Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15612] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 As the last speaker for the Opposition on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: But the best. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I thank the member. I will use up my full time unlike the Government member Louise Upston who did not use up her full time. I will tell members why. I acknowledge the members of the Opposition both Labour and Green. They have fought tooth and nail to hold the line for democracy for New Zealand right through to midnight last night and early this morning including taking a bit of democracy out to the Mana electorate where Kris Fa’afoi is campaigning on our behalf. 
The Government has argued that this bill is about keeping local decisions local. That is what the Government has argued. It has also— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is in full flight here. I would like to hear what he has to say. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I was in full flight; my wings were about to expand. The Government has argued that this bill is about keeping local decisions local. That actually means keeping local government decisions away from the ratepayers. That is what it is about. The Government argues that it is about keeping local decisions local but we are saying that as we understand this bill it is actually about keeping local government decision-making away from the ratepayers who pay for local government. 
The Government has also argued throughout this debate that the bill is about transparency and accountability. I will reflect to members and repeat perhaps what many other speakers have said in this House. In so far as the Opposition is concerned this bill does not provide one iota of transparency or accountability. The bill ushers in a sad day for local democracy—a sad day for local democracy. 
The public who have been observing these debates will no doubt be asking why such important legislation as this bill is being rammed through the House in urgency as the Government is now doing. Organisations such as Grey Power and the ratepayers and residents associations right throughout this country are asking that question. I suspect that many will come to the conclusion that it is by Government design. It is deliberate. It is intentional to undermine not only the Opposition’s ability to respond but also more important the ability of the wider New Zealand public to react and respond defiantly. That is why it is important that I acknowledge all my Opposition colleagues for holding the line of democracy throughout this debate and for fighting tooth and nail to hold this lot here accountable. 
I have a feeling that many who are listening to these debates will come to the same conclusion that my colleagues and I 
have reached: that despite the eloquent rhetoric of Government members despite their use of certain key words such as “accountability” and “transparency” this bill does exactly the opposite. The behaviour and language of this Government has been designed to lull the New Zealand public into accepting something they would normally not accept in the same way that a snake uses hypnotism to lull its prey before making the final and fatal strike. That is what this Government has done. 
I will point out why I believe this and why I think so. The first thing is the water assets. These are important assets right throughout this country. The reference to water assets was hidden in the bill. This Government did not want the public to see what was in its design. Rodney Hide is allowing private companies to own the water infrastructure of councils for up to 35 years. It is privatisation in spite of Government denials—it is privatisation. By giving over a valuable asset that generates an income stream that the ratepayers pay for we are giving this valuable source of income to the private sector no doubt to a select few—perhaps friends of Tau Henare the millionaire from Te Atatu as some might say—simply so that they can have that ongoing source of income. Who pays for that? It will be the ratepayers. What happens to the asset at the end of 35 years? No one knows. It has been my experience that the private sector generally squeezes every profit out of an asset and leaves it to rot. There is no maintenance. Who will have to pick up the maintenance of that particular asset after 35 years with no one looking after its ongoing welfare? It will be the ratepayers. It will be the ratepayers right through this country. 
The Government denies that it is privatisation but that is nonsense. How many years would a dam have to be in private ownership before the Government called it privatisation? Fifty years? One hundred years? This bill allows private business to own water infrastructure for 35 years. That is a step too far for an activity that is by the Minister’s own admission a core service of local government. Rodney Hide has already admitted to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that he favoured the privatisation of council services. Changes brought about in the bill clearly show that that is in fact the Government’s agenda. 
ACT’s policy is clear: it wants to see local government services including roads and pipe water run on a fully commercial basis. But National does not have the courage to be up front with New Zealanders. National MPs have spent the last few months arguing at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the bill’s long-term contracts for water are not privatisation and that shifting services to a council-owned company is not corporatisation. When the public sees the goings-on by this Government they view it as being deceptive politics to say one thing when doing something else and to also believe in doing something but handing it over to that “1 Percent Party” to conduct affairs on its behalf. 
Community consultation is a significant part that now changes. Instead of the wider community the ratepayers and citizens of this country being able to participate in the ongoing discussion of issues from the beginning to the end outcome of whatever the issue maybe this bill now says that the local authority has the right to determine whether a citizen can participate in that process. At one point in time I used to be the chair of the council’s annual plan committee throughout Manukau City. As somebody who values community participation I took that committee to every corner of that electorate. I witnessed with my own eyes many National Party members and supporters in Botany and Pakuranga who took the time and valued being able to participate in the consultative community process. I say to every ratepayer and resident who is a member of the National Party that they will no longer have the right to participate in that consultation process. That right has been taken away from them by this bill and given to a select few on the local authority—it could be the chief executive officer. That is significant in terms of the gutting of local democracy and that is what this bill does. 
Finally community outcomes have now been removed from the residents ratepayers and citizens of this country. It has now been given to the local authority to determine what outcomes the community ought to receive. That is arrogance and it is extreme and that has been displayed by this Government throughout this debate. I say again: this bill overwhelmingly is about keeping decision making away from ratepayers.