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:15556] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 You are absolutely right Mr Chairperson: Part 1 is the most substantial part and I want to focus my remarks on clauses 4 5 and 8. Just before getting into those clauses I reflect to the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Local Government some thoughts about his comments earlier. He was absolutely correct in what he said about George Hawkins when he was Mayor of Papakura but if the Minister were to talk to the Hon George Hawkins today George might well say that he has had second thoughts and that he has learnt from his bad mistakes. I tell the Minister that because George would also say that his actions were based on community consultation. There was a protest in Papakura early this morning by the community which has itself changed its mind. People of that community now realise the truth; they realise that they have been fooled all these years by this right-wing ideology and they now recognise that they should have never sold their water asset. 
I also say to the Minister that I totally disagree with him when he says that things are getting cheaper. Things are not getting cheaper. If he were to spend time talking to a mother or a father who is on the minimum wage earning about $400 or $500 a week and spending $300 on rent he would find that those people are saying that things are not getting cheaper but are getting more and more expensive under this Government. 
I turn to clause 4 which unfortunately changes the whole community perception in terms of how communities use their local governments to achieve outcomes. That clause changes the definition of community outcomes. I would say that the public will not be happy about that particular clause. Today the public are able to define for themselves by engaging with their local councils what community outcomes they seek. Those outcomes can differ from community to community. This clause proposes that local governments dictate to the community what outcomes the community should receive. In many ways it is as though this Government is saying: “We know better and we will tell the people what they need and deserve.” That is such arrogance. [ 
Interruption 
] I agree with my friend here Dr Ashraf Choudhary that “arrogant Tory” is probably the catchcry that will go from north to south when this Government forces this bill through despite the protest happening in Papakura at this very moment. 
I turn to clause 5 which covers core services. The Government is saying in this particular clause that there are only certain activities that local governments should focus on. Again this is the old catchcry that local government should focus only on roads rats rates and rubbish. That is the ideology of old local governments. But that is no longer the case. It has not been the case since 2000 and it is now 2010. In that period communities themselves have determined what core services are. I say to members that one core service that is prevalent in many of our communities in Manukau is events. Events bring communities together. Events help to liven up a place. They help to bring vibrancy to communities. Events rely on local government for support—not only financial support but also manpower and a range of other things required to make those events happen. This Government now says that clause 5 will define for the community what core services are and it gives a list of those things. Again that emphasises the arrogance of this particular Government.