Flavell Te Ururoa: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15527] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. Kua tu ake me te ahua awangawanga o te ngakau mo te ahuatanga o tenei pire. Ana na runga i te aha? Na runga i te mea ko taua ahua no ra me ki mo tenei momo kawanatanga me ki ara kua whakakorengia ko nga whakaaro o te hunga kainga o te tangata whenua ka mutu kua whakakorengia o ratou tumanako o tatou tumanako o roto i nga whiriwhiringa o te komiti. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all tonight. I rise but with some misgivings about the context of this bill—and for what reason? Simply because of the supposition once again shall we say in the context of local government where it appears the views of the home people their aspirations and ours have been largely discounted in committee deliberations 
.] 
I rise to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill with some considerable discomfort in the sense that yet again we come to the context of local government and find that the views of tangata whenua have been largely minimised and discounted and the challenges laid out in submissions largely ignored by the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was for that reason that the Maori Party made the decision to submit a minority report alongside the views of others on committee. In that report I noted that there are some key areas in respect of the Local Government Act 2002 that must be addressed but none more so than that of tangata whenua participation and involvement at local government level. 
In light of the views of mana whenua being silenced from the record I will bring some of the key points from the submissions back into the discussion and the debate. This House must take note of the words of Te Ora o Manukau. It stated that if public participation is marginalised in local authority decision-making the utilisation of Treaty of Waitangi models of maintaining effective working relationships as well as Government aspirations of effective community engagement will be further undermined by this bill. The analysis by Te Ora o Manukau states: “This bill is a lost opportunity in that it does not make any proposals that will result in improved Maori health.  
Indeed the proposals restrict participation overall in the local Government processes.” We in the Maori Party do of course acknowledge that there are some local authorities that engage with tangata whenua in positive ways. But there are also some local authorities that distinctly lag behind. 
Ngati Haua tangata whenua and other Whanganui River tribes gave a very strong message that the implications of this bill will directly impact on the lives of Maori. I quote from their submission: “The Bill removes the means whereby Whanganui Maori continue to hold customary rights to the Whanganui River and its tributaries … and other Taonga.” Ngati Haua and Whanganui river tribes were united in their concerns about the way the legislation addresses the matter of water management and in particular how that will impinge on their claim for the Whanganui River. It was their view that the Crown must acknowledge its Treaty obligations to consult on any activities that may impact on Treaty claims. Ngati Haua and the Whanganui River tribes were concerned that at no stage were they consulted on the impacts of the proposals of this bill on their claim to the Whanganui River. 
Concerns permeate about the water services provisions of this bill and they were raised by a number of submitters. Colleagues from across the board have also mentioned some of them in the debate tonight. We take into account the points raised by Te Wai Maori that local government cannot deal with fresh water in isolation from Maori and that Maori have an ownership right of water which is subject to this bill. A major concern about this bill is that it proposes actions that in the opinion of Te Wai Maori will serve to privatise water services. The increase in the terms of contracts from 15 to 35 years and the delegation of management illustrate the creation of a form of privatisation that is often described as a public-private partnership. 
Wakatu Incorporation also had a very clear view and concern about the provision of water services. Wakatu Incorporation is based in Nelson and is a key Maori enterprise within Te Tai Tonga electorate. It is driven by the aspirations of shareholders and whanau members from four tribes: Ngati Koata Ngati Rarua Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa. I give this background merely to provide some justification for the fact that when Wakatu Incorporation makes a statement to a select committee we in the Maori Party pay particular attention to its advice. In its submission it stated: “We disagree with the Bill’s intention to relax restrictions on private sector involvement in the delivery of water services. We think this proposal needs much more debate and consideration at the community and national level taking into account tangata whenua views about the ownership and management of water.” 
I could go on a little bit longer about the concerns that iwi and Maori organisations raised about this bill. Suffice it to say that the underlying theme of those submissions is that tangata whenua do not have adequate comprehensive and mandatory representation at the local government decision-making table. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the acting Opposition whips are attempting to telephone the acting Government whips but the member concerned appears to be asleep. I wonder whether you could draw attention to that; it would be helpful for the phone call to be put through. I think they are very keen to speak to them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I guess at this hour of the night that is to be expected. I am sure one can communicate without having to use the phone—that is just interrupting the member. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted the underlying theme is the desire of Maori to be involved in decision-making processes. But from all accounts from the submissions provided that is pretty much missing in this bill. 
It is acknowledged by almost everyone except perhaps the Minister of Local Government that at the local government level tangata whenua have been unfairly inequitably and disproportionately underrepresented across selected councils. In general less than 5 percent of elected local councillors in any term of local government have been Maori. I repeat—less than 5 percent. The Maori Party had hoped that serious consideration might be extended to the concept of Maori participation and engagement at the local government level. Although there are established processes to maintain tangata whenua participation at the local government level including through iwi management plans ultimately there is a lack of Maori enfranchisement in local government. So it was ultimately extremely disheartening that Maori participation in local government was not given more thought by the committee. 
We have raised three serious and longstanding concerns. We raised them during the first reading and during the select committee’s consideration of the bill and we want to revisit them. The first is the issue of the lost opportunity to improve relationships with Maori at the local government level. I have given the background to that—there is no more to be said. 
The second is the issue of the provision of water services. Although major concerns were raised in submissions about the provision of water services they have for the most part been ignored. Only one further amendment was made to those provisions. This amendment will prohibit the sale of existing local government infrastructure to a private partner except when a local government organisation reasonably believes that the sale was related to the joint arrangement and is desirable for the success of the arrangement. That appears to bring with it a level of looseness that will not provide any assurance to Maori submitters that their rights to Treaty-based processes have been respected. 
The third issue is about the broader context of community outcomes. As a result of this legislation there will be a new definition of community outcomes. Under the new definition community outcomes are “those a local authority aims to achieve” replacing the definition in the Local Government Act of community outcomes as “the outcomes for that district or region that are identified as priorities …” It should also be noted that periodical reporting on community outcomes is removed. Both of these decisions are in our view disastrous in the context of community development and provide us with considerable concern. In light of all those issues the Maori Party has no alternative but to vote against this bill.