Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15530] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Manukau City Council made a submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill and opposed it. I will give members some reflection on why. When Mr Hide became the Minister of Local Government it was believed by many in Manukau that he had the National Government firmly on a leash and that he took that leash led the National Government and designed for the Auckland region a structure that would create local government in Auckland as a business unit. It was designed to gut local government. It was designed to break up the income-flowing assets of that region and put them into council-controlled organisations. Again Mr Hide led this Government by the leash and told the people of Auckland that it would be good for them. 
The people of Auckland reacted and poll after poll told us that they did not want to sell their assets. That was reaffirmed last month when Len Brown won a resounding victory over the National-backed candidate in the local body elections. Mr Brown won by a majority of more than 63000 votes. The win of Len Brown in the Auckland super-city election was a resounding response from the people of Auckland—they do not want to sell their assets. That mood has not changed. 
The people of Auckland are again up in arms. They are angry and outraged that this bill—which again was introduced by this Government led by the leash by Mr Hide—is designed to do away with the valuable water assets of the region. Tomorrow at 9 a.m. a protest is being held outside United Water at 116 Great South Road Papakura. This has been organised by the community which is angry and outraged about the way this Government is rushing this bill through. People do not want their water assets to be readily available to multinational water companies so that they can strip the profits from water companies that are owned by formed by organised by and paid for by ratepayers throughout this country. 
A lot of people are asking whether Kiwis along the length and breadth of New Zealand can say with confidence and with hand on heart that they can trust the Minister who is driving the changes in local government today. A lot of them are wondering whether the changes being introduced in this bill will make things better for ratepayers throughout New Zealand. Will this bill reduce rates over the next 3 6 9 15 or 35 years? After all this is the same Minister who once told the people of Auckland that he would help cut their rates. Can Kiwis have confidence in a Minister from a minority party that received a mere 3.65 percent of the vote in the 2008 general election? 
Hon Member 
: And dropping. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yep and dropping. This is the party that has been dubbed by many as the “1 Percent Party” yet despite its low percentage of the vote and despite its low polling this Minister has been given the power to simply lead the National Government on a leash. Mr Hide leads the Government on a leash just as a master leads his prized dog. Winston Peters’ party New Zealand First got more votes than Mr Hide’s party yet Mr Peters is out of Parliament. Mr Hide’s party despite getting fewer votes than New Zealand First is not only in Parliament but is in Parliament with five MPs and Mr Hide is the Minister of Local Government leading the National Government on a leash. 
If the New Zealand public can say with hand on heart that they can trust this Minister and this Government then my speech is concluded and this country has gone to the dogs. But if the New Zealand public can with confidence and without compulsion say that they cannot trust this Minister and this Government then believe me when I say that the New Zealand public is absolutely correct. Practically every piece of legislation Mr Rodney Hide has introduced into this House as the Minister of Local Government has been passed under urgency with the exception of one bill. How Mr Hide can claim that ratepayers want greater transparency and accountability in local government when he ignores that principle in Parliament? 
Although this bill purports to improve transparency and accountability in local government it will do the opposite. The bill aims to weaken local democracy. It strips away the key consultation provisions that the public and the community currently have. It forces councils to focus on a narrow range of core activities and it will allow councils to privatise water supplies for 35 years. Despite the Government’s weasel-word rhetoric this bill does not increase transparency and accountability in local government. It will not increase transparency and accountability no matter how many times the Government says it will. 
This bill will undermine transparency. It will undermine public accountability by local government. It will undermine the participation of local communities. This bill will remove the right of local communities to participate in consultative processes. It will remove the right of local communities to influence the activities of local government. It undermines transparency and accountability by removing the rights of local communities to participate in reaching outcomes that benefit the well-being of local communities. 
More important and of major significance this bill removes the current requirement that councils must consult if they intend to sell key strategic assets such as water services or change their method of delivery. This bill will force council water supplies to be contracted out for 35 years. A ratepayer who is 70 years old today will be dead before they can have a say in respect of the water they have paid for. 
The number of submissions on this bill totalled about 414. Of those submissions 360 were expressly against water privatisation. I want to quote from two submitters because they were significant submitters form the Auckland region. The first submission is from the Auckland District Council of Social Services an umbrella organisation covering the Auckland isthmus area which opposed this bill overall. Its submission states that it is opposed to this bill because: “it will undesirably reduce democratic accountability; reduce consultation with and responsiveness to local communities; tend to privatise strategic assets and basic services including water supply; and reduce the range of services provided by local authorities to a narrower list than communities actually want local authorities to continue to deliver for them.” 
The final submission I want to quote is from the Auckland City Council Community Board Chairs Forum. Again this is a significant group from the Auckland region. It is a committee made up of chairs of all the community boards across the Auckland City region. Its submission states that “the current legislation is delivering transparency and accountability for ratepayers and that the proposals set out in the legislation are unnecessary and anti-democratic. We believe that there is always room for improvement within Local Government however this can be achieved by best practise guidelines to councils and policy changes within councils.” In other words this bill is unnecessary and the big ado about accountability and transparency just will not wash with the people of Auckland. I suspect that next year they will treat this Government in the same way that they responded when they voted for Len Brown as the super-city mayor in an overwhelming defeat of the National candidate. 
Debate interrupted.