Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill
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 had first said? If the interpreter did not report you accurately, I am giving you the opportunity to correct the record. We are not getting into a debate on what you said; all I want to know is whether it was interpreted accurately. This is your opportunity to correct the interpretation, if it was incorrect—not a debate, just a correction if that was the case.
Hon SHANE JONES: I have nothing further to add in relation to that issue.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you.
Hon SHANE JONES: Let us move on to my very clever innovation as to how the people of Pasifika will actually be included. Arā, noa atu te aroha ki ō tātou huānga mai i Te Moana-nui-a- Kiwa. I tae mai ki konei hei horoi i te paru a ētahi kē atu. I hara mai hei tātā wahie, i hara mai hei waha wai engari i te mutunga he tangata, he iwi rangatira. Ko te mea tika kia kite ai tō rātou kanohi i roto i tēnei kaunihera hou kei puta te kōrero, kāhore wā rātou pānga, horekau ō rātou kanohi e tika ana kia kitea ai i roto i ngā tūranga teitei.
Ahakoa te kitea o te kanohi Hāmoa i tērā taha, poto noa ake te wā mōna ki reira. E kore oti i a ia te kake i ngā hōiho e rua i roto i te hāora kotahi. Nā reira, he utu kei te hara mai mōna engari, hāunga anō tēnā take.
Te wāhanga tuatoru, ko ngā tāngata i tae tata mai, mai i te whenua o Āhia. Ērā tāngata i hara mai i te rawakoretanga, ētahi i arumia e ētahi kē atu, ētahi i ahu mai ki konei kia tatū ai te noho o wā rātou tamariki ki Aotearoa. Nā reira e tika ana ō rātou kanohi me ō ngā motu, me ō te tangata whenua kia kitea ngātahitia. Kaua e waiho ko ngā hoa o te Minita anakenake hei whakatutua, hei whakarite mō te noho a te iwi mai i ngā moutere, mai Āhia, mai i ngā marae o te motu he rite ki te pononga noa iho nei. Kāhore he mana. Nā reira koia tā mātou e tautoko i tēnei wāhanga. Tēnei wāhanga rangatira kia kore ai te iwi Māori e ’hakatahangia.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[There is much sympathy for our relations from the Great Sea of Kiwa, the Pacific Ocean. They came here to clean up the mess left by others, to be woodchoppers, bearers of water, but in the end they are humans and a dignified people. To have their faces seen on this new council is the proper thing to do. It would allay any talk that they have no interests and they should not be seen in these positions of high standing.
Although the face of Samoa can be seen on the other side, the member’s presence there is limited. He will not last on both horses for a single hour. So there is a cost ahead for him, but that is another matter.
The third part relates to recent arrivals from Asia. Some came from poverty, some followed other Asians over here, and some immigrated here so that their children could settle here in New Zealand. So it is right that their faces are represented alongside those of Pasifika and the people of the land. Decisions on how people from Asia, Pasifika, and from the marae of the land should live should not be left solely to the Minister and his cronies. That makes the people subservient and without dignity. So that is what we are supporting here in this part, this noble part that ensures Māoridom is not marginalised.]
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ā, kai te Heamana, ki tāku nei mōhio mēnā ka huri te tangata ki te kōrero i te reo Māori i roto i te Whare nei, ka katia te wāti tae noa atu ki te mutunga o tana kōrero. Otirā, ka huri atu ki te reo o tauiwi, ka tīmata anō.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[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.
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.
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 limited by the legislation, rather than being left completely at large. We know that if it is left completely at large the National Government could make the same mistakes in respect of future representation in this new Auckland body—in terms of not achieving fair representation of the 1.4 million citizens of Auckland—as we have already seen in respect of the Families Commission this week. That is why I am so supportive of this amendment brought forward in the name of the Hon Shane Jones.
Part 5 will make sure that these mechanisms work fairly for the people of Auckland by prescribing limits—instead of the absolute absence of limits in the current legislation—to give some direction as to what is fair representation in the future. It is important to note that this is not done just for the local tangata whenua in the narrow sense. The amendment does not say that these are only the people who have whakapapa back to the lands of these areas, and, therefore, have rights of representation. We know there are ethnicities and ethnic groups in the Auckland area—substantial groups within our democracy, but not strictly tangata whenua in that they cannot whakapapa back to an iwi showing land-based links—who will not have a voice on this new area. None the less these are representative or discrete groups of people who should have some voice if they are going to believe in the democracy that we have in New Zealand.
