Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I am sticking with what I am saying. I am very disappointed in Mr Twyford, because, actually, I had very high hopes for him. But I look across the House and see Mr Twyford, and I still do. I know his party has questions about him, so I will tell members why I do. Here is a young man who is clearly ambitious, which is a good thing. Here is a young man in Parliament who is clearly enthusiastic, and who goes about his work with a great deal of enthusiasm. I think that is a very, very good thing. But I am disappointed because it is quite important, also—

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

Sometimes in Parliament and in caucus people think I am a bit of a right-winger. I do not know why they think that, because I say that we cannot trust a National Government. I have been in politics, both at a local level and in Parliament, for 30 years, and I have yet to see a National Government that keeps its word. It changes, it manoeuvres, it twists, and it turns. I want to talk about why we cannot trust a National Government.

The Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill has been put forward to try to make people feel a little easier. I remember when, as Mayor of Papakura, we owned 1.6 percent of Auckland International Airport. I sold that to the Government, thinking that the Government would then have a majority and would look after the asset. What happened? Back in 1998 the Government sold its shares. It let down the people of Auckland—so we cannot trust the National Party. National members said they would not sell any assets in their first term in Government, but they will in their second term, and they will wriggle around in their first term. We have seen the policy changes, the wriggles, and the squirming all along. John Banks sold off the pensioner housing in Auckland, and there are pensioners who will be sleeping tonight in a very restless way because they know that you cannot trust the National Government.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the time, which is about 1 minute before we break for dinner, and to save interrupting the erudite speech from the next speaker, who happens to be myself, I wonder whether the House would mind lifting 1 minute early and resuming again at 7.30 so that I can then give a 5-minute contribution without interruption. I seek the leave of the House so to do.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this

The Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill should be known as the “Save the Moon Bill”, the “Mars is Not for Sale Bill”, or something like the “Pluto is Secure Bill”, because it has about the same sort of meaning as those titles. The first thing we need to understand is that these assets are not the Government’s assets, they are not Parliament’s assets, they are not the National Party’s assets, and they are not Rodney Hide’s assets; they are the assets of the people of Auckland. They are owned by the people of Auckland. Parliament and the Government have no ability to sell these assets, at all. That is the first point: we have no authority to sell them, at all. As it happens, we have no intention to sell them, because they are not ours. We cannot sell them, unlike the Labour Party, which needs funds and probably would try to sell them. But that is the point.

The next thing is that I ask the member whose name this bill is in, Phil Twyford, to tell me how many Governments in the past have sold local government assets. I wonder whether he can tell me that; I suspect he cannot, because the answer is that none have. The Government does not have the authority to sell local government assets—that is the first thing—yet every one of Labour’s speeches is about the National Government selling this and Rodney Hide selling that. What a lot of nonsense!

The next point I make is that this bill talks about securing the assets of Auckland for Auckland people. Well, most of what is in this bill is actually covered by the Local Government Act 2002. It is actually in the law. The procedures suggested in here are already in the legislation. Members should listen to this, because one part of this bill, which was written by this member, needs to be drawn to the House’s attention. New section 63A(3), inserted by clause 5, says: “No Auckland local authority shall sell or otherwise dispose of any parks, swimming pools, public libraries, or public housing assets,”. It then goes on to say: “except in a business as usual transaction”. Well, that actually means that, unlike under the 2002 Act, the council can sell the assets. The member has drafted a bill that actually allows the council to sell the blimin things. He is trying to protect them, yet he has got the wording wrong in the bill so that it actually gives the council a better opportunity to dispose of the assets.

I asked someone with a legal background what that new section means. That person looked at it and said that it actually makes it easier to sell the assets for the people of Auckland.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I start by congratulating Phil Twyford on an extraordinarily clever bill, the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. It has unmasked the true intentions of the Government and of Rodney Hide for the super-city. If their hidden agenda is not really to sell off the assets of Auckland City, why do they not support the bill? Why are they making such a fuss about it?

