Māori in general.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My proposition to you was about the
interpretation provided by the interpreter. Did the interpreter report accurately what you