It has taken three months and the glare of Parliamentary scrutiny for the Government to finally come to the realisation that it was wrong to hand over nearly $5 million to the Pacific Economic Development Agency (PEDA) in an uncontested process, Labour’s Associate Pacific Island Affairs Su’a William Sio said today.

“From the time the fund was announced on Budget Day the Government has been on the defensive over the lack of transparency in the process,” Su’a William Sio said.

“The Government has now realised it was wrong and has opened up the fund to a contestable tender.

“National has wasted three months hopelessly trying to defend its awful decision to directly fund PEDA.

“With Pacific unemployment at 14.1 per cent Pacific communities need help now.

“This embarrassing u-turn by the Government highlights the fact that National has no plan to tackle unemployment or grow a stronger economy that gets all Kiwis back into jobs.

“National’s motivations to fund PEDA were purely politically and driven by John Key and Bill English.

“National was found out. But unfortunately for the Pacific community they are forced to wait longer for the help they desperately need.”

“I am saddened by the news today that Luamanuvao Winnie Laban will be stepping down as Member of Parliament for Mana,” Mangere MP Su’a William Sio said.

“Winnie has been a shining star and tireless advocate for the Pasefika community.

“The Pacific community fondly remembers Winnie entering Parliament in 1999 as the first woman Pacific Island MP and then going on to become the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs in 2005. In all her roles she has worked incredibly hard to improve the social and economic wellbeing of the Pacific community in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

“I know the Pacific community, her electorate of Mana and her Labour Party colleagues will sorely miss her, but wish her all the very best in her new role as Assistant Vice Chancellor Pasifika at Victoria University.

“Winnie should be congratulated on her new role and will be a great addition to the staff at Victoria University,” Su’a William Sio said.

The silence from Minister Georgina te Heuheu on whether or not a purchase agreement has been signed with the Pacific Economic Development Agency is deafening, says Labour’s Associate Pacific spokesperson Su’a William Sio.

“In late May I asked the Minister in a written parliamentary question when a contract would be signed. More than a month later she responded she was ‘expecting that the purchase agreement will be ready for the new financial year (1 July 2010)’,” Su’a William Sio said.

“When I asked Minister te Heuheu in Parliament on 1^{st July if the purchase agreement was ready and finalised we were again told it was not signed.}

“This just continues the shonky process the Government has followed since it announced the uncontested funding on Budget day.”

Su’a William Sio said he understood at least two of the five programmes proposed in PEDA’s application for funding to Finance Minister Bill English have already been dropped, and others may follow. 

 ”I also understand that PEDA was incapable of providing a business proposal for the programmes, which further confirms that this whole process has been back to front.”

“And this could well be the reason why there has been no announcement of a purchase order being signed,” Su’a William Sio said.

“Auckland’s Pacific community is distrustful of this deal and has every right to be suspicious.

“The PEDA deal is a shambles, and the constant delays, lack of action and information about the progress of an agreement is evidence of that.”

Ladies and gentlemen.

I want to acknowledge the elected officials in the room today: mayors, regional chairs, councillors, community board members.

In a few short weeks you’ll face your electors. I know that for all the noise of election campaigns and media focus on the spending of local government representatives and officials, those who seek to serve their communities don’t do so for personal reward.

Your motivation is a desire to see our communities do better.

Community and service are at the heart of Labour’s vision for local government.

I want to talk about our vision today.

Labour values the word ‘local’ in local government.

Because it is local it is able to be responsive.

I want everyone to have a sense of belonging to their community. Community is the bedrock of security and opportunity.

I see local government as a partner for central government, providing services that make communities safer and stronger.

So that’s our vision: strongly democratic local government, responsive to its own community, working alongside central government to create development and provide services.

When I listen to the Minister of Local Government it too often seems that he sees not the potential for you to contribute, but rather he sees local government as a monster that needs to be restrained. Often it sounds like he sees local government as out of control, doing far more than it should and being reckless and irresponsible with ratepayers’ money.

His ideology is that corporate and unaccountable decision-making is better than transparent and democratic decision-making.

He thinks decisions made in Wellington, and in boardrooms, are better than decisions made by communities.

