Sio Su'a William: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18753] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Perhaps I could begin by laying down a bit of groundwork in terms of context before I get to the Local Government Borrowing Bill because this bill does not just happen in a vacuum; it is part and parcel of a whole package that has had an impact on local government since the John Key - ACT Government came into power. Firstly the House will recall that in 2009 the Minister who introduced this bill the Hon Rodney Hide pranced around the whole Auckland region and around the country and said that the Government was going to ram through legislation to change the face of local government in the Auckland region. That is the same Minister of Local Government and the same Government that then talked about the savings that would be made by bringing together the eight local authorities in the Auckland region. Well none of that has happened. There are no savings—in fact in Auckland we are still trying to recover from the costs that have now been imposed on every ratepayer for the burden of that entity that this Government forced on the Auckland region. 
Secondly that same Minister aided and abetted by Mr John Key went around local government again and said that the Government wanted to bring in public-private partnerships and that the Government was looking at selling off local assets. Those assets were things that the public has contributed to over many many years. In 2009 the Government said that this was an idea that came out of the Job Summit but where are the jobs? After 2 years of sitting on that idea I have to agree that the bill is a welcome and fresh idea. The Government is now introducing the Local Government Borrowing Bill to make things easier or perhaps take advantage of economies of scale so that local authorities will be able to borrow for necessary infrastructure throughout this country of ours. 
I have to say that I am just a bit peeved that the Government is introducing this bill close to the election whereas all the time it did not give a damn about local government. It did not care one iota about the burdens that ratepayers the length and breadth of this country were experiencing. In fact the Government did not care about local government so much that it got rid of the Canterbury regional organisation. We do not know when that regional organisation will be brought into operation again. 
Although we support this idea at the higher level it is important that the bill goes out to the public for their submissions and that every local council every mayor every councillor and every local board throughout the country has a say in this. If every local council does not participate in the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency then we lose the benefit if any from the economies of scale that theoretically this agency will achieve. I think it is important for the local authorities the length and breadth of this country to be able to have a say on it. The good thing is that potentially we will not see local governments having to try to set up public-private partnerships which has the potential for those local authorities to lose the strategic assets that they have built up over the years through their own sweat energy and resources. However this Government is still talking about selling them the next time they have the opportunity to sit on the Government benches. 
I want to share that there are some concerns that the public should be asked to have a view on. By establishing the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency—and it is a private company—under the Companies Act 1993 the agency will also be subject to the provisions of another Act that treats this company as if it were a local authority which is the Securities Act 1978. I want to hear a view from the public or from local authorities about how they see the operations of such an agency operating. If it is to be treated like a local authority who appoints the directors of it—or will it be up to the local authority or the public? Will the public have an opportunity to choose the directors or the governance body of that company? If the funding agency is to take advantage of the economies of scale will it listen to the views of mayors and councillors? What happens to those councils that do not want to be a part of this funding agency? Will we lose out on their participation or on their potential contribution? Will the Government listen to and take seriously the views of the mayors or councils or can those parties expect to be treated with disdain as other councils and other mayors have been treated in the past under this Minister? 
As I said the agency is set up under the Companies Act but this bill also provides for the Securities Act. It treats this agency as if it were a local authority. The public want to know how they will participate. How will they hold the governance structure of the agency to account? Will the directors of the company be appointed by the Minister or will the public and their local councils have input in that? The claim that this idea came from the Job Summit simply reinforces what the Opposition has been saying all along. The Job Summit was just a John Key gimmick. There were no jobs created. We are still waiting on those jobs so that is further evidence that it was a gimmick. I suppose on balance although it did not achieve what Mr Key convinced the rest of New Zealand that it would do and that was to create jobs at least we have some idea. After 2 years I have to ask why the Government is dragging its feet on that particular idea if it was such a great one. 
I also say that earlier in this debate there was some confusion as to whether the ACT Party is part of the National Party or whether the National Party is part of the ACT Party because they did not seem to support each other in previous debates. But now we are hearing them sounding as if they are friends again. Are National and ACT joined together in supporting this bill? The public will want to know whether that relationship is a genuine one and whether it will endure beyond this election. I think listening to the debate earlier where National members were condemning the ACT Party and now they are being friends of the ACT Party we really have to wonder what sorts of games they are playing. Is this really genuine or are they now raising this legislation as a viable activity because we are close to an election? 
The final question that needs to be asked is whether it will be cost-effective for the community and the ratepayers. Although the intent of the bill is to bring about more cost-effective ways of borrowing money so that councils can build their infrastructure the question has to be asked whether those benefits then transfer back to the ratepayers and to the wider community. Under the present conditions that have been imposed upon this country by the lack of action and planning of this particular Government ratepayers are hurting. Ratepayers will want to know whether this agency will bring about lower rates and enable the general public to enjoy the benefits of public infrastructure without having to put out further money for rates increases as we have seen under the watch of this John Key - Mr Hide Government. Thank you.