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.”

Ua fa’ailoa mai nei e le alii Palemia o John Key ni suiga mata’utia o le a iai mo tagata faigaluega uma i Niu Sila i lana saunoaga autu i le fonotaga faaletausaga a le vaega faaupufai a le National na faia i le aso Sa ua te’a, i le faletalimalo a le Sky City i Aukilani.

E lima ni vaega tetele ua fofola mai e le Palemia o le a suia i le tulafono o loo aiaia ai aia tatau a tagata faigaluega.

O le tulafono tuai sa iai, sa mafai ona tuli oe e se kamupani o loo e faigaluega ai, ae sa iai le avanoa e mafai ai e le tagata faigaluega ona ave sana tagi i le faamasinoga o galuega, poo le matagaluega a le Leipa e faasaga i le kamupani ona o le tuliina o oe.

Peitai ina ua tulai mai le faigamalo a John Key na faalauaiteleina ai lana tulafono e mafai ai ona faamutaina galuega a se tagata faatoa amata ise galuega i le 90 aso talu ona faigaluega e aunoa ma se faamatalaga poo se mafuaaga tatau.   O lea tulafono na pasia e le faigamalo a John Key ia Tesema 2008 e aofia ai nao kamupani laiti e le silia ma le 20 tagata faigaluega o loo faafaigaluegaina. 

A’o teuteuga fou ua fuafuaina nei e teuteu ai lea lava tulafono, o le a afaina ai tagata faigaluega uma i soo se fale faigaluega, i soo se kamupani ma i soo se pisinisi, pe laiti pe tele foi, ua le toe faatuaoiina.

O lona uiga o le a teuteu le tulafono e le National ina ia faafaigofie ona fa’ate’a pe tuli se tagata faigaluega ua amata se galuega fou i totonu o le 90 aso muamua e faigaluega ai. 

E mafai ona fa’ate’a oe, e aunoa ma ni mafuaaga tatau, ua le toe iai foi se puipuiga mo le tagata faigaluega mai le matagaluega o Leipa, sa masani ona sulu iai pe afai ua afaina galuega ona o ni faaiuga le talafeagai a pulega o galuega.

O lona lua o suiga ua saunoa nei iai John Key, o le a le toe faafaigofie ona faaulu se tagi a se tagata faigaluega i le faamasinoga o galuega e faasaga ise pulega o se kamupani. 

O le a mafai foi ona faasala e se kamupani le faamasinoga o galuega pe a tuai, pe umi foi se taimi o faatalitali lea kamupani mo se faaiuga a le faamasinoga ise feeseeseaiga i le va o lea kamupani ma se tagata faigaluega lea na faaulu sana tagi.

O le a le mafai foi ona toe su’esu’eina, fesiligia pe tua’ia se kamupani ona o le sese o ala na uia i le lapataiga poo le faate’aina o se tagata faigaluega. 

O lona tolu o suiga a le Malo a John Key, o le a le toe faigofie ona maua le avanoa a sui o Iuni a tagata faigaluega e mafai ai ona ulufale i totonu o kamupani. 

E tatau i soo se Iuni ona fai muamua le talosaga mo oe e faataga mai e le pulega a se kamupani faatoa mafai lea ona ulufale i totonu o lea kamupani e asia tagata faigaluega o loo avea oni sui o le Iuni.

O leisi suiga fou o le a iai ua faaalia mai e John Key, o le a mafai ona faafesootai sao e pulega o kamupani le aufaigaluega i taimi o feutagaiga ma Iuni faatatau i siitaga o totogi ma le feutagaiga o tulaga uma o galuega. 

Sa masani o le tiute lava lea o le Iuni, o le logoina o le aufaigaluega e uiga i feutagaiga o loo feagai ai iuni ma le pulega o kamupani, aua le puipuiga o le aufaigaluega mai uiga tau faamatau a pule o kamupani,  ao lea ua aveeseina e John Key lea aia tatau, ae ua ia tatala le avanoa i le pulega e talanoa sao ai i tagata faigaluega i taimi o feutanaiga.

O le vaega mulimuli o fesuiaiga o tulafono tau galuega, e faatatau i Aso Malolo Faaletulafono (Holiday’s Act).  O le a iai fesuiaiga mo le fuafuaina o totogi mo aso malolo a le aufaigaluega o loo faigaluega ini galuega e le tumau (casual worker). 

E le gata i lea, o le a iai le teuteuga o le tulafono o aso malolo faaletulafono e mafai ai ona faatau e le tagata faigaluega i le pule o le kamupani se vaiaso e tasi mai vaiaso malolo o loo iai nei.

Mo i latou o loo faapea ifo e lelei le faatau o aso malolo i le pulega, ia tou mautinoa, o le toatele o le aufaigaluega e faatau atu aso malolo, o le a faigofie ai loa i le Malo ona faaitiitia aso malolo faaletausaga ua faatulafonoina, aua ua le faaaogaina aso malolo e malolo ai mai galuega e pei sa fuafua iai le faigamalo a le Leipa ua tuanai atu nei.

