Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6449] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Last night I spoke about the missed opportunities in this process. An opportunity to really engage with Aucklanders—to use it as a way of ensuring that we strengthen local government and strengthen understanding and participation in local government—was undermined by the processes used by this Government. I will continue to speak about those missed opportunities. 
One missed opportunity relates to recognising and responding to the diversity that is Auckland. Diversity is the strength of Auckland; for those of us who live in Auckland it is one thing we really love about living in Auckland. The diversity has a whole bunch of economic and social benefits for all of us but frankly the Government is failing to deal with this question. I stand here supporting colleagues who have already put forward Supplementary Order Papers to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill around issues like the Pacific Advisory Board an Asian Advisory Board and a Youth Council. These structures will facilitate greater involvement and will recognise that diversity. They will provide benefits not only for those particular groups but also for the rest of us. 
I ask a particular question of a couple of the MPs in the Chamber. I want to know why they have not got up to speak on the possibility for example of an Asian Advisory Board. Why is the Hon Pansy Wong sitting over there and not engaging in this debate at all? She is failing to get up and represent people in Auckland and the ethnic communities in particular. What about Kanwaljit Bakshi? What is he doing? As someone has said to me perhaps that silence is his valedictory. Frankly he is not exactly getting up and telling us about the communities in Auckland that he has dealings with and he should. 
It is not just those MPs. Where are the other Auckland MPs? Where are they and why are they not dealing with this question? The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance talked quite significantly about migrant and refugee communities in Auckland and it recognised the absolute fact that Auckland is by far the most culturally diverse city in New Zealand with well-established migrant populations. The proportion of Auckland’s population that was born outside New Zealand has grown in a very short period of time from 23 percent in 1986 to 37 percent in 2006. So a huge proportion of Aucklanders were not born in Auckland. We need to make sure we are doing a better job of engaging those communities and ensuring they have a voice because I think we all know if we are honest that at the moment there is a real representation gap for many Aucklanders. If we look particularly at those new migrant and refugee communities we see that there is certainly a representation gap. As Jacinda Ardern eloquently outlined before that is also the case for young people and as Su’a William Sio has said there is also a representation gap for Pacific people. 
Ethnic diversity in Auckland is increasing and there will be different requirements and needs. Ms Kaye can sit across the Chamber and whistle all she likes but the reality is that this is a very important question. I do not know the figures for Auckland Central but in the Maungakiekie electorate—and where is the MP for Maungakiekie? He has been strangely silent during this debate. Let me tell members about the figures for Maungakiekie. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask for your assistance in reminding the member—and it has been an ongoing theme—that it is not appropriate to refer to members who are not present in the Chamber. We all need to take some time to be elsewhere to continue with our duties and therefore it is inappropriate to refer to a member’s absence. I ask for your assistance in this matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was a very simple reference: “Where is the member?”. We know that the member has not taken a call. His absence from the Chamber would not have been recognised were it not for the fact that the junior National whip has by way of her point of order drawn further attention to it. It is my view that the comment was a passing reference rather than a heavy focus. I remind you Mr Chairperson that this matter is not covered in a Standing Order; it is a convention. It is a convention and not a requirement in this Chamber. If members choose to breach conventions clearly there is some risk which goes both ways. But it is not a requirement of the Standing Orders not to refer to the absence of members. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 24/8: “It is a convention that we do not make reference to the fact that a member is away or is not in the member’s seat.” A convention in my view is as strong as a rule. Convention is the kawa of this Chamber. Who turns up at a marae and says that they will ignore the kawa of the marae? People do not do that and I advise the member that he would be very unwise to do so here. If it is the kawa of this place that we do not refer to the absence of a member then we abide by it. I say to the member who spoke last Trevor Mallard that I would have had some sympathy for his comments had it not been for the fact that he was shouting out interjections about where he thought the member was and was making the situation very clear. I see by his smile that he accepts he is guilty as charged. I say to members that it is a convention so let us respect the convention just as we would respect the kawa of a marae. The kawa of this place is that we do not make passing references to the absence of members. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is it appropriate to refer to the absence of Trevor Mallard even if he is present? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not a point of order. I point out to members that we have successfully frittered away the time and it is now 1 o’clock and time for the suspension for lunch. Before members go I draw their attention to an agreement reached by the Business Committee. In accordance with its decision question time will be held today at 2 o’clock. After that Carol Beaumont will have 1 minute and 16 seconds remaining to speak if she wishes. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.