If these groups do not have a voice—if they find that their large percentage of population is effectively prevented from having a voice on this new council—they will not vote, and they will not believe in our democracy. They will have less faith not just in local government democracy, but in all of our political institutions, and that would be a bad thing. That is why new Part 5 sets out the mechanisms to ensure representation not just of that narrow group of land-linked tangata whenua, but of Māori more generally, and also of Pacific peoples. We know that the largest Polynesian city in the world, or rather the largest centre of population of Polynesian peoples in the world, is Auckland. Yet this bill in its current form does not recognise their right to a voice in Auckland.
I move, That the question be now put.
Ā, tēnā koe kai te Heamana. Tū noa iho tēnei ki te tautoko ake i ngā kōrero, i te wero o taku hoa a Shane Jones tino Hōnore. Nāna i tū ake i roto i te Whare nei ki te tautoko nei nā i te kaupapa kei waenganui i a tātou. Nāna i kī mai rā kua takahia te mana o te iwi Māori o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki raro iho. Koi nā, e āhua tino raruraru ana mātou ki tēnā kaupapa a te tangata e noho nei ki tō taha, te Minita mō ngā Kaunihera-ā-Rohe. Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā kai te Heamana e tika ana kia tuku wero ki tēnā taha o te Whare, ki ngā mema Māori o tēnā rōpū, o tēnā rōpū, otirā, ngā rōpū katoa e huihui nei i roto i tēnei Whare, kia tū ake rā ki te whakapuare ō rātou whakaaro mō te kaupapa kai runga kai te tēpu i te mea rā, ko te mana o Ngāti Whātua.
Ko ahau tēnei e tū atu nei kua takahia ki raro. Nā, ko te mana o Tainui o tēnei kua tū ake nei kua takahia ki raro. Ko te mana o te Kawerau-a-Maki, kua takahia ki raro. Pērā anō i te mana o Pare Hauraki, kua takahia ki raro. Kua takahia ki raro i te mea rā, ko tēnei pire e kīa nei me wahangū kōtou, me wahangū ki tēnei kaupapa. Korekau he mana kei waenganui i a koutou. Kua tuku atu te mana ki ngā rōpū paku āhua kiritea ngā tangata, mā rātou e tāhaetia i ngā taonga a Tāmaki-makau-rau ka hoko atu ki tāwāhi. Koinā te take e tū ake ai.
Kua takahia hoki te mana o ngā iwi o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ngā whanaunga mai i Hāmoa, i Tonga, i ngā Kuki Airana, i Whītī, mai i ēra motu katoa. Kua takahia ki raro. Nō reira, taku wero anō ki ngā mema Māori o ngā rōpū tōrangapū katoa, tū ake, tū ake ki te whakahē i te kaupapa kei runga ki te tēpū. Ki te Minita Poraka e noho nei ki tō taha, kua āhua hōhā a Tāmaki-makau-rau whānui tonu ki a ia.
Nō reira mihi ana hoki ki ngā rōpū kua huihui nei i tēnei Whare. Otirā, kia kaha ki te tū ki te kōrero i ngā kōrero hōhonu, ngā kōrero whānui e pā nei ki te mana motuhake a te iwi Māori. Nō reira, e Hone tēnā koe. Otirā, āhua hōhā ki tō tumuaki rā ki a Tariana, hara mai ki roto i te Whare i nanahi, ka tuku i tana wero ki ā mātou ka kī mai rā, ē, āhua taurekareka noa iho a kōtou kōrero e Reipa. Kai te tino whakahe ki tēnā wero i te mea rā, mātou o tēnei taha ka tuku wero ki te Kāwanatanga kia āta whakaarohia, kia āta whakarongo ki ngā nawe, ki ngā pōrarurarutanga kua horahia nei i roto i te Whare. Kīhai i te whakarongo. Nō reira, nāna nā Tariana i kī ai, ē, āhua taurekareka noa iho ngā wero, ngā kōrero katoa o te Rōpū Reipa. Ē, kai te tū a Reipa ki te tautoko i ngā iwi katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ko wai a ia ki te kī mai, kai te āhua korotake noa iho ngā kōrero?
