Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10711] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill in its first reading. I want to reflect a little bit on where we have come from. 
Members will recall that on 17 November 2008 Martin Johnston of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 wrote an article—members may have read it I do not know—that said: “ACT has a radical agenda for local government but party leader Rodney Hide is keeping his lips sealed.” The article went on to say: “ACT wants councils to privatise their commercial activities and to supply water on a ‘fully commercial basis’ but Mr Hide would not identify yesterday which activities should be prioritised or discuss these policies at all.” Later in that same month Brian Rudman of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 wrote another article entitled: “Hide and local government a scary mix”. I quote: “There are many in local government scratching their heads after the appointment of Act leader Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government and wondering what on earth they did to upset Prime Minister John Key so much.” The article continued: “Top of the scorched earth local government policy list Mr Hide was elected on was that ‘local government will be required to shed its commercial activity thereby eliminating the need to separate regulatory and commercial functions between local and regional councils’.” 
Members will also be aware that Mr Hide as the Minister of Local Government rammed through the implementation of the Auckland super-city. They will recall that the Government said that it would consult widely with the people of Auckland once the Royal Commission On Auckland Governance had released its report. That was never done. Members will also recall that earlier this year Mr Hide with the support of this Government removed the 14 elected councillors of Environment Canterbury. That regional council will not have the ability to replace those elected officials with new elected officials in this year’s local body elections. They are being replaced by commissioners who have been politically appointed by the Minister of Local Government and the Government. 
I thought it would be useful to give some background as to what is happening with regard to local government and what is yet to occur with the final Auckland super-city bill going through the House and now with this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. I support what my colleagues have said: we in Labour are opposing this bill. There are a variety of reasons why. 
Let me begin by saying that in quickly going through the bill I saw a range of areas of concern that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. I am hopeful that the people of Auckland the people of the Canterbury area and everyone who is passionate about local government will take the time to make submissions on this bill. New section 11A in clause 5 makes reference to “core services”. The bill states: “a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities:” then lists “network infrastructure:” “public transport services:” “solid waste collection and disposal:” “the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:” and other community infrastructure. 
People who are working in business improvement districts will be asking—I know that those in Manukau will be asking—whether economic development is a core service of councils. Is the business of business improvement associations a core service? Will this bill specifically put a circle round or define the limitations of what is regarded as a core service? I am saying this because currently all local government bodies and communities are able to participate in identifying what local core services are through the annual plan process; that is when communities come forward to their councils and identify what their needs are and what is important to them. 
For example only last month many people throughout New Zealand—all of us I suspect—celebrated Anzac Day. The events on that day are generally organised by community boards and are funded by councils. Our local event in Mangere Bridge is organised by the good Rev. Les Dixon of the Anglican Church there. He estimates that the council puts in about $10000 to pay for that local event. People are now asking whether Anzac Day celebrations and other events that local government bodies currently support are core services. 
From talking with members of the local government fraternity I have a suspicion that we could see a situation where local government bodies use lawyers to try to define what a core service is. I do not believe that this bill will achieve what it is designed to do which is to reduce compliance costs and to reduce the rates burden on ratepayers if councillors need to consult and to seek the advice of legal advisers to identify what is a core service and what is not a core service and to determine which current community activities will be part of local government services in the future. 
I come to community consultation and to clause 8. Several amendments in this Government bill seem to me to take away the opportunity currently available to members of the public to provide input into the long-term council community plan. If on the one hand the Government is saying that it wants transparency and wants accountability why on earth is it removing the particular part providing for wider community participation and for communities to hold local government bodies to account? The removal of participation by communities is explicit in that particular part of the bill. I do not know why the Government is doing that. I hope people will be consulted and will be able to raise their concerns. The risk is that under clause 8 community considerations will not be given a full and fair hearing at key stages of the process. 
I come to the area that the Minister of Local Government did not spend a lot of time on. It must be considered the most significant part of the bill. It is about partnerships the private sector and making it easier for the private sector to take control of an asset and to take control of an income stream that comes from the water industry. The Minister spent little time on it yet it is probably the most significant part of the bill. 
My colleague George Hawkins said that if these contracts will last for 35 years ratepayers who are now aged 65 will not get a say in what happens to those contracts until they are 100. Ratepayers now aged 35 or 40 will not have a say for the next 35 years. They could be dead at 70 if they are Pacific or Maori. They will not have a say in how the private sector will run the water industry under that particular clause. 
It is a weird situation to have a bill that aims to reduce compliance costs but on the other hand adds other compliance costs. On the one hand the Government says it wants more transparency but on the other hand it tries to keep a lot of the decision making that will be made by the private sector away from the community so that the community is not participating and the community is not involved. There are major concerns about this bill and I hope the public of New Zealand listening to this debate will take the opportunity to make submissions on this bill. Thank you.