The Minister trusts hand-picked appointees more than he trusts the people to run our communities.

The Government talks about transparency and accountability – but it is shifting decision-making power, and the management of assets and services, into private hands.

Moving behind closed doors.

That vision mistrusts communities, and it replaces the wishes of the many with the decisions of the few.

I reject that vision because it’s not local, and it’s not responsive.

Labour’s 2002 Local Government Act was based on the idea that local authorities would be responsive to their communities.

Councils were required to consult, and to be transparent.

There were things that it couldn’t do – such as privatising residents’ and ratepayers’ assets against their wishes.

At the end of consultation, councils need to be able to make and implement a decision.

They also need constantly to strive to improve their performance, and reduce costs.

Rates must be kept at reasonable levels, especially in these times when families are finding it tough to have something left over at the end of the week.

But what I don’t support is taking away the power of local communities and councils to make their decisions locally whenever appropriate, rather than being constrained by tight restrictions written in Wellington.

The Government is setting up local government with too many restrictions, new costs and controls.

The result is they are making councils less responsive to local communities.

Instead of what communities want, it is all about what central government wants.

In his speech to you here yesterday, the prime minister said the Local Government Amendment Bill is aimed at getting council decision-making to focus on what he called ‘core principles’.

He described these as waste collection, transport, and water supply.

That’s his list of core services, but look what is missing from the new Bill:

Involvement in economic development.

Involvement in protection of the environment.

A council role in social well-being through, for example, pensioner housing.

What if communities want their councils to do those things?

Many councils won’t be clear about if their communities want a focus on these things.

That’s because the Bill before parliament sets aside some vital requirements to consult – for example on community outcomes in the long term plan, or on the sale of important assets.

Consultation can be demanding for councils, but it is essential to strong communities.

The same principles that have been behind the changes in the Local Government Amendment Bill have also been driving re-organisation in Auckland.

Labour recognised the need to reform Auckland. We set up the Royal Commission there to look at the region’s governance.

I support a vision for a united Auckland.

What I don’t support is re-organisation that takes the local out of local government.

You can’t make communities stronger by reducing the community voice and the responsiveness of local government to its own community.

There are huge possibilities for Auckland, and what the new council can achieve.

Strong communities, that make the city a great place for families and a great place to enjoy its stunning physical environment.

Smart economic development, that creates jobs and opportunity out of clean twenty-first century technology and infrastructure.

A cheap, fast and convenient transport network, and dual waterfronts that will become a magnet for Aucklanders and visitors from around the world.

All this is within our reach.

It’s a vision for a great city, and great communities.

Essential to achieving that was to ensure Aucklanders had a say in – and a sense of ownership over – the future of their city.

But this historic reform of Auckland has been soured.

Aucklanders weren’t listened to, and the rushed process has only alienated us further.

People feel steamrolled.

Opinion polls consistently report a majority of Aucklanders feeling negative and doubtful about the Super City.

Only a fifth to a third support the changes.

The mistakes the Government has made in Auckland are important – because they are not simply flaws in a shambolic process. They are the result of the way the National-led Government thinks about communities.

They distrust communities, and so they constrained the powers of local boards.

Labour will change the law to guarantee local boards real decision making powers.

The Government trusts the boardroom over the ballot box, and so it has handed 75 per cent of the new city’s operations and services to council companies.

Labour says that how council controlled organisations operate is a decision Auckland should make, not Wellington.

The Government sees the city not as a community, but as a corporation, and clearly intends for the business side of local government to be privatised.

It has removed the requirement to get support in a binding referendum before the Ports of Auckland can be sold.

Labour will legislate to restore protection to public assets.

Labour wants to see New Zealand building our assets up, not selling them off.

The Government doesn’t think ratepayers need to be consulted before strategic assets are sold.

Labour will give Aucklanders a say, through consultation and, where it’s needed, through a referendum.

It is generations of Auckland residents and ratepayers who paid for these assets, and Aucklanders as a whole should determine their future.

In Auckland the democratic process has been compromised. In Canterbury it has been chopped off at the knees.

The decision to suspend elections for three and a half years has deprived Cantabrians of a voice.

It means they no longer have access to protections under the Resource Management Act that other New Zealanders enjoy.