O suiga uma nei e manuia ai lava kamupani ma pisinisi tetele, ae afaina ai lava le aufaigaluega.

Ends.

Income inequality will accelerate significantly with the Government extending its 90 day “fire at will” law to every workplace and preventing unions organising in worksites, says Mangere MP Su’a William Sio, and will hurt Manukau communities the hardest.

“National’s introduction of the 90 day law was only the beginning of eroding workers rights and undermining their terms and conditions. John Key’s plan to extend the law to cover all workplaces confirms this is a true blue National Government,” Sua William Sio said.

“These are draconian measures that don’t belong in the Kiwi worksite where investing in workforce development will pay huge dividends for business as well as local communities.

“Pacific unemployment has doubled under National and now stands at 14.4%. That means there are just over 13,000 Pacific people out of work.

“The erosion of workers rights leads to increased unemployment, falling wages, and the loss of other terms and conditions such as holidays, sick leave etc.

“But this isn’t all. Combined with rising cost of living and a GST increase, the gap between the ‘haves and the have-nots’ will widen for the Mangere community where the median income is $20,600. 

“It makes me angry to know that some chief executive salaries now top the half-million mark while an unemployed person over 25 gets just $221.85 a week before tax, a sum lower in real terms than in 1991.”

In the next few months I am going to keep asking our communities what kind of society do you want to live in?  Values and priorities are changing so fast around us, we need to stop and ask this question now, before we lose sight of what is truly important in building strong societies.

For me I want to live in a fair society where everyone is treated equally irrespective of race, colour, religion, sex, age, culture, and preference.  I want for every kid, our kids, to have free access to health care, education, a home, and every opportunity to realise their fullest potential.  I want our kids to be protected from the harm of unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol and violence.  If our kids are to take up their rightful place as future leaders of families, communities and indeed our nation, then we must ensure that they receive quality education from early years to primary, high school and be given a choice of tertiary education of either pursuing a degree, trade, or whatever profession they choose.

I would like to see every able person to have a job that will enable them to earn a living that can sustain their family now and into the future. I would like to see more workplace training. 

I would like to see the elderly, disabled, sick and poor being protected and provided with care and their basic necessities.

This can happen provided that everyone is willing to chip in and support a fair society through paying their fair share of taxes.  This can happen provided “a fair society” is the driving force for our political decisions and there is a collective willingness for all of us to look after one another.  It can happen if greed and individualism is not the driving force behind political decisions.  It can happen if we recognise that “poverty anywhere will undermine wealth everywhere”.

Unfortunately, under the National-Act-Maori Party Government I believe we are not heading in this direction.  This Government is positioning New Zealand for a user-pays society and creating a problem for all New Zealanders.  The problem:  is Inequality!*

Consider the 2010 Budget.  Bill English told us it was about building  “a more prosperous and ambitious New Zealand”.  His recipe – big tax cuts for the rich, small if any for the poor, and these tax cuts would be funded by a 20% increase in GST, cuts in health, ECE, housing and lay-offs in other portfolios, and the sell-off, in the near future, of state assets like ACC, KiwiBank, etc.

Every Early Childhood Centre I’ve visited so far will all be affected by the Government cuts, some of the big licenses will lose up to $360,000 from their budgets, other small ones will lose about $25,000. 

The Government has said to these centres they must increase their fees or cut their expenditure.  This may mean centres firing quality staff, cutting staff training, cutting good nutrition, and cutting health checks. 

What this will mean is some parents will not afford ECE for their child and will keep them at home.  Inequality?  Absolutely!  Eventually what I suspect will emerge are centres that provide a low fee paying, low quality play centre service with unqualified staff, and those centres that charge high fees for their service.

Additionally, there’s been significant cuts in health expenditure as compared with previous years.  Budget 2010 have revealed wide ranging cuts to public health services.  About $18 million has been taken out of the oral health budget for young people under the age of 18 over the next four years. About $12 million has been cut from tobacco control programmes over four years.

Also cut over the next four years is $8million of sexual health promotion and prevention programmes, $1 million from public health alcohol and drug services, $4 million from mental health workforce development and $1.2 million from the Like Minds Like Mine campaign.  Inequality?  You better believe the consequences of all these cuts is inequality in the health of our communities, our country.

For example, life expectancy varies by more than 28 years, a disgrace that our Ministry of Health says puts us “in a range generally associated with third world developing countries.”  In some New Zealand neighbourhoods you are unlikely to live long enough to collect your super while in others the family will still be waiting for your to pop off at 90.” *

Income inequality will accelerate significantly with the Government extending its 90 Day Fire at Will Law to every workplace and preventing unions organising in worksites. The erosion of workers rights leads to mass unemployment, the fall of wages, the loss of other terms and conditions such as holidays, sick leave etc.

