We are one hour into two weeks of select committee hearings on the third super city bill. Twelve submissions have been heard so far, and all twelve have raised fundamental objections to the Bill and the Government’s super city project.
Unfortunately Government members seem to have forgotten that select committee hearings are the people’s forum, a time for people to turn up and have their say. Government members are irritable. Deputy chair Tau Henare openly ridiculed one submitter. Committee chair John Carter interrupted the submission of an elected councillor saying her views were inaccurate. Taurange MP Simon Bridges said he was deeply offended by one submission.
My advice to Government members: pace yourself, there is a lot more of this to come. Sit back and listen, you might learn something.
Simon who? Deeply offended?
Who is this little twerp who has been in Parliament for all of five minutes.
But John he has been on TEEVEE he MATTERS.
One submitter just mentioned his 36 years’ service in local government. Tau Henare said “too long” in a voice that could be clearly heard by those around the table.
I don’t think Tau’s temper is fraying, he sounds like he’s generally just a plonker.
C’mon, tell us what Simon was offended by, you know you want to.
They should just suck it up, I mean people have a right to have their say.
The thing that offended Simon and Tau: a closing comment by submitter John Salmon: “I am concerned that components of this Bill in its current form will result in further alienation by the majority of citizens of Auckland, leading to rising rates of criminality and violence. This is the kind of response that leads eventually to all-out revolt. We might yet see that. Is that what you want?”
Yes, I would love to know what ‘offended’ Simon – then perhaps more people could voice how they feel and ‘offend’ others – I mean, how dare they speak up and say what they are concerned about – anyone would think we lived in a democracy – not an autocratic, National is right, everyone else wrong, state of dictatorship. (rolls eyes and fails to understand tv3 poll saying how wonderful Key and Nat are…)
And that offended him? What a foolish, shortsighted twit to let that offend him – grow a backbone.
It seems to me that the Super City issue can be one of the defining issues that can break Key and his government. So, I hope that Labour can fully take advantage of this issue via the select committees and elsewhere. Go get their tempers fraying more and more! Go get ‘em!
Does Tau Henare realise that HE is a public servant too? He was offended but offends another? He is childish and self serving.
Another submitter Dennis Brown from northern Rodney was just insisting on the opportunity to speak on behalf of a colleague who couldnt appear today, as agreed earlier with committee chair John Carter. The chair was trying to say time had run out, and cut him off with: “Don’t argue. Get on with it.” Is this the same friendly John Carter who was wheeled out last year to put a human face to Hide’s super city?
John Salmon’s summary statement seems pretty much a sweeping, generalisation to me. I’d be annoyed with too. Was the body of his presentation sufficient to warrant such a statement.
Regarding Simon B being a ‘twerp’ – I think every Party has their fair share of twerps, don’t they?
Regarding Tau – take a look at his CV. Hardly inspiring. Look at his achievements in Parly. Again, hardly inspiring. Maybe he needs to spend some time reflecting on what a waste of taxpayers $ he is.
…leading to rising rates of criminality and violence. This is the kind of response that leads eventually to all-out revolt. We might yet see that. Is that what you want?”
Sounds like something from the US. I can see how that might be offensive if it was at all credible…but just really bizarre here. He might as well have said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” I guess you get them at SCs. You won’t be quoting that guy to demonstrate grassroots opposition to the Super City in Parliament then?
I hope to post John Salmon’s full submission later today. The final para was rhetorical and the full submission I think does capture pretty well the broad sweep of the super city issue.
Yep….as do select committee members (MPs).
Will be interesting to see who if anyone pounces on ‘all out revolt’.
Thanks for alerting us to this. Labour really has an opportunity here to turn the largest population of voters against National, or at the very least, get them into a position where they are more amenable to listening to Labour again (i.e. advancing the political cycle a few turns).
It may not be just Auckland that is getting worried about National’s agenda in local government either. We are now faced with the prospect of Environment Canterbury being dissolved and run by commissioners, with their water management responsibilities carved off to an unelected agency.
So give them heaps and make some noise
ECan faces that prospect due to a certain review, I think you’ll find.
Was I right when I heard someone saying on the news this morning (radio) that Wellington is investigating a super city idea?
Apparently many people are only getting 24 hours notice before having to appear. Surely we can be more organised than that?
Tau Henare thinks he is still in the ‘Tight Five’, swaggering round Parliament with his dirty dog sunglasses.
balance deleted abusive Trevor
Jarbury
I received my email asking me if I still wanted to appear, with some suggested dates and a number to call. I was then called a few days later.
I got an email Thursday requesting a response within 24 hours if I was able to appear today.
I did, would have liked more time to prepare.
Good I’ve had a flick through this bill, the Nat members deserve 2 weeks of Aucklanders sitting at the submission desk and screaming at the top of their lungs or running their fingers down a blackboard… This better prompt big changes or they will leave you guys a hell of a mess to clean up Phil…
Are they doing submissions three at a time like when I submitted on the first bill (which was bad enough but a dream compared to this one)..?
Gooner – surely this process is not about the MPs but the people? And since when did abuse and faux offence constitute a ’say’?
They are being grouped into lots of 5 and given collectively 30 minutes to speak. The whole process has been rush, rush, rush.
No doubt many “drafting mistakes” will be made.
John Carter has already conceded that the repeal of section 18 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 was a “drafting mistake” and will be fixed up.
Why only two weeks of submissions? really don’t Aucklanders know planes fly south and not just to Aus?
I was one of the 12 who presented in the first hour yesterday. My email response to the invitation to present is copied below:
“As luck would have it, we returned this evening from a holiday on Great Barrier Island – and so I’m fortuitously able to respond within the 24 hour period specified!
I shall be attending and will try to arrive at the venue to present between 9:30 – 10:00 am; however, my ETA will probably reflect the vagaries of the morning traffic flow from the North Shore.
I appreciate that you are “scheduling many witnesses” and will certainly be flexible and accommodating; however, I request that you reciprocate this courtesy if I am caught up in traffic and arrive after 9:30 am on Monday.
I also trust that this rushed process of engagement with those wishing to make oral submissions is not symptomatic of a government that is reluctant to listen to citizens who reside in the Auckland region?”
_________________________________________________________________________________
My observations of our presentation experience: We left our Mairangi Bay home at 8:45 am; drove through the usual morning traffic and arrived at the venue at 9:26 am. Inquired at the reception for directions to the venue (no ecologically placed signage is in place) and followed a Radio Live employee, arriving in the room just as the chairperson called out our names to come forward and present. WHEW! Sat down at the presenters end of the tables, solicited assistance to ensure the microphone was accessible, and started talking; very fast, because we only had five golden minutes to convey how deeply offended we were by so many aspects of the Bill. During our presentations I scanned the faces of those around the table: Sad to note that Hone Harawira wasn’t there; that Hone Carter left the room whilst we were presenting (no explanation) and Tau Henare moved to sit in the chairperson’s vacated seat. When Hone Carter returned he appeared distracted.
I couldn’t understand what Simon Bridges found so offensive in Dr Shand’s presentation, which Simon also dismissed as simply reflecting Shand’s political ideology. It certainly seems that the former Senior Crown Prosecutor is displaying early signs of developing full blown symptoms of “a government that is reluctant to listen to citizens who reside in the Auckland region.”
On our 45 minute car trip home afterwards, we reflected on the very imperfect nature of the ‘democratic processes’ we had just experienced!
Kumara
Good on you for submitting and appearing. One of the biggest complaints National and ACT claimed to have against Clark’s government was it didn’t listen to the people… These guys all but spit in the peoples faces … leaving during submission? I’m sorry you stay where you are and sit through every word spoken.