Delahunty Catherine: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Delahunty Catherine: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3678] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena 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 Pakeha Men” in positions of power syndrome. Local government in Tamaki-makau-rau and throughout the motu is already cursed with TMPM syndrome with current and historical dominance of Pakeha men just about everywhere we look. This is not an attack on Pakeha men. I have lived with two of them though not at the same time. Members should not get me wrong: I value my Pakeha men very deeply especially the current one. However I think for Pakeha 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 Maori 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 Pakeha men yet 90 percent of local councils Pakeha 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 Pakeha men were the majority councils would still need to represent different perspectives. Tamaki-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. Maori are not a stakeholder to be consulted but are the first nation with whom we Pakeha—and I am speaking for the Green Party which is predominantly Pakeha—via the Crown need to negotiate relationships based on the article signed on 6 February 1840. Te Waiohua have made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and hence the Maori 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 hikoi 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 Maori seats they will vote them in. We have heard this line of argument since 1800—that if the citizens at large want the Maori 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 Maori seats have been essential to allow Maori voters self-determination albeit in a Westminster-Pakeha 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 Maori seats.