Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11488] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I will start with a quote from the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “It presents a workable framework for uniting Auckland which should have the support of all Aucklanders.” I say to those members who claim that somehow Aucklanders are not supporting this legislation that they have not seen the emails in my in-box and they have not been reading the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that wonderful Auckland publication. 
Lynne Pillay summed up the Labour Opposition debate for me. She said: “I am delighted to use this as an opportunity to bad-mouth the Government.” That has pretty much been the Labour speeches the whole way through. But Aucklanders who are listening want to know about the legislation. They want to know about the actual details so I will quickly run through some of the arguments that have previously been put up by Phil Twyford and some of his colleagues. I will start with the democracy argument which I have already addressed in a previous speech. 
I have mentioned the double standards of the Labour Party with regard to democracy but in particular I throw the question back to members opposite. If they are really serious about saying that this is not about delivering local democracy then they need to explain why many of the community board leaders who came to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee argued that under the current community board structure they had a lack of democracy. I would argue that local boards are a heck of a lot stronger in terms of community boards and members opposite need to stand up and argue how local boards are somehow inferior to community boards. 
I also make the point that three other aspects make them deliver strong local democracy. The first is protection of subsidiarity; the second is the legislative requirement to be adequately resourced which again is new and different compared with the rest of the country; and the third is that local board members are on the same footing as councillors when they are developing a local board plan process. So members opposite have to stand up and argue the legislation on those points. 
The second point I would like to address was the one raised by Nanaia Mahuta. She threw down the challenge and asked how the social issues would be solved under the super-city. I want to repeat a question that I asked Len Brown at the select committee. I asked: “Isn’t part of the benefit of having the super-city finally one regional entity that can look to areas like South Auckland which we know has not got the infrastructure of Ponsonby and Parnell and isn’t part of the benefit that finally they can get some of the infrastructure that they deserve?”. He looked back at me and said: “Nikki that is the great white hope of the super-city.” So to members opposite who claim that somehow this legislation is not about delivering on better social equity across Auckland I say that they have not had a look at the legislation and realised the potential for a mayor to be able to deliver to some of those poorer Auckland communities. 
The third point is that many community boards argued for having 21 local boards for the fact that they would be able to have contact with their citizens. But members opposite would also know again their duplicity on this point: they did not want 21 local boards. They vehemently argued against that. So again members need to back up their slogans with arguments. 
The fourth point is around the asset protection provisions. Many of the members opposite have raised issues regarding privatisation. I want to mention just two particular clauses. The first is clause 73 in Part 3 which specifically states that Watercare Services cannot sell any of the water infrastructure and after 2015 it will revert to the council. The second is clause 62 in Part 3 which puts a moratorium on the sale of strategic council property until 2012. 
The next point is then there will also be the provisions under the Local Government Act which require community consultation around the sale of any assets. Again members opposite use slogans but I argue that they need to get up and debate some of these points. 
The fifth point is around the cultural fabric of Auckland. We listened to the select committee submitters—and I have mentioned previously my predecessor Judith Tizard—on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act. We have delivered on that legislation to ensure that it carries through. 
The next point that I will just touch on which has been raised by some members concerns the waterfront. I had the privilege of attending the launch of the development of Sea+City with the Prime Minister down on the waterfront. Do members know what I said to someone after that function? I said that our Prime Minister has done more for Auckland in his term in office than the previous Labour Government did in its last term in office. That was a really historic moment. We are out there delivering on the waterfront and we are about to finally have a structure. Mr Twyford is looking at me and shaking his head but he is the one who—