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have not had the interpretation.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I did pause. Is there to be a interpretation?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to endorse the statements and the challenge set down by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones. He stood up in this House to support the matter in our midst. He stated that the authority of the Māori people of Auckland has been trampled upon. We are troubled by that, a matter that the person seated by you, the Minister of Local Government, created. Because of that, it is right that we challenge that side of the House, the Māori members of each party, and, indeed, all parties gathered here in this House, to stand up and express their views on the matter that is on the Table about the authority of Ngāti Whātua.
As a descendant of Ngāti Whātua, I say that the authority of this one standing before you has been trampled upon. As a descendant of Tainui, as well, my authority has been trampled upon again. Kawerau-a-Maki’s authority, just like Pare Hauraki’s authority, has been trampled upon, because this bill states that in respect of this matter you collectively must remain silent. You have no authority at all. It has gone to smaller groups whose members are somewhat fair in colour and who will steal Auckland’s resources and sell them offshore. That is my reason for standing up.
Trampled upon as well is the authority of the people of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, of the Pacific, those from Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands, Fiji, and all those islands. My challenge once again, therefore, is for Māori members of all political parties to stand up and oppose the matter on the Table. To the Minister seated at your side, Mr Chairman, Auckland at large is somewhat weary of him.
And so I acknowledge the parties gathered here in this House. Be staunch and address us at length and in depth about Māori independence. Greetings to you, Hone. I find your leader Tariana a bit of a bore. She came into the House yesterday and stung us by saying: “Labour, all your challenges and talk amount to nothing.” We reject that taunt entirely, because we on this side are challenging the Government to really consider and think through the complaints and concerns being presented in the House. The Government is not listening. So for Tariana to say that all of Labour’s talk and challenges amount to nothing is being somewhat extreme. Labour is actually standing up in support of all the people in Auckland. Who is she to tell us that what we have stated is pointless?]
Hon MITA RIRINUI: I thank the interpreter for his very close description of what I said.
I would like to summarise one particular point. I was very offended—and I have to say this while Hone Harawira is in this Chamber—by the comments made by the Hon Tariana Turia yesterday. She came to this Chamber and described as vexatious Labour’s efforts to have the Government recognise the needs of the Auckland people and allow them to have a say in this process. That is absolutely ridiculous. If that member cannot accept that this Parliament has a process that everybody, including the general public, has an opportunity to take part in, then she is just as guilty of a dictatorial attitude as the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, and as the Leader of the House, and as many of those members sitting on that side of the Chamber. The junior Government whip is waving the paper in the air. He knows I am right. There is a process issue at hand here. The people of Auckland have the right to have a say in what the Government has in mind for their future.
I move, That the question be now put.
Tēnā koe e te Heamana. Tēnā koe, Mr Jones, e ngaro haere ana. Tēnā tātou katoa, tēnā koe Mita. Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, to my whanaunga, Mr Jones, and to Mita Ririnui, who has just spoken. Tēnā tātou, ’hakoa tangi ana taku ngākau, pau te kaha te rongohia i ngā kōrero kua puta mai i te māngai o taku whakanaunga, a Shane Jones, me te tautoko anō hoki a Mita Ririnui—although my heart grieves greatly to hear the words spoken by Shane Jones and supported by Mita Ririnui here today.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Sincere apologies to the member, but I think there is a risk of this member being treated inequitably. He is providing his own translation and, therefore, he is not getting the benefit of the clock being stopped while that translation is occurring. If that were to continue, it would result in his speech being half the length of any other member’s speech.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is entitled to have the clock stopped when he speaks in Māori—that is, if he provides his own translation.
Hon Trevor Mallard: He has been.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I understand. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I ask the member to continue.
HONE HARAWIRA: He pātai, he pātai. I have a question, Mr Chairman: me tīmatangia anō ahau? May I start again?
