Ririnui Mita: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6482] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I want to touch on some of the points that were raised this morning. I know we have moved from the issues around Maori representation and on to ethnic representation and boundary issues but my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard raised some relevant issues. It is important that we go back and revisit those issues because I get the impression that the Government is trying to move this thing along so that the real issues the ones that people think about on a daily basis are swept over so we can move on to the mechanical or technical aspects of this legislation. The real debate gets swallowed up and lost. 
The Hon Trevor Mallard mentioned the contribution of the Hon Tau Henare a former Minister of Maori Affairs. I want to revisit some of the comments he made. This is not an attack or challenge to Tau Henare but to all the Maori members of the National Party. My colleague Steve Chadwick mentioned the absolute support that I received in 2001 from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill and I know her views on Maori representation in the proposed Auckland super-city remain the same as they were in 2001. She has been very public although guarded in expressing her views. When she has spoken in the Chamber those views in a subtle way have challenged the Minister sitting in the chair. She has come out in the open and admitted upfront that she is in support of Maori representation. I am wondering why the Hon Georgina te Heuheu does not come down to the Chamber. I know we are not allowed to comment on why people are not here but it would be very helpful if she could be consistent in making her views clear to the members of the House. 
There are Maori members of the National Party who have not been upfront about their views on Maori representation in the proposed Auckland super-city. I think it is basically because they have been muzzled. Although I acknowledge that some of them are new members and it will take some time for them to settle into some of the to-ing and fro-ing of political life there is a time when people have to stand up and be counted. They have to get up and speak their minds. It would also be very helpful if the only remaining member of the Maori Party in the Chamber Hone Harawira got to his feet and shared some of his whakaaro with us because I know they are quite relevant. 
We spoke today about boundaries. It is very easy for the Minister to draw boundaries around the proposal for the Auckland super-city but there are boundaries that overlie the boundaries that are proposed in the legislation. Those are the boundaries of tangata whenua—of Ngapuhi Ngati Whatua Tainui and many other iwi who hold mana whenua over that particular area. Before we go any further in speaking about the carve-up of that great city some consideration has to be given to those ancestral tribal boundaries. I know there has not been sufficient debate on that in the Chamber today. 
I am told that there were 287 submissions made to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and I am told that the Hon Tau Henare was very thorough in terms of his consultations around the area. He even went to Waiheke Island to listen to submissions. What he did not say in the Chamber is that those submissions from Maori were made on the basis of their traditional boundaries. In other words they and they alone have mana whenua over the Tamaki-makau-rau district. Anyone proposing anything that would affect their mana whenua had an obligation to listen very carefully to what they had to say. For the past 24 hours in this Chamber the Government has said that it listened. Its members have said that so many times that I think they have convinced themselves that they did listen. In fact people are ringing in sending emails and texting saying “Why didn’t the Government listen to Maori?”. I have to text them back and say: “Well actually the Government is saying …”. Now if that is not the case then they have a case to present to the Government. But I do not think the Government will listen to that either. In Maoridom we have an old saying: “Ma te huruhuru ka rere te manu. Ma te hinengaro ka mohio he aha te maramatanga.” 
[ 
With feathers a bird will fly. With a mind one will know what enlightenment is 
.]  
You see everything around the Auckland proposal for Maori brings up the issue of assets capture. In other words there is a fear that ratepayer assets will be transferred to some sort of conglomerate that in the future will ring-fence and dispose of them. That is a real fear for Maori in the Auckland area. What will that mean for Maori assets? I think it will mean a lot as it did in the Bay of Plenty when the Bay of Plenty bill was introduced. There is also the issue around the Government listening but not hearing as has happened in this case.