Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15569] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I totally agree with Moana Mackey about what should be important in the bill. Unfortunately those things are not in the bill. I also agree with Sue Kedgley when she says that this bill is designed to gut local government to gut local democracy and to make it easier for this Government to sell off our water assets. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove gave a wonderful speech that described the way this Government is going about couching this under “transparency” and “accountability” when in reality the bill removes transparency and accountability. 
I ask members to look at clause 47 “Other amendments to principal Act”. This clause should be of concern to the public and I have no doubt that it will be of concern once they get wind of what this Government is attempting to do. 
Hon Member 
: They submitted on it for months. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Some of them submitted; not all submitted. Members of the community of Papakura are protesting right at this very moment because they are outraged by what this Government is attempting to do. Clause 47 refers us to schedule 2 which principally changes the way that we now have to look at how councils conduct their business when it comes to community council planning. Schedule 2 changes the definition of “long-term council community plan” and removes from the Act two critical words: “council community”. It removes the participation of community in consulting with councils to identify outcomes. 
Let me give members some examples why a lot of people including supporters of this Government and no doubt members of the National Party will be outraged by this measure. Currently ordinary ratepayers are able to be involved in the entire long-term council community plan from genesis right until the fruition of a particular outcome. One example is housing for the elderly which resonates very strongly with elderly people in Manukau in various parts of Auckland City and no doubt throughout the country. Whenever a council is determined to remove housing for the elderly many National Party members and supporters will turn up. It does not matter how old they are or whether they are using a walking stick or a wheelchair; they turn up from the beginning of the consultative process right until the very end. But this schedule removes their ability to participate. This legislation gives the power to the local council to determine whether consultation should take place and whether people are involved only at the beginning or not involved at all. 
This bill also gives the right to the local authority to determine outcomes for ratepayers. In other words what Sue Kedgley said about gutting local government is precisely outlined in this very schedule. Every section outlined in schedule 2 removes community participation. It removes the ability of ordinary people—ratepayers and senior citizens—to front up to their local government and to say that they are not happy with a particular course of action that that local authority may want to take place.