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member has spoken for well over 1 minute, and we have stopped the clock. So I ask the member to continue.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point I was making is that about half of that time was for translation, and the clock was not stopped for that.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I said that at the time, and we will take that into account.
HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe. Tangi ana taku ngākau i te mea, kua rongo ahau i te kōrero me te whakaaro o Shane Jones, e ōrite ana te tū o te Māori ki tērā a wētahi atu. Tangi ana taku ngākau ki tērā. I was very grieved to hear Shane Jones put forward the view that Māori are just like anybody else. Tangi ana taku ngākau i te mea, ehara mātou i te tangata e ōrite ana ki tētahi atu. I am grieved to hear Shane Jones say that, because we are not the same as everybody else. He tangata whenua mātou te iwi Māori. We are the people of this land. E rongo ana au i ngā kōrero mō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, e rongo ana au i ngā kōrero mō wērā kei roto o Haina, me wērā atu o ngā rohe. I hear the call for representation from the Pacific peoples and from Asian people. Engari, kei hea te kōrero mō ngā Tararā, kei hea te kōrero mō Kenya, kei hea te kōrero mō Somalia, kei hea te kōrero mō ētahi atu? He whai pōti anake tēnei kaupapa. Kāre au i te whai rangatiratanga. Koi rā taku riri. Tēnā koe.
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to Hone Harawira, who has the call. I have deliberately raised my point of order at this point, rather than interrupt him when he resumes his speech. We are considering new parts to this bill, and I express a concern that the time being allowed for the consideration of these parts is obviously a lot less than the time allocated for earlier parts that were put forward by the Government.
I make the point that it is the Opposition’s right to put forward new parts, and to have them properly debated. It is, of course, proper of the Chair to cut off debate when no new points are being raised and where there is undue repetition. That, of course, Mr Chair, is within your rights, but I suggest that in respect of some of the closure motions that were moved earlier in the morning, we are verging on having debate cut off before all points have been exhaustively covered by speakers.
I know there is a tension here between the Government getting its business through and the Opposition delaying it, but I suggest that it is the right of Opposition members to act as we are acting. That Opposition members are able to exercise their rights to the limits of the Standing Orders, particularly in urgency, is an important check against the powers of the Government, and I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to consider that in your rulings this afternoon.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Chairperson, an interesting point of order has been put to you by the Hon David Parker, but it directly challenges your authority in the Chair. I simply remind the Committee that it was the Hon David Parker who this morning told anybody who was here to listen, or anybody listening in, that the Labour Party was in fact engaging in a filibuster on this bill. I would have thought that that was a clear indication to everybody that most of the matters being dealt with at the moment are not serious. They are simply vexatious and frivolous, and they are being put forward by Labour to try to prolong the debate today.
The other thing is that if we were engaged in an actual debate on this bill, that debate might be interesting, but the vast majority of time spent on this bill has been spent on dealing, through the vote process, with the extensive range of frivolous amendments put forward by Labour. Some 8,000 amendments, I think, have now been dealt with in one way or another. The real point, though, is that National thinks that continued challenges to the Chair are completely unacceptable, and should not continue to be a feature of this debate.
Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Chairperson, I think it is important at this junction that the Committee consider very carefully, under your guidance, the way forward. In the first place, I submit to you that the point of order raised by my colleague David Parker in no way trifled with your rulings. It sought a clarification from you, and it asked, at your discretion, that you take into account the various factors as we go forward. I echo the strongly expressed sentiments of my colleague David Parker in this respect.
The second point is that the Leader of the House has, in his submission, failed to distinguish between amendments and parts. The submission of David Parker specifically related to parts, not clause amendments, and asked that parts be fully debated. As is well known to you, Mr Chairperson, and to the Leader of the House, amendments to clauses—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member should read the Standing Orders.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I know what the point of order will be. I ask the Leader of the House to let the member make his point of order. If I feel he is getting off the point, I will stop his point of order.
Hon David Cunliffe: The example given by the Leader of the House—about so-called 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 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.
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 hand-picked, 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 John Key and Mr Rodney Hide have admitted in this Chamber that they have no idea how much their sham version of the super-city is going to cost.
I move, That the question be now put.
Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand to support Labour’s position on new Part 5 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, but also I tautoko Mr Hone Harawira’s comments. We stand here under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our rights do not come from multiculturalism; they come from te Tiriti. Although we acknowledge the multiple cultures of Aotearoa, the first point is the difference between mana whenua rangatiratanga and minority need for representation. Any legislation in this House should be passed on that basis, recognising the value of mana whenua, first-nation people first, then recognising the diversity that Auckland undoubtedly has.
The other main problem with this bill is its capacity to reinforce a trend that has been dominating local government since its inception in Aotearoa. I have named this TMPM syndrome—“Too Many Pākehā Men” in positions of power syndrome. Local government in Tāmaki-makau-rau and throughout the motu is already cursed with TMPM syndrome, with current and historical dominance of Pākehā men just about everywhere we look. This is not an attack on Pākehā men. I have lived with two of them, though not at the same time. Members should not get me wrong: I value my Pākehā men very deeply, especially the current one. However, I think for Pākehā men a minority experience in a decision-making process would be a salutary lesson because unless one has experienced marginalisation as a minority in the decision-making process, one has no idea what one is talking about or what it feels like.
What is the problem with TMPM and local government? If we are to have representative democracy, which is not necessarily the only way we can do things in the Pacific, it should absolutely be representative. In addition, we must acknowledge mana whenua and the three Māori seats as recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. To my knowledge there is no local authority district in Aotearoa where two-thirds of the community is Pākehā men, yet 90 percent of local councils Pākehā men. Fifty percent of all communities are women, and many other cultures are well represented in most communities, but we will not see them on local authorities except in corners desperately trying to be heard.
Mr Rodney Hide’s bill exacerbates the problem we have with TMPM syndrome. There will not be a choice to stand for the super-city council. An “at-large” voting system is about the money needed to establish name recognition before one can start to have a chance. That fact immediately marginalises tangata whenua and other people in the city. The system is also not about numbers. Even if Pākehā men were the majority, councils would still need to represent different perspectives. Tāmaki-makau-rau needs a vibrant system of participatory local government that uses creative techniques of engagement with the diversity of communities, whilst staying based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Māori are not a stakeholder to be consulted, but are the first nation, with whom we Pākehā—and I am speaking for the Green Party, which is predominantly Pākehā—via the Crown, need to negotiate relationships based on the article signed on 6 February 1840. Te Waiōhua have made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, and hence the Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour are calling for the Prime Minister to support the recommendations of the royal commission on this issue. There will be a hīkoi, and we will support it with weary hearts as yet again the Crown pays lip-service to the Tiriti relationship but gatekeeps the actual political process.
Unsurprisingly I expect to hear proponents of this bill say that if people want diversity in the super-city then they can vote for it, and if they want Māori seats they will vote them in. We have heard this line of argument since 1800—that if the citizens at large want the Māori seats they will vote for them, and that there is no need to recognise mana whenua—let alone anyone else. Sadly, this argument flies in the face of everything we know about the history of political representation, Parliament being a case in point until MMP. Even since then the Māori seats have been essential to allow Māori voters self-determination, albeit in a Westminster-Pākehā hybrid framework, which is not exactly the tangata whenua or Pacific way.
Yes, we could go to the citizens of Auckland and hold a referendum and ask them whether they would like to have the three Māori seats.
I move that the question be—
Hon Member: No, no. Take a call.
COLIN KING: The time we are spending in the Chamber today is very important. It is significant from the point of view that we need to be very conscious about what we are actually here for. We are here at this time to be conscious of the importance of every citizen in New Zealand, but, more important, to be concerned that we do what is right and fair for the future of New Zealand.
Many an amendment has been proposed from the Opposition today. When we look at the title of this particular proposed new Part 5, “The mechanisms to ensure representation of Māori, Pacific, and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, we start to understand the future vision that the other side of the Chamber is proposing. The Government of New Zealand is proposing to do away with those impediments that are holding back New Zealand, and have done for the last 9 years under the previous Labour Government, which is now a very bewildered and confused Opposition.
