Another question
Labour proposed amendments requiring the new Auckland Council to have a Pacific Advisory Board and an Asian Advisory Board.
Personally I think it is weird that Labour wants to dictate to the Auckland Council how it consults with ethnic communities, as if it doesn’t trust Aucklanders to be able to work this stuff out for themselves.
But my question is why they have only sought to legislate for a Pacific advisory board and an Asian advisory board? Why have they not championed a South African advisory board? New Zealand has 42,000 residents born in South Africa, and it is well known many of them live in Auckland. More New Zealanders were born in South Africa than in Tonga, Fiji, Korea, and the Cook Islands.
So why is Labour not fighting for South Africans in Auckland to have an advisory board? Is it just they have not reached a certain population threshold? Will they try and introduce a law to create such a board when their population does reach a certain threshold?
Or maybe they could just trust the new Auckland Council to work out how it liaises and consults with the many ethnic communities of Auckland. You see without Phil Twyford telling them how to do their job, they might decide to do things differently. They might realise Indians and Japanese don’t always like being lumped in together, and create separate boards for each. Or they might decide you don’t needs boards at all, and just need regular meetings between Councillors and ethnic community groups. Or they may organise a couple of forums a year open to all such groups.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I’m sick of Labour trying to divide Auckland up on race lines. Len Brown and Phil Twyford are equally culpable of feeding the race debate by promising baubles to different ethnic groups.
If Labour ever controlled the supercity, there would be a trough-feeding free-for-all frenzy to soak up rates for ethnic and maori projects. Infrastructure would be neglected and the bureaucracy would massively grow – just like how its done under Labour’s control of the government.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Well said Sushi.
The simple reason why Labour wants an Asian Advisory Board is to give Raymond Huo something to do.
He must be awfully bored sitting on the backbenches in opposition so with so much time on his hands he thinks of weird things to do.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am
It’s time that immigrants were compelled to sign a statutory declaration before being granted citizenship in which they agreed to becoming a “New Zealander”, and forgoing all race-based, culture-based or country-based, privileges.
This does not preclude a Maori rugby team, or a Dalmation dance club. It just means that they are ineligible for special dispensations or funding from central or local government.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Can someone please explain to me how it is inclusive to invite a certain ethnic group into an organisation by having them set up another entity separate from that organisation?
It’s like saying to a group “Welcome!. Now if you can just sit over there and when we want you, we’ll call.”
September 19th, 2009 at 10:40 am
gooner..just what does roger douglas ‘do’..?
save for ‘holiday’…?
..and sitting in parliament..performing the triple-trick..
..of looking down his nose..looking bored…and reading his newspaper at the same time..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 19th, 2009 at 10:40 am
to have any seats or advisory boards representing, or dedicated to liasing and consulting a particular racial group surely implies that the central body of seats is exclusive for another? – anglo saxon perhaps? – or should we have some exclusive representation for the all poms
September 19th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I cant even begin to think WHAT a council would be doing where ethnicity was even remotely relevant unless they were sticking their noses into non-core issues.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Stupid question, will there be anyone to represent us white, male, hetrosexual, taxpayers? we seem to be the growing minority, or once again will be ignored.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I believe they had a name for race based politics in South Africa a few years ago. Wasn’t it called Apartheid?
September 19th, 2009 at 10:58 am
When are we going to grow up and start identifying as NZers? This divisive politics is a recipe for disaster.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am
How can Labour take themselves seriously with this sort of BS…creating imaginary problems and solutions in the spirit of “fairness” and “Inclusiveness”…where does it end, should these advisory boards include a New Zealand advisor to provide them with a New Zealand perspective?
September 19th, 2009 at 11:02 am
This is Twyford seeking to justify himself again. What I find interesting is that we seem to hear very little at this time from David Sheaer but an awful lot of bleating from Twyford, Hipkins and others of their ilk.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Re DPF’s point on an advisory board for South Africans…
White South Africans are too untrendy for Labour, and not even National’s Bro-derbond coalition gives a fig for the Yarpies. (You won’t South Africans asking for the official spelling to be laid down as Jaapies).
The West’s leftists are so conscience-crippled by their anti-white fanaticism that they don’t even give a stuff for the appalling cannibal hunting of albinos in Tanzania and bordering countries. You can’t get more sickening colour discrimination than that.
It’s only skin pigmentation! No need to feel ashamed because you haven’t got enough to hide you in the dark.Or if you have so much you stand out on a skifield like coal. Skin colour is a mere legacy of the latitude of your ancestors’ homeland for millennia, and their need to get the right amount of Vitamin D from sunlight.
It’s no rational basis for local government segmentation.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am
New Zealand; the 100% Pure Balkans of the South Pacific.
Let’s have none of this ethnic groups rubbish. It’s a divisive dead-end. We’re New Zealanders; nothing more, nothing less.
Ethnicity and culture are private matters. It is a weak mind which thinks they’re bettering the country by entrenching ethnicity into politics and government.
