Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3676 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
Hon David Cunliffe: The example given by the Leader of the House—about socalled
trivial changes to dates, and so forth—is clearly distinct from proposals to add
entirely new parts. I submit to you, Mr Chairperson, that the application of the word
“trivial” to a part such as new Part 5, which the Committee is currently debating, is a
gross insult to the communities affected, which are Māori, Pacific, and other ethnic
groups. It is simply not appropriate that members of this Committee should describe
mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of that nature as “trivial”.
That brings us, I guess, to the core point of what the Leader of the House submitted,
which was that these parts are, in his view, no more than a filibuster and therefore do
not deserve the protection of the Standing Orders. That brings into question the matter
of whether the member’s perception of the part should stand for the whole Committee.
Clearly, it should not, and new Part 5 should be seen as an example of an extremely
substantive and well-thought-out part. Why is it necessary? That is the whole point—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is straying into the
substance of the part. Let me make a number of points. Firstly, it is not helpful to have
descriptors of what members do as being trivial, or this, that, or the other. A point of
order is about order; it is not about the emotional words that one might wish to attach to
it.
Secondly, I make the point that no matter what members write on their
amendments—whether they insert new parts, new multi-parts, and so on—they are still
amendments. So according to the Standing Orders we are considering amendments, not
parts. However, because they are amendments of such a nature, they will get a little
more air time than they would if they were just one-word amendments, and that is
reflected in the Chair’s consideration. I repeat for the Committee the point I made
before, which is that the two Rs, which are relevance and repetition, will guide the
Chairs’ decisions.
The third point I make, again—and this will never change as long as we have this
Parliament—is that the decision will be the Chair’s and the Chair’s alone. No
correspondence will be entered into, and there will be no emails, no texts, no groans, no
sighs, and no rolling of heads or eyes—that will all wash over the Chair, whose opinion
is impartial. The Chair will determine the appropriate time for the Committee to
consider an amendment.
I also make another point, which I think is important and fundamental here. New
Zealand is a democracy. We argue and battle over words. This is a contest of words, and
this is a contest of wills. It seems to me, in a way, that it is a little bit like Ogden Nash:
when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping. He did not say that, but in this
situation, when the going gets tough in the Committee, the tough write amendments or
parts. That is what this is about; it is a wrestle. But at the end of the day we have to have
the debate. It has to be relevant, cogent, and to the point, and repetition should not be
entered into.
Both sides will feel aggrieved and disappointed at some point—such is the role of the
Chair. But we will make these decisions as we go, piece by piece. I state it again: it is
the Chair’s decision—no correspondence will be entered into—and it is about relevance
and repetition.
HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Chairperson. Kia ora tātou katoa. If
Labour’s proposal for Pasifika nation seats was genuinely about representation, then
where are the seats for the Somali, the Kenyan, the Dalmatian, or the South African?
Although I respect much of what Labour has had to say today, this proposal is nothing
but a naked grab for the votes of the large Pasifika nation populations in Auckland.
Although I have the greatest respect for my Pacific cousins, I note the fact that the
phrase “sons of Māui”, attributed to George Hawkins, was actually one coined first by