Sio Su'a William: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11412] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
Talofa lava i lau Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. E fa’apea foi ona o’u fa’atalofa atu i sui mamalu o le maota fono. Ae maise le mamalu o lo’u itumalo o Magele o lo’o tapua’i mai ma fa’afofoga mai i lenei itula. That is my way of acknowledging Assistant Speaker Roy members of this House and those who may be listening to this debate on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. 
There is a saying that two wrongs do not make a right. The first Auckland bill was passed under urgency and there was no consultation despite the Prime Minister saying before the election that once the royal commission’s findings were revealed he would consult Aucklanders. That was a broken promise by the Prime Minister. That first bill set up the Auckland Transition Authority which has the same power privileges and authority as if it were a super-city council. But its members were not elected; they were appointed by the Minister of Local Government and this Government. The second bill although it went out for public consultation had its time frame collapsed and people complained about the Government rushing it through in such haste. This bill is the National Government’s third bill in its design of a corporate governance structure for the Auckland region and its peoples. 
The majority of Aucklanders are opposed to this corporate design and have expressed their outrage in polls in newspaper articles at rallies on radio talkback shows on web pages and during the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee process. The majority of Aucklanders have expressed without a shadow of doubt their condemnation of this Government for forcing a hostile takeover of the Auckland region’s strategic and significant asset-holdings. It is a hostile takeover by the corporate friends of this Government. 
Submitters described this bill as the third strike against this Government’s recidivist determination to abuse undermine and ride roughshod over the democratic principles of good governance structures based on power by the people of the people and for the people. The majority of Aucklanders did not vote for a National Government so that they could watch the architect of this corporate structure flog off like a thief wearing a blue balaclava the family silverware which was purchased by the savings and sweat of the citizens of Franklin Papakura Manukau Waitakere Auckland North Shore and Rodney—citizens past and present. This bill is the final nail in the coffins of eight local territorial authorities that have served the combined 1.4 million people of this region. These local territorial authorities cease to exist from 1 November 2010. Many of us will lose part of our identity. 
Most submitters outlined their outrage at the Government’s hasty process. Dr John Salmon described it as the Government deliberately alienating the majority of Aucklanders from participating in a significant decision which will change the face of local government in Auckland and throughout New Zealand. The bill was sent out for public consultation during the last few weeks of December when New Zealanders were focused on Christmas and the holiday season. George Blanchard said that the rushed manner in which the Government is driving the super-city is an affront to democracy and an affront to the people of Auckland. The Western Bays Community Board said that the Government should put the super-city proposal on hold and fix what is wrong with the legislation before it is too late. 
Submitters felt that the process was a farce. They felt that the Government was not listening and perhaps decisions had already been made behind closed doors. The public had not forgotten that during the passage of the second bill and before the select committee had completed its work and reported on its findings the Minister of Local Government threatened to throw his toys out of the cot if he did not get what he wanted and the Prime Minister agreed. Submitters expressed concern that the Government had promised that the local boards would be given meaningful powers but the third bill that was sent out to the public does not do that at all. All powers authorities and privileges are vested in the mayor the 20 councillors and the council-controlled organisations. Local boards can make recommendations but ultimately the new super-city council makes the final decision on all things. 
Then there are the council-controlled organisations or CCOs. Nothing in the bill compels them to listen to and act on the wishes of local communities. Submitters said that they should more rightly be called Government-controlled organisations or GCOs. Submitters expressed outrage that the Auckland region’s $28 billion worth of valuable assets were being positioned for easy flog-off or for a land and asset grab. One submitter said that the only thing missing from the council-controlled organisations was the words “for sale”. Michael Wood said that this Government was outsourcing democracy to the corporate sector council-controlled organisations. Another submitter asked whether we could blame the public for feeling that way when there were too many unknowns in the bill too many secrets and no accountability whatsoever to the public. 
The Auckland region will be run by a handful of Government appointees directing significant and independent fiefdoms that will control revenue streams control strategic land assets and control transportation contracts worth billions of dollars. Juliette Laird rightly asked the Government where the cost-benefit analysis was that showed the efficiencies and savings that the super-city will achieve. Sadly no such cost-benefit analysis if any exists has been made public or made known. What costs will Aucklanders have to bear as a result of this Government setting up the super-city in its rushed state? We have had an initial estimation which is about $200 million. Who pays for that? The ratepayers of Auckland. How many other mistakes have been made as a result of that rush? How much will those mistakes cost in the future? 
Dave Breuer a business owner from the North Shore submitted that he was appalled that this Government is returning New Zealand to a corporate ideology that has failed the USA and the world. He viewed the Government’s super-city process as a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy democracy. 
All the Auckland mayors made submissions to the committee and all highlighted significant flaws in the Government’s third super-city bill. Mayor Andrew Williams asked why Auckland’s democracy should be any different from democracy in the rest of New Zealand. He asked whether Auckland will be governed by the new Auckland Council or whether it will be governed by the Minister of Local Government. Mayor Bob Harvey stated that this third bill shows that Wellington has little understanding of how Auckland works. The Franklin District Council said that in excess of 80 percent of people polled in Franklin did not want to be part of the super-city and Franklin people were furious with this Government. Mayor Len Brown said the Auckland Transport Agency needed to be accountable to Auckland. 
The Auckland Regional Council chair Mike Lee said that the original purpose of the super-city proposal had been subverted in that it did not achieve unity with three separate fiefdoms being set up by this Government. He said that the Auckland Regional Council had hardened its stance against the super-city transport agency is totally opposed to it and finds it offensive. Many of the people on the Auckland Regional Council are National Party supporters and members. The chair Mike Lee said that the Government’s proposal for a separate Auckland Transport Agency using 54 percent of rates with no accountability is a disgrace. 
Those submissions came from good people throughout the Auckland region who all want the best for Auckland. They gave their own time freely to provide their experience and knowledge to the select committee. We would think that the Government could learn from the mistakes of the past highlighted by many of those submitters. Unfortunately it appears that that is difficult for this Government. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it will not pay for its mistakes—the public will pay. It will not just be the public of today; it will also be the public of tomorrow. 
The call by Aucklanders for Maori representation on the council has been unilaterally rejected. Pacific Island and ethnic communities want to elect their own representatives with support by the mayor and councillors—not for them to be appointed by the mayor. Youth women disability groups and business improvement districts like the Mangere Bridge Business Association were still feeling uneasy as to where they fit in and felt that this Government was not listening to them. 
I will sum up. One of the best submitters was the chair of the Panmure Community Action Group. He said that we all know the starring role a turkey plays at Christmas. He is decapitated plucked gutted stuffed stitched up roasted and carved up and when the diners have eaten their fill all that is left is a dead carcass. It does not take a lot of imagination to know who is standing with the carving knife and who will be served first. I can see a cartoon in tomorrow’s paper with Mr Hide holding the carving knife and serving Mr Key both of them wearing aprons. Aucklanders will be left with the bones of a dead carcass.