I hope John Key understand this.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:17 am
For once I completely agree with labour, but they should extend this quite a bit further actually, so from PI and Maori, we should add South Africans too as DPF suggests, and of course also all the Asian groups, but also think of Dutch, Greek Italian UK etc origins.
Then of course we shouldn’t stop at racial/ethnical/nationality divides, we must be more liberal than that, and after all we should not force people how to identify themselves, therefore we must add representatives for groups that identify with lyfestyle choices, i.e. gay/lesbians heterosexuals, life style block owners, apartment dwellers, beer drinkers.
Then again, people make other choices that are culturally significant for them, which should also be represented, so that adds animal welfare activists, stamp collectors, car dealers etc.
For many, sports are a definitive charactersitic, so we must have dedicated representation for golfers, rugby enthusiasts, netball fans, fly-fishers and so on.
There are also groups that are minimalized for some reason and should therefore particularly need representation, think of people on methadon programmes, pedofiles, convicted rapist, serial killers, street dweller, jay walkers etc.
The thing gets a bit more complicated, because people can actually belong to more than one group so there would be a need to have representation for any possible combination of the above.
The end result is quite a large number of different representative groups, but this can be easily resolved by telling candidates to indicate what their background is and in what way they think about issues. Perhaps candidates could loosely connect themselves to organizations that take a certain ideological stance on these issues, so you can generally tell in what way each candidate would think on your own collection of characteristics.
This system would work perfectly, but wait…………………….that’s what we have already!
September 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am
We seem to have lost sight of the requirement (if that’s the right word) for people elected to councils to act on behalf of all the community, not just those who might have voted for them.
We don’t need separate advisory boards if people can put factional issues aside and take a distinterested (i.e. free from bias; objective) approach to outcomes. Regrettably we’re not going to get this. Excluding some groups from having a voice around the table is not the answer, and neither is entrenching special treatment for selected groups. It has nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi, and actually goes against the tenets of the Treaty.
Here’s a quote from the ‘Elected Members’ Handbook – Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act’:
“1. Connecting with the Community
Councillors are responsible for making decisions in the best interests of their citizens. Elected members are required to represent all members of the city or district to which they are elected. This is emphasised in the ‘oath of office’ where they agree to faithfully and impartially, and according to their best skill and judgment, execute and perform in the interests of the city or district.
Wards exist only for electoral purposes so that, once elected, councillors’ responsibilities extend to the full community.”
This is what the Local Government Act 2002 requires (Schedule 7, Clause 14):
A person may not act as mayor, chairperson or member of a local authority until a declaration in the following form has been made:
“I, AB, declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgment, execute and perform, in the best interests of [region or district], the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or imposed upon, me as [mayor or chairperson or member] of the [local authority] by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.
Waitakere City Council wanted to change this somewhat, and made the following submission to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill:
Oath of Office
9.7 In order to strengthen the commonality of purpose of the members of the Auckland Council and the local boards, Waitakere City Council proposes that the statutory declaration made by the Mayor, chairperson and members of the Auckland Council and local boards, set out in clause 14 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, be amended. This proposed amendment should include the element of working in the best interests of “the whole Auckland region while advancing and protecting the interests of local areas and communities”. It is recommended that the new declaration be included in this bill but an alternative would be to amend the Local Government Act 2002.
I’m not familiar enough with the Auckland supercity legislation to be able to comment on whether any such changes were accepted.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Why have they not championed a South African advisory board?
Perhaps because:
a. The number of Labour voters in the South African community is abysmal
b. South Africans can smell divisive politics a thousand miles away and want no part in it, thank you very much…
c. Perhaps the South Africans would be wondering, along with the Asians and Pacific Islanders, why Maori get seats but they only get an advisory board? We clearly recall PW Botha pulling that one on the black and coloured peoples of South Africa.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Clearly disabled people should have separate dedicated seats on the new council.
- on car parks alone they obviously control the most land
September 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
News flash: Socialists propose policies designed to maintain their popularity….
September 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I don’t think we should try and ignore the widely varied ethnic mix – why not have one multi-ethnic advisory board.
September 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
More lunacy from socialist Labour. Let’s them continue pushing harebrained policies and discrediting themselves even more in the eyes of the voters.
Is this the “new” Labour Party Goff promised?
September 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Cerium, what is the purpose of an ethnic advisory board?
September 19th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I think there are two reasons why the South Africans are not included…
1. Labour thinks they are all racists (the average Labour MP is not like John Key – they ‘remember’ opposing the 1981 Tour and many of them marched in protest)
2. The South Africans are instilled with the self help-enterprise-work ethic, unlike the Pacific Islanders; much better to have an advisory board for people who like sitting around sweating than those who are too busy working and being productive.
Mind you, Twyford and Labour will completely miss the irony that a Pacific Island advisory board is racist for even being suggested (ie – Labour racists think Pacific Islanders are inferior and require ‘protecting’ by their benevolent Labour party masters)
September 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Isn;t this PC bullshit going mad.