It makes me angry to know that some chief executive salaries now top the half-million mark while an unemployed person over 25 gets just $221.85 a week before tax, a sum lower in real terms than in 1991.*

If you want a fair and equal society, we must fight for it and not be silent.

* PSA Journal June 2010

Ends.

O upu masani a Samoa, e le falala fua lau o le niu e mafua ona falala ona ua agi le matagi.

O loo iai ni mataupu taua o loo feliuliuai i finagalo o sui faipule o le Palemene ma o loo faatalanoaina nei e le toatele o tagata Niu Sila ma ou te talitonu o ni mataupu e ao ona faailoa ma faaali iai ni finagalo o lo tatou Atunuu.  E ao foi ona fai iai se galuega a taitai o aiga, faalapotopotoga o le komiuniti, ma ekalesia.

O le mataupu muamua o sauaga lea i totonu o aiga, ae maise pe a afaina ai fanau ma tina o aiga.  O leisi mataupu o le avamalosi ma le tele o faalavelave ua tulai mai ai ona o le toatele o latou o loo soona taumafa le avamalosi. 

O le mataupu i sauaga e faasaga i fanau ma le itupa o tamaitai i aiga e le’o se mataupu e faasino na’o Samoa ma le Pasefika. 

O loo aafia ai soo se atunuu, e aafia tutusa le mativa ma le mauoa, le tagata maualuga ma le tagata e vaivai, le tagata faipisinisi ma le tagata faigaluega, i soo se ekalesia ma soo se gagana ma soo se  aganuu.

Na saunoa le Kovana a Niu Sila ise fonotaga na faia i Aukilani mo le sailiga o ni toa e tulai mo ni suiga lelei mo Niu Sila e taofi le saua i totonu o aiga, faapea i le 25 o tausaga ao galue ia ose loia ma mulimuliane avea ai ma se faamasino o le faamasinoga i Niu Sila, sa ia vaai ma faalogo i le tele o aafiaga talu ai sauga i totonu o aiga. 

Faimai o ia, “Sa ou vaai ma lou faanoanoa i le tele o aiga ua malepelepe talu ai uiga saua o alii io latou ta’ito’alua ma fanau.  O nisi o tina na maliliu ai lava i lima o latou ta’ito’alua.  Sa ou vaai i le toatele o fanau laiti mai aiga na tulai ai ia faalavelave, ua afaina ai ma o latou mafaufau ona o sauaga sa vaai iai o faatino e o latou tama, ma ua mata’u ai io latou tama.” 

“O nisi taimi, sa ou toe faamasino ai i faamasinoga o nei tamaiti, ina ua avea i latou ma tagata matutua, ae ua toe mulimuli i sauaga sa latou molimauina o faatino e latou tama.”

O le talosaga a le Kovana a Niu Sila e faapea ia tatou galulue faatasi e saili ni auala e foia ai nei faafitauli o loo tulai mai pea i nisi o aiga.   Na ia saunoa e leo se taimi lenei tatou te tusitusi lima ai ma faapea o ai e sese, ao ai e sa’o,  ao ai foi e mafua ai, ua te’a lea taimi.  O le taimi lenei e tatau ona tulai ai lava le tama poo o le fa’auluuluga o lona aiga ma faapea ia sui nei le olaga ia taofi loa sauga i totonu o aiga.  Ou te matua lagolagoina lea talosaga.

Ona o le tele o faalavelave o loo tulai mai pea talu ai le soona taumafa o le avamalosi, ua taoto nei i luma o le Malo ni fautuaga a le Komisi sa Su’esu’eina ma Iloiloina Tulafono a le Malo mo le puipuiga o tagata lautele mai faalavelave e mafua mai ona o le soona taumafa avamalosi a nisi. 

Ua faailoa mai e 25% oi latou o loo taumafa avamalosi ua taua o “heavy drinkers”.  E 75% latou sa sulu atu i le falemai ona o manuaga mai faalavelave faafuaseia mai i aso Tofi agai i le aso To’onai e mafua mai ona o le avamalosi.   Ua silia ma le 500 i latou ua maliliu i tausaga taitasi ona o faalavelave e tulai mai ona o le ave taavale ao faasuaava.   Ua silia ma le 3000 tamaiti e fananau mai ua le atoatoa lelei le mafaufau talu ai sa taumafa avamalosi le tina. 

Ua silia ma le 1000 tagata i le tausaga o loo maliliu ona o le soona taumafa avamalosi.  O le 50% o solitulafono mamafa e mafua mai ona o le avamalosi.  E 70,000 i latou na solitulafono i le fa’aoolima ma le amio mataga faapea solitulafono i le amio le pulea e faasaga i tamaiti ma tamaitai, e mafua ona sa taumafa avamalosi le na faia lea solitulafono.

