Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill

Second Reading, Wednesday 17th November 2010

Te Ururoa Flavell, MP for Waiariki

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei pō. Kua tū ake me te āhua āwangawanga o te ngākau mō te āhuatanga o tēnei pire. Anā, nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i te mea ko taua āhua nō rā, me kī, mō tēnei momo kāwanatanga, me kī, arā, kua whakakorengia ko ngā whakaaro o te hunga kāinga, o te tangata whenua, ka mutu, kua whakakorengia ō rātou tūmanako, ō tātou tūmanako o roto i ngā whiriwhiringa o te komiti.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all tonight. I rise, but with some misgivings about the context of this bill—and for what reason? Simply because of the supposition once again, shall we say, in the context of local government, where it appears the views of the home people, their aspirations and ours, have been largely discounted in committee deliberations.]

I rise to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill with, as I say, some considerable discomfort in the sense that, yet again, we come to the context of local government and find that the views of tangata whenua have been pretty much largely minimised and discounted, and the challenges laid out in submissions largely ignored by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

It was for that reason that the Māori Party made the decision to submit a minority report alongside the views of others of the Local Government and Environment Committee. In that report I noted that there are some key areas in respect of the Local Government Act 2002 that must be addressed, but none more so than that of tangata whenua participation and involvement at local government level. In light of the views of the mana whenua being silenced from the record, I will bring some of the key points from the submissions back into the discussion and the debate.

This House must take note of the words of Te Ora o Manukau, which stated that if public participation is marginalised in local authority decision-making, the utilisation of the Treaty of Waitangi models of maintaining effective working relationships, as well as Government aspirations of effective community engagement, will be further undermined by this bill. Indeed the analysis by Te Ora o Manukau states: “This bill is a lost opportunity, in that it does not make any proposals that will result in improved Māori health.

“Indeed, the proposals restrict participation overall in the local Government processes.” In the Maori Party we do, of course, acknowledge there are some local authorities that engage with tāngata whenua in positive ways. But there are also some local authorities that are distinctly lagging behind. Ngāti Hauā tangata whenua and other Whanganui River tribes gave very strong messages about the implications of this bill. It will directly impact on the lives of Māori.

I quote from the submission: “The Bill removes the mean whereby Whanganui Māori continue to hold customary rights to the Whanganui River and its tributaries … and other Taonga.” Ngāti Hauā and Whanganui river tribes were united in their concerns about the ways in which the proposed legislation addresses the matter of water management, and in particular, how that will impinge on their claim for the Whanganui River. It was their view that the Crown must acknowledge its Treaty obligations to consult on any of the activities that may impact on Treaty claims. Ngāti Hāua and the Whanganui tribes are concerned that at no stage have they been consulted on the impacts of the proposals within this bill on their claim with the Whanganui River.

The concerns about the provisions of water services permeates throughout the bill and were raised by a number of submitters. Colleagues from across the board have also mentioned some of this in the debate tonight. We take into account the points raised by Te Wai Māori that local government cannot deal with fresh water in isolation from Māori, and that Māori have an ownership right on the water that is subject to this bill.

A major concern in this bill is that it proposes actions that in the opinion of Te Wai Māori will serve to privatise water services. The increase in the terms of contracts from 15 to 35 years, and the delegated management, illustrates the creation of a form of privatisation that is often described as public–private partnership.

Whakatu Incorporation also had a very clear view and concern about the provision of water services. Whakatu Incorporation is based in Nelson and is a key Māori enterprise within the Tai Tonga electorate, and is driven by the aspirations of shareholders and whānau members from four tribes: Ngati Kōata, Ngati Rārua, Ngati Tama and Te Ātiawa.

I give this background merely to provide some justification for the fact that when they make a statement to a select committee, we pay particular attention, in the Māori Party, to their advice. In their submission they said: “We disagree with the bill’s intentions to relax restrictions on private sector involvement in the delivery of water services. We think this proposal needs much more debate and consideration at the community and national level, taking into account tāngata whenua views about the ownership and management of water.” I could go on a little bit longer about the concerns that iwi and Māori organisations raised about this bill. Suffice to say that the underlying themes of these submissions is that tāngata whenua do not adequate, comprehensive, and mandatory representation at the local government decision-making table.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, the underlying theme is the desire in particular of Māori to be involved in decision-making processes, and from all accounts from the submissions provided, that is pretty much missing in this bill. It is acknowledged by almost everyone, except, perhaps, the Minister of Local Government, that at the local government level tangata whenua have been unfairly, inequitably, and disproportionately underrepresented across selected councils. In general, less than 5 percent of elected local councillors in any term of local government representation have been Māori. I repeat—less than 5 percent.

The Māori Party had hoped that serious consideration might be extended to the concept of Māori participation and engagement at the local government level. Although there are established processes to maintain tangata whenua participation at the local government level, including through iwi management plans, ultimately there is a lack of Māori enfranchisement in local government. So it was ultimately extremely disheartening that Māori participation in local government was not given more thought by the committee. We have therefore raised serious and longstanding concerns. We raised them during the first reading and during the select committee’s consideration of the bill, and we want to revisit them. The first is the issue of the lost opportunity to improve relationships with Māori at local government level. I have given the background to that—there is no more to be said.

The second is the issue over the provision of water services. Although major concerns were raised in submissions, they have for the most part been ignored. Only one further amendment has been made to the provisions. This amendment will prohibit the sale of existing local government infrastructure to a private partner, except when a local government organisation reasonably believes that the sale was related to the joint arrangement and is desirable for the success of the arrangement. That appears to being with it a level of looseness that will not provide any assurance to Māori submitters that their rights to Treaty-based processes have been respected.

The third issue is about the broader context of community outcomes. As a result of this legislation there will be a new definition for community outcomes. Under the new definition community outcomes are “those a local authority aims to achieve”, replacing the definition in the Act of community outcomes as “those the district or region has identified as priorities.” It should also be noted that periodically reporting on community outcomes is removed. Both of these decisions are, in our view, disastrous in the context of community development and provide us with considerable concern. In light of all these issues the Māori Party has no alternative but to vote against this bill.

ENDS

© Scoop Media