Sio Su'a William: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3211] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words “this day 3 months”.  
Earlier this week this House was united in standing in silence to mourn the death of an officer of the law who was killed in the line of duty. I felt that it was right to do so and I was proud to stand united with all the other parties in this House to mourn the loss of that officer. 
Tonight however I stand sadly to indicate that Labour opposes this bill. I feel sad because this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill guts—takes away—local government in Auckland as we know it. I feel as if I am standing to mourn the death of the Manukau City Council. If a farmer was to gut an animal he or she would be very careful not to penetrate the intestines with the knife because then the faeces would stink and make the meat bad. I feel this bill rips the guts out of the Manukau City Council and all other local authorities without a care in the world about what happens to the people. 
Nathan Guy 
: Not true! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It is true. 
Nathan Guy 
: No it’s not. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Well the Prime Minister Mr Key and his National Government keep saying he is listening but this bill is a significant change. It will establish the super-city once and for all and Aucklanders have not had a say. 
Despite the results of the polls that have been promoted in the local  
Manukau Courier 
 and all the other suburban newspapers the Government is still not listening. In the poll that we conducted in Mangere the first question was “Do you agree with the plan to have a super-city?” and 66 percent said no 22 percent said yes and 12 percent said they were unsure. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Out of how many? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I will get to it; I will let that member know soon. That is the response that is coming out of Mangere. 
There is a similar response throughout Manukau City. When this bill passes under urgency without our having heard the voice of Aucklanders and without public consultation we are doing away with Manukau City. We are doing away with the councillors who represent Mangere. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Otara. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Papatoetoe. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Manurewa. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the wards of Botany Howick Pakuranga and Clevedon. That is what this legislation is doing. We are also doing away with the work and effort that past generations have put into this city and into the culture of this city. Why? Because Mr Hide is not prepared to give Aucklanders the opportunity to say what they have to say. 
The Government is not even listening to the recommendations of the royal commission on for example the Maori seats. I acknowledge the Maori Party for standing up for the three Maori seats that the royal commission asked for but I ask that party what sort of relationship it is in. To the outsiders our kaumatuas of Te Puea Marae of Tamaki-makau-rau of Pukaki Marae they feel that that is an abusive relationship in which the Maori Party gets dealt to by the National Government—and still it stays in coalition. Our kaumatua said three Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council were a good start. But this Government’s proposal is zilch—none at all. That reflects badly on the National Government. It is not recognising the special status of tangata whenua. 
That is why at a meeting earlier this week the tangata Pasifika—the people of the Pacific—in Manukau said that as much as they wanted a seat on the new Auckland Council they felt it was best that they support Maori because if this is the way that the National Government treats Maori—who must beg and go out and protest just to have one seat at their own table—what does that mean for the rest of the minority groups in New Zealand? Where is that going? It is not good. 
Community boards as Aucklanders know them will be gone under this legislation. The people who freely contribute their time and advocate for the local community will be gone. So I stand here to mourn the loss of Manukau City and to mourn the loss of our community boards as we know them. If the Government is so intent on sending this bill through—it is very confident that it has the numbers and that it is doing the right thing—then it should give Aucklanders the opportunity to have a say on the super-city. 
This bill also legislates for the Auckland Transition Agency. What will the membership of this agency be? Who will be on the agency? We have concerns from the local community— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Christine Rankin. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It could be Christine Rankin. I do not know; I hope not. We in Labour want to know who will be on the agency. What conflicts of interest will these people have? Will they be buddies of Mr Rodney Hide? Will they be the next-door neighbours of Mr Key? Who will these people be and whose interests will they be pursuing on the transitional authority? What is at stake is significant; it concerns billions of dollars in assets. In Manukau City the people are concerned about these assets. We currently have a significant amount of money invested in shares in Auckland International Airport. For the past several years those airport shares have contributed significantly to our free swimming pools our libraries and our free parks. Under this bill these assets will now be lumped in together as part of the assets of the new super-city. Who will control these assets? Our fear is that if it is not one of us from the wards of Manukau City then our interests will not be considered in the discussion of these assets. 
There are the issues of how much the transition will cost and how much the super-city will cost. I will again share with members the survey I undertook in Mangere. In answer to the question “Do you think that the royal commission’s plan for a super-city will lead to an increase in rates?” 79 percent of our people in Mangere said yes 7 percent said no and 14 percent were not sure. Let me give members a further statistic. Another question asked: “Do you think there has been enough consultation by central government about a super-city for Auckland?” and 80 percent of our people in Mangere polled said no they have not been consulted by central government 11 percent said yes and 9 percent were unsure. 
In respect of the cost of the super-city the transition and the ongoing cost I heard Mr Hide say that he wanted to cap rates for the sake of Aucklanders but is he prepared to cap the costs of the transition to the super-city? I doubt that very much. The costs are in the millions of dollars. The ongoing costs will be several millions of dollars because one also has to consider the 7000 employees of local government in Auckland who could lose their jobs. We want to make sure that those workers throughout Auckland are being looked after. We do not know what those costs are. This Government is ramming through legislation for a super-city without even telling the public how much it will cost. At the end of the day it will be the ratepayers of Auckland who pay for this.