Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6502] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I want to make the point that it is very clear from the speeches coming from the other side that Labour members have not read the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Another point I want to make is specifically around the powers of the local boards. There is a clear principle in the legislation that decisions will be made at the lowest possible level except for some exceptions. Another point that I pick up on which the previous speaker Su’a William Sio raised is around the issue of staff and support. In the legislation it is also very clear that local boards will have to be adequately and fully resourced. They will not be able to employ staff but they will have to have enough staff to support the activities for their community. 
Another point that I want to raise is specifically around an issue raised during the select committee process. We heard about Phil Twyford going around communities spreading the threat of Armageddon telling the arts community that they would not have funding. But I want to make a very clear point that I ask Labour to listen to. Within the legislation there is a very clear principle—and this is backed up in the local government legislation—around the promotion of social economic environmental and cultural well-being of the community. It is very clear; it is within the legislation. Any assertion to the contrary is absolutely wrong. Another point that I want to make very clear is that when Mr Twyford went around those communities he also went on about at-large councillors saying we cannot expect them to float around the community without a constituency. There was a hilarious moment in the select committee process when someone yelled to him: “Hey Phil aren’t you a list MP?”. 
I say that the community did speak very loudly and very clearly on this issue. As a result it became another area where this Government can say it has listened and we no longer have at-large councillors. The other point that has been made consistently today has been around funding. I do not think that any speakers have really talked about this. Again I raise this particular issue with Labour because I do not think the members have read the legislation. The funding provisions in the legislation have the power to really empower certain communities within Auckland. There are issues in Auckland in terms of certain minority groups. We know there are issues in South Auckland. I draw members’ attention to this provision within the legislation. I asked Len Brown about those issues when he came to the select committee. I said to him that some people have said that they want one unitary authority to come to Auckland for the reason that maybe there will be communities within South Auckland that will finally get the school pools that they want and that they really deserve in their communities. The principle within the legislation is that the funding formula must take into account socio-economic conditions. Mr Brown turned to me and said: “Nikki you know what that is the great white hope of this legislation.” The great white hope is that finally communities in Auckland will be able to have some equality in terms of services. Members on the opposite side are very quiet because they are voting against a bill that will not only deliver the infrastructure for Auckland and strong local entities for the communities across Auckland but also potentially help some of the poorer people in Auckland. Members on the opposite side have not addressed that. 
The last and final point that I want to make that Labour needs to understand is that on the question of the number of local boards—and they need to stand up and really address this point—Labour has slipped from 14 all the way to 20. National said there should be 20 to 30 local boards. What is the difference between our 20 and Labour’s 20? Potentially nothing. So we may actually agree on the number of local boards. In response to the arguments that have been raised about communities being cut up all I say is that there will be a process in terms of the Local Government Commission. It will be up to the commission to define what a community of interest is. But I ask Mr Hawkins about saving Papakura with 14 local boards. I do not think so. Labour is supporting a provision that would mean that Papakura would not have a local board. The members on the opposite side know that and there are members in constituency seats who are looking very worried right now. They have backed themselves into a corner. 
At the end of the day we are delivering legislation for Auckland that is historic that will finally deliver some equity to local communities and that will finally give them decent local representation. I am proud to support this legislation.