Harawira Hone: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3674] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Heamana. Tena koe Mr Jones e ngaro haere ana. Tena tatou katoa tena koe Mita. Greetings to you Mr Chairman to my whanaunga Mr Jones and to Mita Ririnui who has just spoken. Tena tatou ’hakoa tangi ana taku ngakau pau te kaha te rongohia i nga korero kua puta mai i te mangai o taku whakanaunga a Shane Jones me te tautoko ano 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 Maori—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 patai he patai. I have a question Mr Chairman: me timatangia ano 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 
: Tena koe. Tangi ana taku ngakau i te mea kua rongo ahau i te korero me te whakaaro o Shane Jones e orite ana te tu o te Maori ki tera a wetahi atu. Tangi ana taku ngakau ki tera. I was very grieved to hear Shane Jones put forward the view that Maori are just like anybody else. Tangi ana taku ngakau i te mea ehara matou i te tangata e orite ana ki tetahi atu. I am grieved to hear Shane Jones say that because we are not the same as everybody else. He tangata whenua matou te iwi Maori. We are the people of this land. E rongo ana au i nga korero mo Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa e rongo ana au i nga korero mo wera kei roto o Haina me wera atu o nga rohe. I hear the call for representation from the Pacific peoples and from Asian people. Engari kei hea te korero mo nga Tarara kei hea te korero mo Kenya kei hea te korero mo Somalia kei hea te korero mo etahi atu? He whai poti anake tenei kaupapa. Kare au i te whai rangatiratanga. Koi ra taku riri. Tena 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 8000 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 Maori 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 
: Tena koe Mr Assistant Chairperson. Kia ora tatou 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 Maui” 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 Maori MPs of the primary right of Maori to be on the Auckland Council as manu whenua as tangata whenua and as Maori. 
I am outraged by the cringing position taken by those Labour Maori MPs in allowing the status of Maori 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 Maori MPs to speak up for Maori to fight for Maori and to be Maori. I call on them either to fight for those seats on the Auckland Council—for mana whenua first for Maori 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 tupuna—deserves nothing less. Kia ora tatou.