Kedgley Sue: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15571] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 In schedule 10 there is a whole section on long-term plans and what sorts of things long-term plans must clearly identify. It talks about all the assumptions of a local authority concerning the useful life of significant assets the replacement of significant assets etc. But the extraordinary thing is that although the long-term plan will have to do the sorts of things that are spelled out in clause 18 it will no longer have to spell out to the community whether a council intends to divest itself of strategic assets including divesting itself— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I listened to the member and I assumed she was going to bring clause 18 into the relevance of the part we are debating which is Part 2 and schedules 2 and 3. Actually the clause 18 that she keeps referring to is in Part 1 of new schedule 10 substituted in schedule 1 so it is not part of the debate. We are talking about transitional issues relating to our long-term plans so I think that clause is outside the scope of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I say to the member that we are debating as I indicated earlier Part 2 and schedules 2 and 3. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: In this section we are talking about long-term plans and we are talking about transitional provisions for long-term plans. I was making the point that long-term plans will be required to do all sorts of things but they will not any more be required to inform a community about when a council intends to divest itself of key strategic assets. Until now there has been a requirement for councils to alert people in their long-term plans that they intend to divest themselves of key strategic assets such as the ownership of water. But now under this section they will not have to inform New Zealanders in those plans. 
Most New Zealanders will not believe that as a result of this part of the bill there is no longer a requirement for councils to inform or consult communities about when they intend to do something as fundamental as getting rid of the ownership of water supplies which have been built up by generations of New Zealanders and which will now be able to be handed over to—in fact owned by—multinational corporations for a period of 35 years. That will not have to be mentioned in a long-term community plan. I honestly do not believe that New Zealanders will believe that the Government could do that—could think it was acceptable to sell off water assets or any other assets—to a private corporation without requiring that to be mentioned in a long-term community plan or any other plan. The real thing this bill does is that it guts the consultation requirements of local government agencies so that they will not now have all the nuisance and irritation of having to consult communities when they intend to divest themselves of key infrastructures such as water. 
I notice a bit more squawking from the Government members; they say that the Government is not selling water. But I am afraid to say that allowing a private corporation to own a water supply for 35 years is water privatisation by any other name. I do not know why National members keep on trying to object— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: But I am only responding to the interruptions that I am receiving from National members Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I bring the member back. The long-term plans are in Part 1. We are on Part 2 and schedules 2 and 3. Please confine your comments to that. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The consequential amendments and transitional provisions outlined in Part 2 also refer to transitional provisions for the long-term plan and that is what I am addressing. It is there in clause 49. As I was responding to my colleagues in National I tell them that they have some idea that the public is going to be deluded into thinking that handing over the control and the ownership of a water supply for 35 years is not water privatisation. But New Zealanders will not be fooled. They know that handing over for 35 long years—11½ electoral cycles—the ownership of a water supply that has been built up over generations amounts to privatisation. Those members are wringing their hands and shaking their heads but that is the truth.