Rodney Hide said that it is a pretend debate. He said the debate over this bill is just diversionary. But it is actually a real debate, and it gets to the heart of what, I am sorry to say, are deep concerns out in the Auckland electorate about the real agenda behind the super-city. That is Rodney Hide’s agenda to amalgamate all of the assets of the Auckland region, built up over generations, into one big super-city. It is $28 billion worth of assets; I can almost feel him rubbing his hands with excitement. Then they will try to get their people elected to the super-city council, and—mark my words—they will sell those assets off one by one, piece by piece.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora. I am happy to report that a great majority of the submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee took the same view as the Māori Party in acknowledging the importance of mana whenua in local government, and of ensuring that tangata whenua have an equitable say in decisions that affect them, through Treaty-based representation on local bodies. I am also happy to say that the Māori Party is proud to return our support of the people of Auckland for the Māori seats by standing alongside them in opposing any sale of council assets. The Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill sets it out quite simply, stating that no Auckland authority, including the Auckland Transition Authority set up this year, shall dispose of any parks, swimming pools, libraries, or public housing assets. It attaches a comprehensive list of some 41 assets that the bill seeks to protect, including such assets as water supply, transport, port, and property.

At the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee hearings Māori submitters spoke with one voice about the need to involve tribal representatives in overseeing kaitiakitanga responsibilities—guardianship roles—over their respective taonga. We are all aware of the concerns that Māori have consistently raised about the failure of local government to address its Treaty responsibilities, and we hope that in restricting the sale of Auckland local body assets, local government can also get to grips with what we mean by concepts like rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and manaakitanga, and figure out how to honour the rights and responsibilities of mana whenua. This bill gives us a great opportunity to get things right in terms of the health and well-being of our environment by enabling whānau, hapū, and iwi as kaitiaki to propose, shape, and help implement measures to keep our natural resources healthy, safe, and intact for future generations, and also to ensure that all lands and resources remain in domestic ownership rather than in the hands of foreign speculators.

Let me also take the opportunity to speak to associated issues in respect of this bill, in particular the level of representation that the Maōri Party is championing for the Auckland Council. I understand that there are doubts about the level of democratic participation in the process by which mana whenua seats might be elected in Auckland, but I would also like to think that in the interests of enabling Māori living in Tāmaki-makau-rau to participate freely and openly in a process to elect councillors to the Māori seats, we will find a process that enables those doubts to be set aside. The principle of mana whenua is an important aspect of our society, and one that I am pleased to say is universally supported by all parties in this Parliament, including ACT. From that point I would hope that enabling mana whenua becomes the important issue, rather than discounting the process by which it is achieved.

Māori do not participate in local government elections. That is a simple truth. Indeed, in 150 years of Auckland City, there have been only eight Māori councillors. The question is whether we allow that sad record to continue in a city that is the centre of the greatest Māori population in the world. The answer, of course, is that we should not. So what do we do about it? Well, given that mana whenua is important to the development of the future of Auckland, the only issues are: one, to establish an open and transparent process that enables candidates who meet mana whenua criteria to contest the election; and, two, to establish an open and transparent process that enables Māori to vote for those candidates. I know that everyone thinks this issue is done and dusted already, but the truth is that it ain’t over until it is over. The Māori Party has been working strenuously on this proposal, and we will continue to do so until we achieve a solution that ensures the most democratic outcome by encouraging more and more Māori to participate in the electoral process.

Finally, I raise—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak to the first reading of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill, which is a member’s bill in the name of Phil Twyford. National will oppose this bill, and the reason for doing so is very straightforward. The reason is that the bill is superfluous and not necessary.

The purpose of the bill is to protect the assets currently owned by the various Auckland local authorities by requiring existing and future local bodies in Auckland to hold a referendum before any assets are privatised. This bill is redundant. Auckland assets are already protected. The protections to which I refer are provided in the Local Government Act 2002, which was drafted, introduced, and passed under the previous Labour Government. It is surprising that we even have this bill. The previous Labour Government had 9 years to make the changes it wanted to make to local government. Six years have elapsed since the Local Government Act was passed. If Labour had any real concerns that there were loopholes in the Local Government Act that meant Auckland assets, or, indeed, assets owned by other councils, were at risk, I ask why it did not do something years ago. If Labour was serious about this issue, why were these initiatives not put in place during its 9 years in office?

