Hawkins George: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10696] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I must say from the outset that I was a little disappointed that the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill did not deal with some things. The Hon Rodney Hide promised people that they would have lower rates but he has been a member of the House for quite a while and he has not delivered. I think that really disturbs people because they were looking forward to change. Of course we have people like Owen Pringle and Peter Goldsmith from the Papakura District Council who are putting rates up by 11 percent or more this year whereas someone in a nearby council Daniel Newman of Manukau City Council tells me that that council’s rates are going up by around 3.8 percent. So people were looking for some consistency but did not get it in this bill. I think that is really important. 
It is very easy for members of an Opposition to go around the countryside and say their party would make rates cheaper but perhaps this bill deals with one thing that worries very many people. They are worried that the bill provides that water-owned facilities could be leased out for up to 35 years. When I was a mayor I contracted out a lot of things and we kept the rates down but I say that 35 years is too far into the future. All those people in Grey Power will be 100 before they get a vote again on water services if a council adopts that provision in this bill. I say that 35 years is a long time and young people who are now 30 will be pensioners before they get another say. So 11 or 12 elections could go by before people get another say on this legislation. 
That is what is wrong with this bill and it builds on what has been happening around the country. Environment Canterbury has been skittled. Perhaps it may have deserved to be skittled—but for 3½ years? It should be for the period up to the next election if it is a problem that is so easy to sort out. Then we had the royal commission come up with its master plan for Auckland. Did that go to the public of Auckland for a referendum like everyone thought it would? No it did not. We see that happen again with this bill. People will find out that their water facilities could be set aside from public scrutiny for 35 years. 
Some people say that that is privatisation; I say it is the closest thing one gets to privatisation without selling things. I thought Rodney Hide may have been better spending his time working out who owns water rather than trying to flog off something. They have to make sure that in Auckland as in the rest of New Zealand they take the people with them; they do not get in the ACT-National bulldozer and trample over the rights of ordinary New Zealanders—and that is what has happened. 
I am a reasonably fair person and I can go on to say that some things in the bill are reasonably good. When we have a clause that calls for a pre-election report prepared by the chief executive of a council to say how the finances are without lobbying for certain councillors that is fair. It is well overdue and it is good but although we may find something good in a bill we must have a look at the overall picture. This bill cannot be seen in isolation. The House has dealt with three bills concerning Auckland governance—two of them have been passed. One of them was passed entirely under urgency. It did not have a select committee process and of course lots and lots of amendments were put forward by the Opposition to highlight how democracy was being ridden roughshod over. 
This bill has elements of that in it. It also builds on what is happening in Auckland where 75 to 80 percent of the council business will be put in council-controlled organisations. The Minister in his speech talked about a company owned by Environment Canterbury that went bust. When we have council-controlled organisations that are not open to public scrutiny as a council is we have a very dangerous position. That is what worries many people in the Opposition. It worries many people in Grey Power. It worries people who are sole income earners on a fixed allowance. These people would like to know where their money goes. I agree that it is great to have this report done before an election. I imagine the report will be only as good as the chief executive. In most cases chief executives are extremely competent people who will do the job well but one or two probably will not. 
I have to say that when we look at the bill we see that we will have all sorts of core business—that is what it will all be about. Last year Rodney Hide went around talking about core business. He talked about it so much that his mother had to remind him that libraries are a core business. He had not thought of that. This is one of the problems. I think there needs to be a balance between where Labour went where councils were able to move into areas where they saw need and what is happening here: core business. People see things such as having water supplied to their house having their rubbish picked up at the gate and having roads repaired as core business. 
I think this bill is a wee bit too narrow in that respect. I also think that it is very difficult to write these things into law. When things are written into law we have to take the public with us. I do not think that is happening here. You see when we have councils that are so different from the top of the North Island down to Stewart Island and out in the Chathams there are things that are very very different. New section 11A states: “a local authority must have particular regard to … (a) network infrastructure: (b) public transport services: (c) solid waste collection and disposal: (d) avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:”—we would not argue about any of these things—and “(e) libraries museums reserves recreation facilities and other community infrastructure.” But is that the whole total? I suggest that it is not. 
I imagine that many people will make submissions because there is no real talk in here about the social needs of communities. There has to be far more awareness of the social needs of ordinary families living in ordinary communities. Although those communities may be vastly different in different parts of the country they need the ability to move into those areas themselves rather than being dictated to by the National-ACT coalition. I have to say that its record in local government is abysmal. I thought we were going to go somewhere but we have not been taken to the promised land; we have been taken to the execution chamber. That is what has happened. This Government has forgotten that ordinary New Zealanders value their democracy and democracy is slowly but surely being snuffed out by John Key and Rodney Hide.