Kaye Nikki: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be speaking on this piece of legislation the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the hundreds of submitters whom we had from around New Zealand. We have had comments from Opposition members that this was not a comprehensive process. Well actually the Local Government and Environment Committee heard submissions over 7 days and we also heard them in many different cities in New Zealand. We went to Hamilton and Canterbury we were in Wellington and we were in Auckland. This was a very comprehensive process. 
The second thing I would like to say is to reinforce the comments of the Hon Nick Smith. The Labour Party and members of the Opposition in my view are showing how out of touch they are at the moment with so many New Zealanders who are concerned about the costs of living and are concerned about rates. Every day as a constituency MP I see through my office issues of hardship. For members opposite to argue a position that there should be no change is I think negligent. 
In terms of this bill we have heard a lot of issues around the numbers. Well can I take you through some of those numbers. The first point I would like to make is that it is correct that the costs that we have seen in terms of local government have quadrupled. That is a fact. There have been many people who have raised issues around where those costs have gone and that is crucial to this debate. The reality is that some of those costs are to do with infrastructure. I accept that. I accept that some of those costs are to do with infrastructure. But the issue here is whether we can do better in terms of local government and reduce the costs to taxpayers and local residents by actually having more efficient government and also by re-clarifying the roles. 
We have heard from Opposition members all of the scare stories and I am sure we are going to continue to hear them. I tell you what: we heard these same debates and these same issues raised by Opposition members when it came to Auckland local government reform. I want to address that for a moment here. One of the most fascinating things about the submitters who came to our select committee was that there were a number of the local boards in Auckland that actually talked about how successful the Auckland local government reforms had been. I want to take you through some of those successes: $140 million of savings in the first year and we have seen water rates reduce. The real reason for the differential in terms of rates is the fact that we have had huge infrastructure deficits in Auckland over a long period of time. We have had fractured government and I am very pleased to say that through this bill we had a whole lot of local representatives saying how good the system was. 
I want to raise that because when we had those Auckland local government debates we heard from people like Phil Twyford. They went around with the same arguments. They raised fear and they also said that this was a loss of local democracy. Well my message to members opposite is that it is not acceptable to say that they care about issues like affordable housing when they are not prepared to make changes to refocus local government to ensure that we have more reasonable rates in this country. Prior to 2002 we did not have the four well-beings. That does not mean that there will not be certain things in the community that people will still be able to do. All it means is that this Government is being fiscally responsible and clarifying the role of local government. My message to members opposite is that they raised these arguments of fair and local democracy last time but the facts are clear in Auckland. The facts are very clear that we have seen a reduction in water rates and we have also seen a reduction in the costs of local government. 
This bill is about refocusing the purpose of local government while also ensuring that our wonderful local representatives across the country get to deliver for their communities. But for members opposite to argue for no change is in my view negligent. At the end of the day people have high costs of living at the moment. When we see issues like housing on the agenda it is incredibly important that we deal with issues of land supply and that we have a credible housing plan that looks at the costs of infrastructure and looks at the issues of land supply and we do not argue for housing raffles on fake prices of $300000 a house. I am looking at Annette King right now. I would like Annette King to give us a list of those $50000 housing plots in Auckland because they do not exist. The reality is that we consistently hear from members opposite policies that are not properly costed or detailed and we hear calls for no change.