Sio Su'a William: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11559] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Chairman. Malo le soifua to members of the Committee. Initially with regard to the polls that the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Local Government has said were questionable I say that it was not just one poll. There were several polls not only throughout the Auckland region but also in Rodney and Franklin. 
Overwhelmingly Aucklanders have said through those polls that they do not like the way that this Government has rammed through the process of establishing its structure of the super-city. It is not the structure that the people of Auckland had envisioned; it is the structure that this Government has rammed through. A poll in Rodney indicated that those people do not want to be part of the super-city. A poll in Franklin said that those people do not want to be part of this. Overall as much as the people in the Auckland region initially liked the idea and thought that some issues needed to be addressed they do not agree with the way in which this Government has rammed through the first bill and has collapsed the consultation process over the second bill. One submitter asked whether the Government was listening and many Aucklanders are expressing that same view. 
I concur with my colleague Carol Beaumont who works in Maungakiekie. She indicated that there was a concern amongst the business improvement districts and many other organisations. They are concerned about their relationship with authorities in the new structure. They currently have a strong working relationship with their existing councils. 
I will give members an example from my own area from the Mangere Bridge Business Association. The association is wonderful. It is run by Carol-Anne Armitage who wrote and asked specifically to have her submission tabled before the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. She was quite concerned about what would happen to the association as a result of this new structure. Currently the association has targeted rates which are collected by the Manukau City Council. From those targeted rates it is able to plan its year ahead and its activities. One of the association’s most prominent activities is the wine and food festival. I have taken the leader of the Labour Party Mr Phil Goff and other Labour colleagues including Phil Twyford to that festival. It is a brilliant event. 
The association is concerned about what will happen to that relationship. That is unclear to the association. It is concerned that money will be collected by one part of the structure while orders may come from another part. I may not necessarily agree with the association’s feelings about that but it has a genuine concern about that matter that this whole process does not yet address. That is so not only for the business improvement districts but also for other organisations including organisations for the disabled in the community. 
I do not know whether members have visited Manukau City and have seen some of the beautiful graffiti arts that are displayed on many of the walls of some of our town centres. The artists who paint graffiti art are called aerosol artists. Often with graffiti art when somebody else paints over it with black blue or red paint it ruins the picture of that particular image. From what I have heard from this Government so far about the various amendments that it may support and other amendments that it will not support I get a sense that it is trying to tinker around with this third bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Su’a William Sio has the call and he has 18 seconds remaining should he wish to resume. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I seek leave on behalf of the honourable gentleman who has the call for him to be given 5 minutes more because 18 seconds is nowhere near enough time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That point of order is not in order. At the end of the call the member has the right to seek a second call. I will determine that matter at that time based on all the relevant issues that I take into consideration when I give a call. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: As I was saying before if there is a beautiful mural on the wall and some creep tags it with a black tag a red tag or a blue tag we end up with a mess. I am saying that with the tinkerings around this third bill we will end up with a mess and that is what Aucklanders are saying. 
People from the Panmure Community Action Group were quite angry about the way in which the Government introduced this proposal. It rushed it through and did not give everybody an opportunity to contribute their submissions. Have I told members about one of the submitters from that group who submitted to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee? He said he felt that it reminded him of the story about the turkey. The story was that the turkey has a starring role at the Christmas dinner—well it could be a pig but in this case it is his story. The turkey is decapitated it is gutted it is stuffed it is stitched up it is put in the oven and it is carved up and served to the diners. He said that the point was that after the diners have had their fill all that is left is an empty carcass. 
The submitter painted that imagery for the committee because he felt that this Government has gone about legislating for the structure of the city so that in many ways it has control of the people on the council-controlled organisations. He believed that this was the way in which this Government could flog off the significant landholdings flog off the water assets of the Auckland region flog off the airport shares currently held in Manukau and Auckland and flog off what the Auckland people regard as significant asset holdings that generate income for the region. That was the point of his imagery. 
I hope that members of the Committee of the whole House and the people of the Auckland are clear that that is what this structure is about. It is a hostile takeover; it is privatisation. The Government may not use those words. It may say that that decision is for the future and will not happen in this term or whatever Government members have said to try to colour over it. But as I said this governance structure is a mess right from the start and it does not matter what the Government attempts to do now with its tinkering. It is still a mess and the overwhelming number of Aucklanders who have submitted through the polls that have been conducted on web pages and who have been on the rallies that have taken place do not support what this Government is proposing for the Auckland region and its people. 
I will say briefly that Mr Maurice Williamson talked about the name change that supposedly the overwhelmingly majority of people in Te Irirangi want. Te Irirangi— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Not supposedly. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Well let me read to that member a letter that came from Dyann Calverley a member of the National Party. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: One person. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I beg to differ. Dyann Calverley is a significant member of the National Party in Pakuranga who has a good following of moderate National supporters. Although they support National they do not like what it is doing with the Auckland region. They do not like the fact that the decision made by the Local Government Commission has been streamrollered. They are appealing for a process to allow the wards of Botany Howick and Pakuranga the opportunity to choose their electorate representatives come the local government elections in September-October and to allow those representatives to decide whether the name Te Irirangi ought to remain. 
I do not know whether Mr Williamson understands the significance of the name Te Irirangi. Te Irirangi has a long history in Maoridom. It is a significant name to Maori not only of that area but also of other significant areas of New Zealand.