E 450 fomai ma alii ma tamaitai tausimai ua saini lima i se talosaga ma momoli i le Malo e faailoa iai le latou mau ua tatau ona sii le tau o le avamalosi, ua tatau ona sii tausaga o e e mafai ai ona faatau iai le avamalosi, ua tatau ona faaitiitia le aofai o faleoloa e faatauina le avamalosi, ua tatau ona faatapulaa nei le malosi o kamupani gaosi avamalosi e faasalalau faalauaiteleina le avamalosi i tupulaga talavou.

Ou te popole afai tatou te le tulai ma galulue faatasi e taofi sauaga i totonu o aiga ma faia ni faataitaiga lelei mo tupulaga lalovaoa ina ia aloese i latou mai le soona taumafaina o le avamalosi, ua tatou faatamala faatasi ma ua leai se vaai mamao mo le manuia o Samoa mo a taeao.

Ends.

I love promoting Mangere as the Gateway to the Nation, and the land of the young, beautiful and gifted.  I do this at every opportunity with my parliamentary colleagues and in community events.  

This description reflects how strongly I feel about our young people belonging to a rising generation that are blessed with so many gifts and talents that will enable them to become some of the greatest future leaders of our country. 

Next week Youth Parliament will be in session and 122 young people from throughout New Zealand will spend two days questioning ministers, sitting in Select Committee meetings, and debating issues and moving motions in the House.

Twenty or so years from now, some of these young people, if they choose, will be representing the New Zealand public as elected members of Parliament.

We need good leaders who have good judgement and who desire to help all peoples of this nation of ours.

Last night at the Wellington Fijian Youth Forum I said to the youth, irrespective of what career pathway you choose, what’s really important is that you choose what you enjoy and love to do. 

But don’t restrict yourself. Don’t worry about whether you can do it now, or not.  Just dream about what you would like to do or become and write it down, memorise it and crystallize it in your mind. Make sure you dream big and stretch your thinking. 

There is nothing wrong with dreaming about becoming the Prime Minister of New Zealand.  There is nothing wrong with dreaming about becoming the Super Mayor for the Auckland Super city.

In fact I would challenge all our young people to dream about finding solutions about the big challenges our communities face today.

One challenge is the alcohol crisis our country faces today.  Sir Paul Reeves, Dame Temuranga Batley-Jackson, Papalii Dr Semisi Ma’ia’i and others called on Parliament this week to use the current historic opportunity brought about by the Law Commission’s “first principles” review of the liquor laws, to change the damaging heavy drinking culture in New Zealand.

The economic cost of the harm caused by heavy drinking is in the billions. Twenty five percent of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers.  A third of all police apprehensions involve alcohol. Half of all serious violent crimes relate to alcohol.  Up to 75% of adult presentations at Emergency Departments on Thursday to Saturday nights are alcohol-related. There are over 500 serious and fatal injury traffic crashes every year.   There are over 1000 alcohol deaths every year. There are 70,000 alcohol-related physical and sexual assaults each year, and much, much more.

We need future leaders who are prepared to stand up and be counted and say to their generation life can be enjoyed without alcohol.  We need them to say that social events don’t need alcohol in order for it to be successful events. 

There is overwhelming evidence that all point out the significant economic, social and health costs that arise from alcohol and tobacco-related harm in our families, community and country.

Another significant challenge is violence especially violence in the home.

The Governor General the Hon Sir Anand Satyannand in his opening remarks at a recent seminar against violence had this to say:

“In the first 25 years of my career, …, I saw, at least at second-hand, a number of awful ramifications of violence within the home.  I sadly saw families torn apart by domestic violence—women assaulted, sometimes even killed.  I came to know of children who, if they were not also assaulted, were traumatised by the violence they witnessed and came to fear their parents and particularly their fathers.  In the unhappy circle that violence creates, there were also examples of children following in their parent’s footsteps.”

Domestic violence is not confined to the poor, brown and uneducated, it affects all. Men, and it is mostly men who are the offenders, who physically abuse their partners and children come from all occupations, classes, religions and ethnicities.

As a parent, I do not want my children to be addicted to alcohol, tobacco, or any other drug.  I do not want my children to be involved in violence of any kind or form whatsoever.  

Our country spends so much money combating domestic violence, paying for the economic, social and health harms caused by alcohol & tobacco-related harm when this money should be spent on our kids education.

My aspiration is that our children release their fullest potential, grow their gifts and talents, and become the best leaders we have ever seen. 

To prepare our kids for this, we must stand together to fight those who are opposed to our kids taking up their rightful place in the future of New Zealand.   

Anyone targeting our kids with an intent to harm them, physically or emotionally, or aims to stifle our kids progress in life, is an enemy of this nation.

Ends