Mark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9863. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well I guess there has to be one so New Zealand First will signal right at this point now that we intend voting against this legislation. New Zealand First has listened to the arguments and looked closely at the realities of those arguments. We would start by saying that the loophole the perceived loophole that is seen by the architects of this bill is a matter of opinion—it is a matter of opinion—and New Zealand First does not share that opinion. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The current law allows for local board power to be concentrated in the hands of a few people which undermines the efficacy and fairness of the local electoral system.” Really? Is that right? Well in actual fact we would have liked to see some evidence that that was the truth but it is so often in all the debate this evening that people have referred to the word “perception”. Well we could talk about perception in respect of a whole raft of legislation that goes through this House that this Government has not supported. So we do not see consistency. We see that the perceived loophole is a matter of opinion which is distinctly not matched by evidence and certainly not matched by convincing evidence.The argument that three people opposed the legislation could well be countered by the thousands of people who voted to elect these people whom the National Party has a problem with in terms of their holding two positions on two boards. That these people were elected by the people of those two boards says that there are thousands of people in Auckland who are quite comfortable with the legislation as it currently sits. We might argue that in actual fact it is the right of those electorates—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I would just ask the member to sit for a second. I would like to address the Minister of Education. For some reason the member’s voice is bouncing across and going into the mike so if she could just talk a little bit more quietly. We are getting her voice back here and the member might prefer that that is not the case.RON MARK: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate that. We might argue that in actual fact if the good people of those boards so affected by this problem saw a problem they would not elect these people to multiple boards. If they seriously objected to the fact that person A was standing in Papakura and standing in the neighbouring ward they would not vote for them. There is a propensity of some political parties in this House to want to give preference to other people to aid them and assist them to get elected. That has been clearly indicated by the local bill that Mita Ririnui brought before the House in respect of the Bay of Plenty which created reserved council positions on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. It is a position that ironically the National Party members voted against.So on the one hand we in New Zealand First sit here rather confused by the fact that National would vote against Labour’s local bill which reserves seats to give all of those things that Labour has argued for today: a greater opportunity for Māori and Pacific Islanders to get elected. National members voted against that and now they are sitting here bleating on that allowing a person who shows the aptitude the gumption the work ethic and the support of two wide communities to be so democratically elected to hold two appointments should be kneecapped. I find this astonishing in respect of the ACT Party and we will be watching with curiosity to see how the ACT Party votes on this issue. We would share we would think a view that it is the right of people to stand where they wish and let the voting public decide. That is the core fundamental issue that confronts a true democracy. Democracy may not be perfect. Who said that? Winston Churchill? But it is the best form of governance we know.How often have we been told by our parents our grandparents that if you want a job done give it to a busy person. Give it to someone who cracks on not to someone who needs a little leg-up to get elected because they are Māori or because they are a Pacific Islander or because they are in some way disadvantaged and they cannot make it on their own. If you want to look at an example of people who get elected despite the odds despite all the rhetoric that they are disadvantaged look no further than Georgina Beyer. Georgina Beyer gets elected as Mayor of Carterton as a transsexual New Zealander and goes on against the odds in a highly conservative blue-ribbon seat called the Wairarapa to win the Wairarapa. Did she need a leg-up? Did she need a hand? Did she need preferential treatment some people to mollycoddle her and look after her every little poor failing whim? No she did not. She got it because she had the skills and the confidence of the people that she could do the job. Here we sit and National is advocating that highly competent highly respected people with high work ethic should be denied the opportunity to be elected to represent multiple communities by those communities that so wish them to do so.This little piece of legislation which has been described here in the House tonight as nothing of real importance might well come back to bite a few people on the podiums at candidatures in the next general election quite severely because this little piece of legislation interdicts the very fundamentals of democracy. If someone has the support of their community if those two communities so affected see no conflict of interest—and I have yet to see in anything that was put before the committee or hear anything that was said tonight that evidences this supposed perception of conflict.Do you want a perception of conflict that National could deal with? Here is one. The Policing Act used to deny police officers the right to be on a council and be a member of Parliament—same as the Defence Force. It denies also members of Parliament from serving in the police force at the same time that they are a member of Parliament—not the Policing Act but other legislation does. Why? It is because the three pillars that underpin our democracy that separate the judiciary from the lawmakers to the law enforcers were always considered sacrosanct. Yet what did National do? It overturned Labour-passed legislation in the Policing Act to stop police officers being councillors at the same time that they were police officers. It was argued when it was put through by the police commissioner by two or three police commissioners and by the Police Officers Guild that allowing police officers to continue to do that actually created a perception of conflict of interest that the person who was enforcing the law had become a lawmaker. And here we are sitting in the House saying: “Oh there’s a perception of a conflict of interest.” Where is the evidence?All I hear is envy. All I hear is grizzling and moaning that someone whipped someone else’s butt and got elected—not on one board but on two. Well here is the message from New Zealand First: if you cannot handle the heat get out of the kitchen. If you cannot match it in the community and convince the people of your community that you are worth electing do not put your name up. If you cannot stand the fact that you get beaten by someone who is highly respected not just in their ward that they live in but in another ward then do not compete. If National truly believes what it is saying here tonight it will cease its practice of parachuting into rural New Zealand people like John Hayes who did not live there people like Alastair Scott who does not live there and gerrymandering the party selection process to ensure that these people are elected in safe seats.There is a word that I am not allowed to use so I will not sum up with that word. All I will say is that this bill smacks of being anti-democratic and New Zealand First will not have a bar of it. Thank you.