Hipkins Chris: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6539] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It must be Big Wednesday because all the double-dippers are coming out on the National benches today. I was not going to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. However I felt compelled to do so after listening to the National members opposite speaking on the bill. 
The bill has implications for the rest of the country. It has implications for the rest of the country because we know that the National Government and the Minister of Local Government in particular see the Auckland super-city as the model for the rest of the country. They want to see this model rolled out around the rest of the country and other New Zealanders will be concerned about that. We know that the Government has already started on that process. For example I know that National Party people in the Hutt Valley are working to create a coalition to merge the Hutt Valley councils into a super-council with the ultimate goal of creating a Wellington super-city. I know that people throughout the rest of the country who have been listening might be feeling a little bit over this Auckland super-city debate. They might be a little bit fed up with hearing about Auckland but the bill has implications for the rest of the country because it is not just about Auckland. It is about the whole country and it is about a philosophical belief in the role of local government. 
The belief of the ACT Party and the Minister of Local Government in particular is that local government should be constrained and should be as small as possible. That belief was outlined in a Cabinet paper released by the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide earlier in the year. Its agenda was to strip out all of the social services run by local government—services that our local people value so much. I know that in Auckland local people value the social services provided by their local government and they do not want to see those services reduced or slashed and burned on the great ACT Party bonfire which is what this bill and the National Government are setting Auckland up for. The Government wants to strip away social services that the people of Auckland have come to rely on and value. The National Party—actually it is more the ACT Party—does not believe that councils have a role in the provision of social services. Under the definition of essential council services as defined by the Minister of Local Government swimming pools are not included. Libraries are not in the definition. Recreational parks are not in there. If members asked most New Zealanders about the role of local government those New Zealanders would say that those services are core local government services but the ACT Party and the Minister of Local Government do not believe that councils should provide them. 
No matter what John Key says when he talks about local government he has no credibility because the Minister of Local Government is Rodney Hide. This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. “Mr 3.6 percent” is defining the local government agenda of the National Government. He is defining it along a radical right-wing approach which says that local government should be stripped back and that a lot of the services provided by local government should be done away with. 
Of course we know that another core part of the ACT Party’s agenda is to get its hands on the assets of local government and it is going to start with Auckland assets. I speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford to protect the assets of Aucklanders because 85 percent of Aucklanders are opposed to selling their water-supply assets to private companies. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is far too much noise. I am having great difficulty hearing the speaker and he has a loud voice. There are too many people standing in the aisles and talking. If members want to talk they can go into the lobbies. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Eighty-two percent of Aucklanders are opposed to selling assets such as parks libraries and recreation and entertainment facilities and 78 percent oppose the sale of transport assets such as ports the airport and so forth to private companies. So Aucklanders overwhelmingly oppose the sale of their local government assets. Why is the National-ACT Government so opposed to the amendment put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford which would protect the assets of Auckland? This issue has implications for not just Auckland but the rest of New Zealand. We do not want the National-ACT Government getting its hands on our local government assets around the rest of the country.