Frustration with decision-making there is not a reason to remove the ability of the community to make decisions at all.

The Government appointed commissioners in Canterbury to make decisions about resource consents and to make Water Conservation Orders.

Those orders can’t be challenged.

It is taxation without representation, and that has never been a good way to govern.

There is nothing local, representative or responsive about it.

I think the Government has under-estimated the depth of public concern over this issue in Canterbury.

Labour will rescind the Act that removed the voice of the people of Canterbury. We will hold elections as soon as possible.

Behind the swinging axe in Canterbury are water issues.

And water is a major area of local reform where the Government has an agenda Labour cannot accept.

It is proposing to allow private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years.

That is almost two generations, and eleven electoral cycles.

That is effectively, to all intents, privatisation, even if the asset is returned back to the Council at the end of the contracting period.

New Zealanders want their water infrastructure to be run efficiently but not as a money-making venture for private profit.

We do not want the profits from water disappearing to overseas owners.

I am clear about this – private ownership of water infrastructure for 35-years will result in New Zealanders’ hard earned cash disappearing into the hands of the foreign investors who will buy up the asset.

We can’t afford that in good times. In tight times like today, families will not be able to find the extra costs that private owners will demand.

The record of privatised monopolies around the world is a record of higher prices for consumers.

Water is a natural monopoly. No one is ever going to build a competing set of pipes.

If there is one thing worse than a public monopoly, it is a private one.

It will charge as much as it can. And no one will be able to choose to buy water from a competitor.

If public utilities over-charge, voters can throw you out. That is a fierce control on you.

If you don’t do an adequate job of your water supply, they will remove you at elections.

But protections on foreign-owned utility investors have a habit of slipping away.

Many cash-strapped local authorities are looking for ways to find the long-term investment funds needed to build their infrastructure.

Central government has an obligation to partner local government in resolving this issue.

There is a lot we can do to help.

I want to tell you that Labour is carefully looking at far-reaching options to help.

It is obvious to me that we have a savings problem in New Zealand; We don’t save enough and at the same time we have a savings industry gutted by the collapse of so many finance companies in recent years.

Meanwhile we have local needs all over New Zealand for infrastructure investment.

Central government faces similar challenges funding infrastructure.

New Zealanders’s can earn a return on their savings and help to build our national and local infrastructure at the same time.

We can do all that in a way that provides the capital required and protects communities from unfair price rises and privatisation.

One idea is the concept of local government bonds, which would allow local authorities to efficiently access capital markets and lower the cost of their funding.

This idea originated with the Capital Markets Development Taskforce last year.

Labour set the Taskforce up, and this is an idea that came out of it with a lot of potential.

We see bonds as an opportunity for Mum and Dad investors who have been burned by finance company collapses to invest their savings knowing it’s good for the community. Their investment can achieve a fair rate of return, and it’s safer.

The use of bonds avoids privatisation of assets that are often monopolies.

Since the Taskforce proposed the bonds, the Government has so far failed to implement it.

I am less persuaded about the merits of public-private partnerships.

Any infrastructure ultimately has to be paid for by either rates or user charges. In a PPP the final cost to the public must take into account the private contractor’s return on investment.

Its cost of capital will always be higher than the cost to government. Governments can borrow cheaply because they are less risky.

So I am sceptical that PPPs are the major answer to the funding challenges councils face.

At the heart of our vision for local government is our commitment to truly local government dedicated to providing services to strong communities.

Democratic control is the best way to ensure services align with community wishes. It’s the best way to make sure everyone gets their say.

I want institutions of government to be managed in the public interest, and for the public good.

The actions of this Government in Auckland, in Canterbury, and with the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, are not consistent with a vision of stronger communities.

They are not consistent with developing local economies, nor good environmental management.

Labour will support efforts to improve efficiency and reduce red tape and unnecessary costs.

But we will build them into our vision of government that is closer to communities, not further away.

That is an agenda for the future. It is Labour’s agenda now in Opposition, and when we return to Government. 

Ends

The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs must listen to the overwhelming voice of Auckland’s Pacific communities and allow them to elect their own representatives to the Super City’s Pacific Advisory Board, Labour MP for Mangere Sua William Sio said today.

