Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3677 me in this Chamber, in recognition of our historical relationship to one another. Although I respect the right of Asians to be heard, I can never accept the betrayal by Labour’s Māori MPs of the primary right of Māori to be on the Auckland Council, as manu whenua, as tangata whenua, and as Māori. I am outraged by the cringing position taken by those Labour Māori MPs, in allowing the status of Māori to be downgraded to that of other ethnic groups, for we are, and always will be, the first people of this great land of Aotearoa. I call on those Labour Māori MPs to speak up for Māori, to fight for Māori, and to be Māori. I call on them either to fight for those seats on the Auckland Council—for mana whenua first, for Māori second, and for anybody else after that—or to admit their failings, to recognise their duplicity, to confess their complicity, and to resign their seats forthwith. Their mana, for what it is worth, the mana of their people—and indeed the mana of their tūpuna—deserves nothing less. Kia ora tātou. RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I feel obliged to take a call on new Part 5, which contains Subpart 1 and Subpart 2, in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. This part is important. We are proposing this part to ensure that the representation of Māori, Pacific, and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of Auckland City is protected. Earlier in this Chamber I cited what North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams said on this bill and the other related bill. He said: “These Bills effectively shut down elected local government in greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of handpicked, unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months, until the deeply flawed super city takes over.” We have to introduce this part because this bill, amongst other things, will remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of Auckland. Labour thinks that the National Government’s complete failure to consult on this plan is wrong and that Aucklanders deserve a say in the future of their city. Auckland is home to many Asian Kiwis, and I am one of them. Statistics New Zealand predicts that about one-third of its residents will be of Asian ethnicity by 2016, up from 20 percent in 2001. But it is sad that, in response to such important legislation—which has created the biggest challenge Auckland has faced in its entire history—National’s Asian MPs are systematically silent on the issues. Mr Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi was here last night smiling to himself, and he was here this morning as well. But where is the Hon Pansy Wong? Where is the honourable Melissa Lee? I saw her on television, on Close Up, busy apologising for the comments she had made the night before. But what about the interests of thousands upon thousands of Asian Aucklanders, whom those MPs at least claim to represent? Under National’s plan, in future the people of South Auckland and west Auckland in particular are unlikely to be entitled to influence local government in Auckland. I think the small but growing number of elected community board members and councillors of Asian ethnicity will be denied any real ability to influence the future of local government in Auckland. I am not blaming National Asian MPs. The 800-page of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance took 18 months to prepare, it cost millions of dollars, and it received 3,537 submissions. The National Government’s sham version of a super-city that is being forced on Auckland was thrown together in just 3 days. We are introducing new parts and further amendments. At this Committee stage it is very important for me to reiterate that I oppose this bill for three main reasons. The bill is procedurally unfair, because as Part 3 shows, existing local authorities will have their powers stripped from them, and 1.4 million people in Auckland are not able to have a say about that. Goodbye Pork Pie? I do not think Aucklanders are impressed. Clause 49 of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a referendum on reorganisation proposals. This bill will override those provisions. In a broad constitutional sense, this bill is flawed. The bill also creates huge uncertainty. Both Mr
Page 1:
First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 59: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 111 and 112:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146:
HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?