Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6497] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I have just a couple of points that I want to take up. Firstly I want to finish the point I was making in my previous intervention about the huge costs of the Auckland restructuring. The interesting point is that we are told that the costs according to the royal commission are expected to be about $140 million. We have not been told where this money is coming from. The savings are predicted to be 2.5 to 3.5 percent. I also want to mention that academic papers have been written about the international experience of local government amalgamation. It has been found that almost always huge savings have been predicted but they have not come about. For example in South Australia the authorities promised savings of 17.4 percent but achieved savings of a mere 2.3 percent only. We have been promised savings of only 2.5 percent in Auckland but maybe based on overseas experience there will be no savings at all. 
It is interesting that the Government has barely mentioned—in fact I do not think I have heard any Government members mention—that there will be any savings to the ratepayer as a result of this extraordinary amalgamation this disruption this wiping out of very effective local councils and their replacement with tiny little local boards. Barely anyone has mentioned that there will be savings. Obviously the answer is that there will not be savings. Indeed there will be huge costs and those costs will be picked up as a liability by Auckland ratepayers. 
The other thing that the international studies have discussed is forced amalgamations. In my definition this is a forced amalgamation because the people of Auckland never got to vote on it. There was an issue in Christchurch as to whether Akaroa should merge with Christchurch. The people there had a proper debate—an intense debate—a poll a vote and a referendum. It was won and everyone accepted the amalgamation. People accepted it because they voted for it. But in Auckland people have never had the opportunity to vote on the issue; therefore it fits the definition of a forced amalgamation. The international experience of forced amalgamations is that far from reducing parochialism which amalgamation is allegedly intended to do there is so much simmering resentment in the community about the forced amalgamation that all that results is more parochialism and more resentment. I predict as Mayor Williams has done that this is what will happen. We will get even more parochialism and resentment once the communities realise how limited their local boards’ powers are. 
The second thing that I want to mention is that it is not just the number of local boards that makes them impotent but the fact that there are to be only four to nine members on those boards. I have an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in my name that says there should be a minimum of 11 members on local boards. I agree with Phil Twyford who said there should be 14 to 17 members—that is certainly a reasonable number. But to have four to nine members on local boards is ridiculous. If we have four to nine members that will mean the smaller councils—for example on Waiheke—would be likely to have only four members. A gang of four could be running Waiheke. Having four people on a local board would give it no credibility. That is ridiculous. The boards will not have the ability to do place-shaping and to do local representation if there are only four to nine members. I have an amendment which I hope the Government will support to increase the size of boards to a minimum of 11 members. I think most community boards have 11 or 12 members so to get down to having four to nine members on local boards is ridiculous. We would ask the Government to please reconsider that because we will not have genuine local boards and local grassroots democracy with a mere four to nine members. 
The other thing that we need to remember—and I am glad that my colleague Roger Douglas has come into the Chamber and I want to support very strongly Phil Twyford’s amendment about preventing the sale of the $28 billion of assets—