Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6535] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging a few comments from Mr Hawkins. One of the things he said was that people will have less representation under the structure proposed by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. That is absolute rubbish. Not just this side of the Chamber is saying that; a group of community boards around the country is arguing for 20 to 30 local boards rather than the 14 to 20 the Opposition wants. The community boards back the Government; they do not back the members opposite. 
The second point I want to make is that we know that Labour is talking about a whole lot of unicorns and leprechauns this evening. Labour is flying kites. Labour actually supports one unitary authority. Mr Hawkins is saying that having one mayor will mean less representation. He needs to stand up and say in the Chamber this evening that he does not support a unitary authority. He does and we know that. We also know that in terms of the number of local boards and their functions and powers the Labour Opposition is pretty much where we are. The issues that are being flown by the Labour Party are absolute scaremongering. 
Issue No. 1 is the social issues board. I remind members of this Committee that on 4 May of this year the Minister for Social Development and Employment actually listened to the recommendation of the royal commission and set up the Auckland Social Policy Forum. The difference between members on this side of the Chamber and members on that side is that we do not need legislation and bureaucracy to achieve the result. That issue is very clearly being dealt with by the Minister for Social Development and Employment. 
The other scaremongering the Opposition is doing is around the issue of cost. The cost of traffic congestion to the people of Auckland is $2 billion a year. How much does that cost each person in Auckland? Yes there will be operational costs but everyone believes in a unitary authority including the members opposite. We believe in terms of our public transport system and in terms of the major events our city has lost that the cost to Auckland of not doing this is too much. The cost of not acting and not delivering this for Auckland is far greater than the cost of sitting on our hands as the previous Labour Government did in its 9 years and would continue to do. 
The other kite that is being flown by Labour is around the so-called secret agenda. I point Labour members to a provision in the bill. Mr Twyford has gone to public meetings which I have been at and told members of the arts community that there will be no funding for them. I reassure members on the opposite side of the Chamber and I refer them to clause 10. It is very clear that clause 10 allows for: “better enabling the promotion of the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities”. So it is very clear—and it is backed up by the Local Government Act—that there is no secret agenda. 
The final point I want to deal with concerns the mythical sale of assets. For members on the opposite side of the Chamber who have not read the Local Government Act I will give them a provision right here. Section 97 states that a local authority cannot decide to buy or sell a strategic asset “transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset” or “construct replace or abandon a strategic asset:” unless “the decision is explicitly provided for in its long-term community plan;” and it is consulted on in that context. 
So we have here this evening a bill that provides for a unitary authority that we all believe will finally be able to deliver the regional infrastructure and finally be able to stop the congestion in Auckland. We all believe in having better local representation. Members opposite agree with that. They want 14 to 20 boards whereas we want 20 to 30. They are flying a whole lot of kites in terms of a social issues forum but it already exists. They are flying a kite in terms of selling assets but there are provisions about that in the Local Government Act. They are flying a kite in terms of costs when they know that the whole reason we are here is the cost to Auckland of not moving forward. Members opposite are filibustering this legislation. They actually disagree with very few points. 
The last issue I want to touch on is the issue of minorities and representation. Many communities turned up to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and said they do not feel they have an adequate voice. I remind members again that we have listened to those people and we have said that we will be looking at that issue in the third bill we introduce.