Had a work meeting yesterday, apparently now the christmas party and hallooween party are not allowed to be named as such any more in case the names “offend: anyone.
Instead they are now the “end-of-year party” and “end-of-October party” respectively.
Slightly O/T rant I know, but in the same basket.
September 19th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
scanner gets ‘line-of-the-issue..
..with his impassioned plea for the ‘unrepresented’..
“..will there be anyone to represent us white, male, hetrosexual, taxpayers?..”
(brilliant..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 19th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Why do the Labour party always have to brign up race in issues? Shouldn’t it be the best people for the job?
Why not have an American Advisory board, to support ex pats Americans?
I guess our socialists friends in the labour party won’t support that one.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Labour are totally desperate here. Having lost their poodle NZ1 they can now start courting the Asian vote. What won’t the Labour party do for power… Hell for 9 years they taxed our highest earners less, and lowest earners more, than the Tory Govt in Australia while claiming to be a workers rights advocate – what next… Welfare for rich people – Dooh, they already tried that.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Well w(h)uck me. Isn’t about time we had a Jafa advisory board.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
philu said “scanner gets ‘line-of-the-issue..
..with his impassioned plea for the ‘unrepresented’..
“..will there be anyone to represent us white, male, hetrosexual, taxpayers?..”
(brilliant..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)”
And Philip Ure completely misses the irony in the “taxpayer” bit
September 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
He’s never paid tax I2 so the irony is lost on him I’m afraid.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
If you have never done anything productive in your life I suppose you don’t need to pay tax!
September 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Ahh yes, I thought they said Twyford was an up and coming MP. Even DPF has mentioned that here. Apparently not!
The reasoning from Labour is actually spectacularly brilliant. What they will do is set up these bodies, based entirely on the ethnic group de jour and lobby to get them special treatment. So when people like you and I come along and say it’s racist, stupid and unecessary – THEY can accuse us of being racist and ignoring these groups entirely.
That, ladies and gentlemen is how the Labour Party operates. That is why they have so many wings; womens, rainbow..etc etc. Yes they are all Labour, but their obsession to put people into groups is how they manage to whip the feeble minded into voting for them.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I want the Dunedin City Council to set up a board to consult with ex-South Africans formerly classified as white who served within the then South African Defence Force but then refused to serve in the townships when the so-called ‘shoot to kill’ change to the rules of engagement were made in 1988 and who then attempted to help build a new-improved-rainbow-nation South Africa but then left because they were disillusioned by the increasing levels of corruption and violent crime and have since built a new home in New Zealand and now cheer for the All Blacks, because there are a couple of us here in Dunedin and someone has to pay for the drinks and hell why should it be us? Thanks.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Howzit bro
The problem is because of their liberal white guilt, Labour amongst others believe that as the indigenous people of NZ (they ate the Moriori;-), Maori have a special status and deserve separate seats before other New Zealanders.
Its one reason Labour are out of power and may that continue for 9 yrs.
One law for all. all who carry the NZ passport are equal.
No matter how their forebears got here.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
WHat about a board for skaters- guess what we can call it?
September 20th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Labour is a joke and will only feel happy when the most popular male name in good ole Noo Zealand is Mohammed, after all they need to placate their English voters now, the rugby will “suffer”, more penalty kicks but at least a world cup win, or at least “a” win, Rangi will be annoyed, but then let’s face it the whole country is annoyed, Paul Henry wants Alie and her ex hubby wants the sea-gulll.
What a fucked up tiny island New Zealand is/was.
It is sinking by the day.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:55 am
I just wish Rangi or one of his whanau members would just come out and say the truth, don’t be all sneeky and hidden as we know you Maori fellas and fellisses are (not that bright generally) we live in the same country, we don’t need to be mind readers just say it:
“YOU WHITE FUCKERS JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!”
Preceded and posted by a particularly violent and emotional Haka.
Come on Ken Mair!!
Say it!!!
Once were warriors right?
You don’t belive in an integrated peaceful multicultural New Zealand,
So for fucks sake have the balls to say it!!!
Say it you fucking cowards!!!
Oh no that is right, you worry about the ol handout cheques, you weak, two faced, fucking cowards.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:01 am
The comments about South Africans being left out is amusing. DPF’s posting wasn’t about Jaapies being left out … it was about (pretty much) anyone non-white getting their own special seat at the table.
I actually don’t begrudge Jaapies (or Mowries, or PI, or any of the multitude of Asian cultures) a special seat, provided the division is done equitably. Special seats for one group must mean special seats for each group.
If the council is going to consult along these racial lines, then I look forward to seeing Super-Mayor Banks and the rest of the Council welcomed to a meeting with the Scottish Society in short order. After all, from where do they get the vast majority of their income? Jaapies and WASPS – the “silent majority”.
A better option might be … election and consultation based on merit not entitlement. No special treatment for anyone?