Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6524] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I listened to Mr Carter who has almost woven a fantasy about what these local boards will be able to do. I do not doubt his sincerity and that he genuinely believes it. He said that we have ensured the local voice is going to prevail and the local communities are going to be empowered under this bill. I found myself almost caught up in his fantasy and his enthusiasm and I wish that it were true but I ask the Committee how local boards can be empowered when they have four to nine members when they have no staff when they have no autonomy when they have no resources when they have no service delivery function and when they are completely subservient to the council. That is the problem: his fantasy does not match reality. 
Nikki Kaye talked about this wonderful principle of subsidiarity that will ensure the local boards are empowered. But any fool could read this and realise the folly of what she is saying because of the exceptions in that clause that allow the Auckland Council to veto almost any decision of a local board. Ross Robertson is worried about his swimming pools in Manukau. Mr Carter said: “Oh no don’t worry about that. They’ll be allowed to have free swimming pools if they want free swimming pools.” But actually if Mr Banks is the mayor all he needs to do is look at that clause and say that the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area and therefore it can be vetoed—and would it not be if there were to be free swimming pools in Manukau? 
Look at— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Paranoia conspiracies! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: There is nothing paranoid; there is nothing conspiratorial; all I am doing is reading the legislation. Speaking of conspiracy however I want to turn to another subject which is the ACT local government policy taken fresh off its website. It is still up there. At least ACT is completely up front about its intentions. Its policy states: “Local government should progressively shed ownership of its commercial activities. … Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.” I remind all members of this Parliament and all Aucklanders what the intention of ACT is in this bill. One of the intentions is to set the Auckland Council up in such a way that the Government can pluck the $28 billion worth the council’s assets get its hands on them and privatise them. We need to put the legislation in the context of ACT being deprived of its desire to sell off national assets so it is turning to local government—and where better than Auckland Council where there is $28 billion of assets ready for the plucking! So thank heavens we have Phil Twyford’s amendment! It basically says that no asset would be able to be disposed of without a majority of valid votes cast in a referendum. Unfortunately this will probably be voted down like everything else. 
If John Banks gets into power—as he said this morning on radio he already has 600 people on his campaign team—he will have vast amounts of money. How does one win an election with 1.4 million voters? I think Auckland has a population of 1.4 million with 800000 voters. Someone pointed out that one would have to be very rich to even put out one pamphlet to as many voters as that. Of course the election for the mayoralty of the super-city will favour John Banks because he will be able to throw at the issue his 600-member campaign team and his vast resources which will be marshalled by right-wing Aucklanders. They see this as a golden opportunity to get their hands on those assets progressively corporatise them put them into Crown-owned companies get them ready for privatising and then pluck them off one by one. 
In Wellington when I was a city councillor we had Capital Power which was a very good very efficient organisation. In came councillors like Mark Blumsky and others and sold them off.