Those members continually try to divert people’s attentions away from the main issues, like ensuring that we have a united focus as a country and that we build up a future for this nation that we and our grandchildren can be proud of. We can form such a future by way of a combined city of Auckland that reaches its potential. We must all acknowledge that at the moment it is the young generations whose potential we want to realise, whether they are Māori, Pasifika, or people who come to New Zealand in the future.
The proposed configuration of Auckland governance is presently being obstructed by a very distracted Opposition. It is an Opposition that had 9 years to do something positive for this country when it was Government, but, unfortunately, the Labour Government will be remembered for its wasteful 9 years in office. We now have a Government that is determined to make the very most of a situation, yet we tend to trifle around the edges at a time when we should be pulling together as a nation. I believe that we are at a stage here with the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that is certainly significant. The debate around the bill is hugely significant from our point of view because it is a contest of ideas. It is about the future and representation of the people. It is not about ideologies and contests to bewilder, confuse, and distract, which we hear from the Opposition.
We have had some interesting debates and some very broad debates. Some have been well off the mark and have not concentrated on those things that will make a significant improvement not only to Auckland but also to the nation of New Zealand. Auckland is a shop window to the world, a capital city in the context of the largest city of New Zealand with 1.4 million people. It is very important that those citizens are comfortable in the knowledge that they have an overarching arrangement in Auckland that ensures we do not have the dislocation that there has been for many, many years.
Every other New Zealander who looks at Auckland is bewildered that it does not have the cohesion that one would expect. The situation we find ourselves in today can only point back to the previous administration, which lacked the courage and ability to take New Zealand forward. The Government today is endeavouring to address and work through what will be the most efficient and practical solution for the candidates, the citizens, and the arrangements that have existed in a dislocated fashion throughout Auckland’s recent history. Whether it is Māori, Pasifika, or other ethnic groups that need to be considered, let us move forward today. It is a goal to have one people and one nation.
I move, That the question be now put.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. All morning, all afternoon—
Hon Annette King: That’s not a point of order.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —I am allowed, I am making my point—all last night, all day yesterday, and right from the start of this debate, Labour members have said “We want to debate this bill fully.” This afternoon, shortly after David Parker spoke, those Labour members have been trying to shut down debate on what they are describing as the most important bill for Auckland. My point is this—
Hon Members: What’s the point of order?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the interjections are fair, in that the member should come to his point of order. There is a question before the Committee, which is that the question be now put. It is a relatively straightforward question. I am more than happy to hear the member’s point of order, providing it is about the question being now put.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My apologies. It is actually a point of irony.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. On a proposal about whether Māori, Pacific Island, and Asian seats will be put forward on to this council, why is Labour denying its own Pacific and Asian speakers the opportunity to speak on this amendment? Or is it trying to bury this proposal in order to try to dig its Māori MPs out of a hole for sacrificing the Māori seats and downgrading the status of Māori to that of other ethnic groups in Auckland? It is absolutely unacceptable.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members, we are in a very interesting position here. We have had three closure motions put forward by National members that the question be now put. We are in the remarkable position of having the Opposition move that the question be now put. It is a procedural motion—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’d like to speak—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not think there is anything to speak about. The member may raise a point of order about the order of this matter, but not on the substance of it.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We had two senior members of Labour giving impassioned speeches this afternoon and asking for more time to be taken on this matter. We have not moved a closure motion since those speeches. I think you need to consider whether the generosity of the Government in allowing Labour the time it wants for this debate is going to be abused. Or do we have confirmation that the entire attack from Labour is trivial? On the one hand those members asked for extra time and got it, but now they have decided they want to shut things down.
The proposition put to you by the Leader of the House is not correct. Since we have returned from lunch, Mr Macindoe sought a closure motion, and Mr King got two-thirds through a closure motion before being told he was not to do that. So Mr Brownlee is not correct. I have moved a motion, and I would like you to consider the motion I have moved.
A whole raft of amendments have been tabled. Under Standing Order 293(1)(c), as Minister in charge of this bill I require that consideration of this part be postponed to give the presiding officer time to prepare the papers.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.