I will tell members why the previous Government did not take any action on this issue. It is because there was actually no need. Significant protections, particularly around water services, parks, and property, are already granted to the Auckland City Council. The council is guided by detailed consultation provisions and principles that it must follow when making decisions. In addition, council decisions are subject to judicial review in the High Court. This bill basically is a response to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. It is nothing more than a political stunt to unnecessarily scaremonger Aucklanders into thinking that suddenly there will be a wholesale sale of Auckland assets. That is an outrageous assertion. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill contains no provisions related to the sale or purchase of community-owned assets. Those are rightly decisions for the local community and those whom the community has elected to represent it.

The controls in the Local Government Act on local authorities’ treatment of assets will apply in Auckland, just as they do everywhere else in the country. Auckland assets are under no more threat than they were under the previous Government. To scaremonger that they are is irresponsible and misleading.

This Government is all about growing our assets, not downsizing them. Councils also want to grow their assets and provide excellent public services. I guess we must be an unusual Government in that we believe in local government. The current Auckland bill is all about putting the local back into local government. We trust communities and councils to deliver for their people. Even more, we trust the public who elect the councillors.

I congratulate all the councillors throughout New Zealand who work tirelessly for the good of their communities so that their communities can be supported with decent services. I was on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and I want to add here that I was hugely impressed by the passion of the individuals and groups who presented to the select committee. The public were very clear in telling the committee what they want out of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. They were very clear on what they were concerned about, and what their fears were. I have every confidence in the public to elect councillors to make the right choices for their community.

National will not support this bill. We consider that it is not necessary, and that it is redundant. Public assets are already well protected under the existing law of the Local Government Act 2002. There is no need to duplicate this. It wastes Parliament’s time to do so. Indeed, if this bill was to become legislation, it would be hugely costly and bureaucratic, and that is something this Government is totally against. We are in an economic situation where we need to make sure every dollar counts and is spent wisely, and where we need to get rid of unnecessary red tape. National opposes this bill. Thank you.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

I gained no sense at all that the previous speaker, Jackie Blue, believed a single word of her speech in opposition to the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. That member would have heard from the people of the Greater Auckland region, from young people, from Māori, Pacific, and Asian communities, and from organisations that they do not want their assets to be sold. This bill unmasks the true intention of this Government.

About 2 years ago, Reader’s Digest published a list of who New Zealanders currently trust in New Zealand, covering the most trusted people, brands, charities, and professions. Top of the list of 75 of New Zealand’s most trusted people was the name of the late Sir Edmund Hillary, a name respected by New Zealanders and even revered in some parts of the world. At the top of the list of 25 most trusted brands was Cadbury’s chocolate, followed by Tip Top and Sanitarium. That is reflected in the size of some of the MPs in this House. At the top of the list of New Zealand’s most trusted charities was the Cancer Society of New Zealand, followed by the SPCA and the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. At the top of the list of 40 of New Zealand’s most trusted professions were firefighters, ambulance officers, and pilots. Sadly, as professions go, politicians were at the very bottom of the list of the 40 most trusted professions.

The feedback I have received from my constituents, from members of the Manukau community, and indeed from throughout the Auckland region is that National, in its 9 months of being in Government, has contributed to increasing the number of people who hold the perception that they cannot trust politicians. Although some MPs come to this House with good intentions and are genuine in their desire to serve the public good, from time to time some MPs make mistakes. Those MPs who commit big mistakes pay dearly and ultimately suffer the demise reserved for unwanted politicians: they are sent from this place and never return. I note there is an exception in this House, but, nevertheless, bad behaviour contributes to the public perceptions about politicians. Perhaps the biggest contributor to the public perception that politicians are not trustworthy is when politicians or political parties say one thing and then do something else without owning up to their changed position. Alternatively, they may say one thing today and then say something else tomorrow. The public have a difficult time understanding what their real position is.

In the past several months, people have had a difficult time accepting what has been said by members of this Government. The public have begun to keep a running count of the broken promises made by this Government. National promised to maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base, by not selling Kiwibank or any other State-owned asset. Then Mr Key said that he had never said he was philosophically opposed to the sale of State-owned assets in some form, and that it was never off the agenda for ever. The first thing he did was appoint “Mr Privatisation” himself, the Hon Rodney Hide, to be the Minister of Local Government, in order to start the bidding process for the selling off of Auckland’s valuable assets. The Minister of Local Government rammed the Auckland reorganisation bill through this House, setting in motion the devolution of democracy, removing power from elected councillors and giving it to a handful of unelected ministerial appointees.