“To ensure the real needs of Auckland’s Pacific community are taken into account in the decision making process, Pacific people must have a say in who represents them,” Sua William Sio said.

“It should be the role of the Mayor and the Auckland Council to support, sponsor and provide resources for the Board to conduct its new roles and functions, rather than the Mayor appointing this Board.

“With the MPIA seeking input from the Pacific community on how the advisory board will be chosen, now is the time for Pacific people to speak up.”

“I sat on the Auckland Governance Legislative select committee and heard the vast majority of Pacific submitters advocating to maintain their right to elect their own Pacific representatives on the panel, as is the current practice on the four Pacific advisory boards in Manukau, Waitakere, Auckland City and North Shore.”

Su’a William Sio said he has major concerns around the proposal of one group that was seen as self appointed by the Pacific community and who demanded they be appointed to the advisory panel, without going through a consultative process.

“The Auckland Pacific Forum, which has close links to the Pacific Economic Development Agency (PEDA) and is led by the Pacific Island Chamber of Commerce, has lobbied that it be chosen to represent Pacific people,” Sua William Sio said.

“I strongly oppose any such move. It would not be representative of the Pacific community at large. The well established democratic process working in Manukau, Waitakere, the North Shore and Auckland to choose Pacific community reps has served those cities well over many years.

“No system is perfect but these established processes have enabled the Pacific communities in Manukau & Waitakere to make significant contributions and latterly also in North Shore and Auckland City

“Labour will fight any move that would strip the right of Pacific communities to choose their representatives that advise civic leaders.”

The Government is talking out both sides of its mouth over $5 million dollars of taxpayer money awarded in this year’s Budget, Labour’s Associate Pacific Island Affairs spokesperson Su’a William Sio said today.

“Today Finance Minister Bill English told media that officials were working to see whether the Pacific Economic Development Agency Limited (PEDA) ‘can actually deliver on the program’ it proposed to get the funding,” Su’a William Sio said.

“But interestingly yesterday and for some weeks now Pacific Island Affairs Minister Georgina te Heuheu said PEDA ‘have certain skill sets that we deem to be critical… they have networks, they have business connections, business skills’.

“The Government has already allocated this money to PEDA in the Budget. The deal has been done. So why are officials now looking into whether the little known or tested organisation can come up with the goods?

“The Pacific Island Affairs Minister has said repeatedly that the Government was already convinced about the abilities of PEDA.

“This whole saga smells and could have been avoided if there had been an open and transparent tender process where the plethora of organisations that provide help to Pacific communities could have taken part.

“Mr English has misjudged the level of anger in the Pacific community. Many Pasifika organisations believe PEDA has been given special treatment and on the evidence before them they have reason to be concerned.”

Bill English today confirmed that on the strength of what can only be described as a flimsy 6 page proposal he was happy to hand over nearly $5 million dollars of taxpayer money, Su’a William Sio said today.

“For weeks I have been asking the Government to come clean over the funding given to the Pacific Economic Development Agency Limited (PEDA) in May’s Budget,” Su’a William Sio said.

“Now I know why Pacific Island Affairs Minister Georgina te Heuheu has been so evasive, uninformed and confused whenever I have asked her questions in Parliament. It’s because Deputy Prime Minister Bill English has been driving the deal through.

“Mr English needs to explain why, when he is demanding line-by-line reviews of Government spending, he is prepared to give PEDA nearly $5 million based on a proposal that would draw suspicion from loan sharks.

“Bill English needs to tell Kiwis why this process was so shoddy and why other organisations did not have an equal opportunity to bid for this funding in an open tender process.

“The Deputy PM also needs to make it clear who he has met with to discuss the PEDA proposal and when.

“PEDA is a virtually unknown organisation in the Pacific community in Auckland. I have real concerns whether it can deliver what it has promised to communities.

Pacific Island Affairs Minister Georgina te Heu Heu continued her farcical defence of the Government’s dodgy processed around the awarding of $4.8 million dollars in this year’s Budget, Labour’s Associate Pacific Island Affairs spokesman Su’a William Sio said today.