I can probably be helpful and say that my reading of the Standing Orders means that you do not have any discretion in this matter.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I say to the honourable member on this matter that I think I agree. I will confirm with the Clerk precisely the effect of this.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I may also be able to help the Committee.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raised a point of order before Mr John Carter.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I just first say to the honourable Hone Harawira that I heard the point of order. I did not think it was particularly relevant to this. The Hon Darren Hughes had moved a procedural motion. It is not debatable, it is not about content and it is then for the Committee to decide. I have the choice of whether I put the motion. I was in the process of making that decision. In the meantime the situation has changed because the Minister in charge of the bill has exerted his right under Standing Order 293(1)(c), which states: “the member in charge of the bill requires that consideration or further consideration of a part or other provisions be postponed.” The Minister is now saying that he is postponing consideration of that part, and that is his right—it is his motion. If that right is exercised, then the debate on this stops. The Hon John Carter has a point of order. Once I have dealt with his I will come back to the member.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I raised a second point of order before Mr John Carter rose to make a point of order.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just told the member I am going to listen to John Carter first and I will come back to that member second.
I am not raising a new point; I am speaking to the point of order following that of Mr Mallard. I am hoping to help the Committee by saying that you are quite right that the Minister, as you have already stated, has the right to make that decision and postpone, and it is not debatable. It is the right of the member in charge of the bill. That is the advice that I have sought and that is the motion that—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): All right. I now call the honourable member Hone Harawira.
I was simply going to say that, although I respect the right of Mr Hughes to call for the motion to be taken, that does not deny the right of other members to stand and ask for the call. Is that correct?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, that is not quite correct. Members might stand to seek the call but once a member has sought and moved the motion that the question be now put it is the Chair’s decision as to whether the question is put. If it is put, the Committee will decide whether the question is put. If the Chair decides not to take the motion, then of course the floor is open for other members to take a call at that point.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have two points of order to raise with you. First, regarding the status of the motion that I moved, you will have to give a decision on whether the question would be put. Second, in respect of the Minister in charge of the bill not wanting to consider the bill that is in urgency before the Committee at the present time, when we return to this part we will be at the point after my closure motion. That is my first point of order. My second point of order relates to the time factor in which the Minister in charge of the bill wants to postpone consideration of this part. We will need to know what time we are going to come back to that, in order to consider it, because we have other parts ahead to debate. If we get ourselves into a position where we have finished those parts and have to report progress, the opportunity for this part to be voted on by the Committee and for the amendments to be considered by the Committee will not come. I am presuming it is not a catch-all, so that the Minister can delay for consideration just this part for another day—whatever that might mean.
I have now had time to consider Standing Order 293 as far as (4)(a) and (4)(b). I was under the impression that the Minister was not specific on his delay, and therefore the effect of what he has done is to put this right down to the bottom before the preliminary clauses. So we will do the other 27 or 28 parts, unless they get similarly deferred, and then we will come back to this at the end before we deal with the preliminary clauses—probably on Thursday or Friday, maybe.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): We have a very interesting position here. I cannot remember the Committee being in this gymnastic position before. It is a very unusual twist and I think that people who are listening to this will be unaware that there are other circumstances outside this Chamber that are driving this and the timeliness of it. But, firstly, to the simple point: the situation, as I understand it, is that the Hon Darren Hughes has moved a closure motion, at which point I was about to consider whether we should put it. Then enter stage right the Hon Rodney Hide, who says that he wants to exercise his authority as the member in charge of the bill to have the consideration of this part or provision postponed. That is his right; there is no argument about it. At the moment that occurs, it then freezes everything on this part; it is simply sealed in an envelope and pushed to one side. So we do not deal with the closure motion from this point; the whole lot is locked up and is moved.
We then go to Standing Order 293(4)(a), the part I would rely on here, which states: “any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with, other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. It seems to me that the Standing Order is saying to us that we are now reorganising things so that this part, which is in the name of Shane Jones, now moves right to the back of the queue and we now start on the next part that we have for consideration. At the point we reopen it, will be the time we then consider—I suspect I will get some advice from the Clerk on this—the motion moved by the Hon Darren Hughes.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Right at the end, just before the preliminary clause.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is correct. If the Clerk advises me differently on that I will come back to you but that is as I see it at that point.
New Part 5 postponed.
New Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement