Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15575] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair you always get a very good equity balance in the calls that you give out and I think that is admirable. 
I have a number of ideas with regard to the title. To start with rather than the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill I think it is appropriate that we call it the “Local Government (We Couldn’t Win Auckland in the Local Body Election So We’ll Privatise Auckland’s Assets in This Way) Bill”. That name comes from something that has been discussed quite widely in this debate. It has been about the Government’s agenda with regard to privatising assets and privatising Auckland’s assets in particular. It has been about the ideological views of members on the other side of the Chamber who want our local government bodies to act in a corporate way rather than in a community-focused way. That title really is appropriate given that this bill allows the private sector to own water infrastructure for up to 35 years which effectively is privatisation as my Labour colleagues and Sue Kedgley have pointed out. So that title is appropriate. 
Although as we have said before we support what the bill states it intends to do which is to increase financial accountability and transparency we know that in all actuality that is not the case because the bill is about privatisation and it is about removing the rights of the community to have a say in what is happening so that corporates can move in and the communities cannot object to what is going on around them. So that is one idea with regard to what the title of this bill could be and I will repeat it: the “Local Government (We Couldn’t Win Auckland in the Local Body Election So We’ll Privatise Auckland’s Assets in This Way) Bill”. It is a long title and the one thing I am concerned about is that it is a little bit long. Other than that it captures the agenda of the National Government and what it intends to do with this legislation. 
Another idea I have with regard to an appropriate title for this bill is along the same lines but a little bit shorter. Rather than call it the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill 2010 we could call it the “Government Wants to Sell Off Your Water and Now We Can Bill”. That would also be appropriate. I will not go into too much detail about why because I think it was covered in the explanation of my previous recommendation of a good title for this bill. 
On a different note going back to the concerns that have been raised about the Government’s desire to erase the community’s ability to have a say in what is going on in local government and to hold their representatives to account I think another appropriate title would be the “Local Government Doesn’t Have to Ask You What You Want or Think Bill”. That would be appropriate given that this bill removes the need for local government to actually consult with communities on long-term strategic goals on the long-term outcomes that are strategically put into place for the particular cities that will be covered. That is of concern because one would think that with local government and with central government as well actually constituents ratepayers and taxpayers should be able to have a voice in decision making. They should be able to go to their elected representatives and say that they believe that their representatives should be focusing on this this and this outcome and then they should be able to push for their representatives to do that. Unfortunately this bill removes the right for that to occur. Again that recommendation for an appropriate title for this bill is “Local Government Doesn’t Have to Ask You What You Want or Think Bill”. I am pretty sure that that would give New Zealanders a good indication of what the National Government is trying to do if they do not already know what it has been trying to do for the past 2 years it has been in Government or for the entire history of National’s existence.