Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15566] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Looking at schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the thing that stands out to me that I am concerned about—I know members on this side of the Chamber are concerned about it and I know the Greens are concerned about it—is the way in which the term “council community” is omitted the whole way through schedule 2. That highlights the point of difference between this side of the Committee and that side of the Committee. To us community should be the focus—a sense of community and ensuring that the community has a say in what happens in any council—whereas on that side of the Committee it is all about ensuring that the democratic ability to have a voice is shut out. 
A good example of this difference is the recent local body election that we had in Auckland. There were two very different main mayoral candidates: one was all about the corporates—and he was supported by the Government side of the Committee—and one was all about the community. That was Len Brown who went on to win and he was supported by this side of the Committee. I can imagine that a mayor who is all about community will struggle with legislation like this which excludes the community and undermines its ability to have a say in what is happening. 
Every community has the right to hold its council to account and expect transparency in decision making so any ratepayer and any person who is part of the city should be up in arms about this bill because it will undermine their ability to hold their council to account and expect that transparency. I know that the Minister of Local Government Mr Hide is one of those people who do not think communities should have a voice which is why we see this legislation coming through this Parliament. That is unfortunate given that most Aucklanders recently voted for a mayor who promised them an inclusive city—a mayor who promised them that community would be at the centre of everything for that city the biggest city in New Zealand Auckland City. Yet here a National Government is voting for a bill that undermines communities’ ability in that respect. 
I say it again: Auckland City voted for a mayor who was all about community not for the mayor who was all about the corporate. Yet the Government does not listen to that the National Party does not listen to that and the ACT Party does not listen to that because they think they know better even though the overwhelming majority of people who voted about a month back decided that the most important thing for them was community. 
I point out again that the Government is attempting through schedule 2 to omit the requirement that the council consult its community—the requirement that the community have a voice in council decision-making. We are very concerned about what that will mean. When we look at the aspects of the bill in relation to that provision we can see very clearly with regard to the corporate agenda versus the community agenda what the Government is trying to do. This bill puts into place the ability for the private sector to own water infrastructure for up to 35 years which is effectively privatisation. Again that fits into that corporate model that the Government side of the Committee is ideologically in support of. It goes against everything that we believe to be right with regard to the community having a say in what is happening. 
Although we support the move of this bill to increase financial accountability and transparency we oppose the imposition of arbitrary core services and cuts to the requirements for councils to consult their communities. At the end of the day how can we guarantee accountability and transparency when we are legislating so that the council no longer has to consult the community about its views? 
With regard to community I just point out that we have seen the merger of a number of cities in Auckland some of which were very community-focused.