“The Minister told Parliament today that the Pacific Economic Development Agency (PEDA) has not been awarded funding in the Budget. That is at complete odds with a press release she issued a month ago,” Su’a William Sio said.

“It’s hard to make sense of any of the responses to questions that are being put to Georgina te Heu Heu around the lack of transparency around the PEDA funding.

“We have asked her numerous questions in Parliament – which she continues to fail to answer. We even put the same questions to her in written form – still no answers.

“It is becoming more and more obvious that the Minister has something to hide.

“Our questions are basic – who represented PEDA in its negotiations with the Government? Why does she not know who she has just handed almost $5 million to?
If it wasn’t her than which Minister actually dealt with negotiations with PEDA?”

“These are reasonable questions that a Minister who has a strong grip on their portfolio would be able to answer.”

The inept answers from the Pacific Island Affairs Minister in Parliament today raises the question of who was really behind her Ministry awarding nearly $4.8 million dollars to a private firm in this year’s Budget, Labour MP for Mangere Su’a William Sio said.

“Georgina te Heu Heu has continued her strategy of dodging the most basic questions around the funding given to the Pacific Economic Development Agency (PEDA),” Su’a William Sio said.

“It is curious that the Minister did not know who represented PEDA in its negotiations with the Government. Why does she not know who she has just handed $5 million to?

“And if she genuinely doesn’t, which Minister actually dealt with negotiations with PEDA?”

Su’a William Sio said Georgina te Heu Heu has also confirmed Labour’s fears that the funding was awarded to PEDA without an open bidding process.

“With a straight face, Georgina te Heu Heu admitted there was no contestable process for the funding,” Su’a William Sio said.

“She also admitted that the money has already been committed despite many vital parts of the agreement with PEDA still not finalised. The process followed in this instance seems back to front.

“Ask any Kiwi whether they’d hand over $4.8 million before they knew what they were buying and you’ll only get one answer.

“Despite the repeated questioning of Georgina te Heu Heu, there are still plenty of unanswered questions around the PEDA funding.

“If she won’t answer or doesn’t know, taxpayers deserve to know who was really pulling the strings behind the scenes,” Su’a William Sio.

O Talaleomalie o le Alo o le Tui Atua, aua ua ii le Manu ae logo i le vateatea, aua le vaiaso Faapitoa o le Gagana Samoa.

(Joy & Glad Tidings is the name of the daughter of Paramount Chief Tui Atua, as a single bird’s call in the silent forest reaches the unknown spaces of heaven, because this is a special week for Samoan Language) 

Labour MP Su’a William Sio used the above allegories to convey the depth of emotion when he moved his motion seeking support from Parliament to support Samoan Language Week.

MP for Mangere, Su’a William Sio is delighted to announce that Parliament was unanimous in supporting his motion today when he sought from all political parties to join with Labour to acknowledge Samoan Language Week in Parliament from June 1-3 by using Samoan words and phrases

“I am pleased that MPs across the political spectrum have decided to support Samoan Language Week, which acknowledges the importance of the Samoan language and culture in our community.

“New Zealand has a special bond with the Samoan people and their culture and it’s fantastic to see all political parties recognising this, by agreeing to support Samoan Language Week,” said Su’a William Sio.

“Samoan Language Week officially runs from Sunday 30 May to Saturday 5 June, which also coincides with Samoan Independence Day which is held on the first of June.  The Samoan language is the third most spoken after Maori and second after English in South Auckland.

“The approval of Parliament of this motion was significant because today was also the 1^st of June and the 48^th year of Samoa becoming the first Pacific island nation to become independent in 1962.

“It seems the stars are aligning for Samoa Language Week because last week Samoa’s 7^th Rugby team became the world champions in the IRB World Sevens competition, beating out New Zealand, Australia and Fiji.

In his motion, Su’a William Sio said, by Parliament endorsing his motion, we “encourage greater understanding of the Samoan language and culture, and therefore send a strong message that New Zealanders at the highest level of decision-making embrace diversity of language as a strength of our nation going forward.

I look forward to listening to MPs across the debating chamber speak a few words in Parliament next which and am sure this will be quite special for those in the Samoan community watching the debates, said Su’a William Sio.