The Government super-city wraps up $28 billion worth of Auckland assets under one organisation instead of eight councils. It makes privatisation that much easier to be attempted. We know that business has a keen interest in getting hold of these assets. Their interest should send a clear message to the Government that these assets are worth protecting. We know that when key infrastructure assets have been sold in the past, they have mostly ended up in the hands of foreign owners with the resulting profits going offshore. The Minister of Local Government is a big fan of privatisation. He said on Campbell Live that he personally favoured privatisation and that he makes no secret of that. He said that he would like to make the case for the people of Auckland to privatise Ports of Auckland. On Q+A on 19 July, Mr Hide said: “Of course I’m in favour of privatisation … I love privatisation …”.

Aucklanders should be concerned that their assets are at risk. I am aware that one or two National MPs share this concern, and I invite those MPs to vote in support of this bill. The reality is that even the limited provisions currently in the Local Government Act 2002 that protect some assets are in danger of being reduced and dismantled. We know that the Minister of Local Government will introduce changes to the Local Government Act and he has signalled that he believes there are too many consultation requirements over potential privatisation.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

Every so often a bill comes along that is nothing more than political slogans waiting for a policy, and nothing more than cheap politics or rank scaremongering. That is what we have today with the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

I actually agree with one of the things Simon Bridges just said. He said that the privatisation of assets is a tired, old debate. It is a tired, old debate, but it is a tired, old debate that simply will not die, because National and the ACT Party fundamentally still believe in the privatisation of State assets, and would privatise them if it were not for the fact that the New Zealand public prevents them from doing so.

History is repeating itself, because the sale of local government assets split the previous National Government away from its New Zealand First coalition. It split New Zealand First down the middle. Tau Henare and half of his colleagues in New Zealand First walked away from their leader, because they wanted to support the sale of Wellington International Airport. They thought that protecting their ministerial seats was more important than sticking up for the principles they were elected on.

New Zealand First campaigned in 1996 on opposing the sale of State assets, yet when National decided to sell Wellington International Airport, Tau Henare and his mates—[Interruption]

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

There was not much of substance to reply to in the speeches from members on the other side of the House, but I observe just how bizarre the contribution from the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, was to this debate on the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. He delivered a vacuous response to an issue that Aucklanders feel deeply about. But I watched an item on 3 News during the dinner break, and the Minister’s conduct in this House this evening makes sense when one looks at it in the context of that item. He had other things on his mind.

My colleague read out some of an email from a senior member of the National caucus. That leaked email went on to state: “Consequently, I believe the issue is too far-reaching and too important for a party sitting at 1 percent at the polls to decide alone.”—1 percent in the polls. It is interesting to wonder who wrote that email; I will tell members who I think it is. When I look around the National benches today and I look at the tone of that email, I reckon that it came from Steven Joyce. He is the head kicker. He is the guy who is starting to call the shots. He is the guy who is enraged by the fact that Mr Key’s carefully crafted Crosby/Textor strategy is being derailed by a party with 1 percent of the vote.

Mr Hide failed to address any of the substantive issues in my bill and my opening speech, just like the way last night on TV3 he dodged and weaved to avoid addressing the real question. Does the Government support an agenda of the privatisation of Auckland assets? Is it prepared to reassure Aucklanders and give them a say in deciding the future of their assets? Mr Hide cannot answer that question, because, as he told Q+A, he loves privatisation and, as he told Campbell Live last night, he wants to privatise Ports of Auckland. This is the man who is leading the Government’s strategy on the super-city. Just days after the royal commission presented its report—800 pages, a year and a half in the making—Mr Hide delivered a pamphlet of his own. It had hasty, ill-conceived, and arrogant proposals that were a slap in the face for Aucklanders. How the Prime Minister must be regretting that haste now! How the National Government must be regretting allowing Rodney Hide to lead this important piece of work! Mr Hide’s local boards—or toothless talk shops, as they have come to be affectionately known by Aucklanders—have been universally derided. His proposal for at-large councillors immediately set alarm bells ringing for Aucklanders, who smelt a stitch-up.

Rodney Hide’s next mana-enhancing gift to the National-ACT Government was an insistence that the royal commission’s sensible recommendations on Māori representation be tossed overboard.