Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3671
[Mr Chairman, my understanding is that when one speaks in Māori in this House,
the clock is stopped until the end of that address in Māori. It is turned on again once
one starts speaking in English.]
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a very good point, and I thank the
member for bringing it to my attention. The interpretation is in addition to what the
member is saying, so the time allocation is not reduced. In the case of the previous
speaker, Shane Jones, the clock was turned off while we had the interpretation.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you
for those words of assistance. The point remains, however, that during the course of the
debate on this particular part there will be a great deal of bilingual debate. We need
reassurance. When we lapse from one language to the other, the timekeeping will be
essential. This debate is the only chance that that portion of Auckland’s population will
ever hear their language being spoken in defence of their rights.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that point. In terms of the
timekeeping, there are two of us here who keep the time. In fact, in relation to the
member who spoke before—I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard is keeping his eye on
the clock—I gave the member about 10 seconds extra, because we had not turned off
the clock as quickly as we might have.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to support proposed new Part 5 of the
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. In doing so I put in context why we
think it is important that this specificity is laid down now: to ensure that in future we
achieve Māori representation.
I think it reflects no honour at all upon the National Party that, after 3 days of debate
on a bill that is being considered in urgency and that is not going to select committee,
not one of the amendments that have been put by the Labour Party, by the Green Party,
or by others other than the Government have been supported by the Government. So
after 3 days of debate, the bill is as it was proposed by the National Party. People would
think on that basis that we have an infallible Government. This Government is so
confident of its own abilities that it thinks it does not have to listen—not only will it not
listen to the will of the people through the select committee process, but it cannot even
listen to Opposition submissions in order to find kernels of good ideas that it can bring
itself to agree with.
People considering whether that is a realistic assessment of how this Government
deals with personnel, and of the appropriateness of appointments that it causes to be
made to bodies, need only reflect on mistakes that have been made by the Government
in the last week in terms of the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families
Commission. It is the Government’s right to appoint her, but it shows that if people
have the ability to make appointments, or to control who the representatives of the
people on important bodies like councils—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to
those members who are obstructing my view that I would like to be able to see the
speaker when he is speaking.
Hon DAVID PARKER: The appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families
Commission shows that it is very important to have checks and balances on those who
control the appointments, in order to make sure that we have fair representation, and
that we do not have inappropriate appointments or a lack of representation. The example
of Christine Rankin shows that this Government, above all others, is not infallible when
it comes to the matter of representation and who it appoints to bodies.
Representation is what lies behind proposed new Part 5. This part inserts
mechanisms to make sure that the discretion of those involved in the future as to who
should be elected to councils and what groups ought to have some representation is