Mackey Moana: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6549] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand to take another call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Was it not interesting that the Minister who chaired the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee John Carter just told us that Maori seats were off the table before the bill even went to the select committee. I seem to recall the Prime Minister saying in response to the 7000-strong hikoi that marched in support of the Maori seats that the Government was listening. He said that the issue would be discussed at the select committee that everything was open that the select committee was the appropriate place to have that debate and that the Government would not step on that process. 
I ask the Minister in the chair John Carter which statement was true: his account of events which was that Maori seats were never on the table because the select committee did not even have the jurisdiction or the mandate to discuss them or the Prime Minister’s account of events that the reason he was not going to make any commitment after the hikoi in Auckland was that Maori seats were on the table at the select committee. Here once again we have doublespeak from National on the issue of Maori seats. 
Chris Hipkins 
: That’s not unusual. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is not unusual. Perhaps we should not be surprised given that the Hon Dr Nick Smith stood in the Chamber when debating the previous Labour Government’s Local Government Bill and said that having separate seats for Maori was “apartheid”. He said that Labour was introducing apartheid into New Zealand. Maybe we should not be surprised. I think the Minister in the chair needs to explain why his account of events does not match the Prime Minister’s. Were Maori seats on the table to be considered at the select committee or not? He said they were not; the Prime Minister said they were. 
I also want to discuss the issue of the assets in Auckland. The Minister in the chair needs to be aware of the fact that there is not a lot of trust from the public on the issue of assets when it comes to National. That is right and there is even less trust when we consider who is the Minister of Local Government. So although John Carter may throw his hands in the air and ask people to trust him because it is fine parks and swimming pools will not be sold off and that we do not need to worry the fact is that the Government would sell parks and it would sell swimming pools. It has sold assets before and it has made it clear that it supports the sale of assets. In 1999 Tony Ryall said that National did not support having State houses and it had a policy of selling them off. So before the Associate Minister gets too precious about it he needs to appreciate that the people of Auckland probably want a little bit more certainty about the protection of their assets than that given in the bill. 
That certainty could be given by the amendment in the name of my colleague Phil Twyford and by his member’s bill which has been pulled from the ballot. If there is no threat to the assets of Auckland then what is the harm of adding a new clause to the bill that makes the situation clear and gives the people of Auckland that certainty? Maybe the Minister in the chair John Carter might want to answer the question of whether social housing is a core activity of local government. 
Hon John Carter 
: It’s up to the people to decide. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He needs to provide some clarity around the issue. We have already had one council in New Zealand selling its social housing because it said that the Government had sent very strong messages that social housing is not a core activity of local government and that councils need to exit it. I wrote to the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley and the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. I asked Phil Heatley whether he would clarify the Government’s position on the issue because the Whakatane District Council seemed to be under the impression that the Minister had told it that it needed to exit from social housing. He refused to answer the question. I said to him in the letter that he did not need to say it was a core activity and that all I was asking was that he clarify that he did not say it was not a core activity. That would have left a lot of wiggle room—and we know that National Ministers like wiggle room so that they do not get into trouble down the track especially the Minister in the chair but we are not going to go down that path. 
The Minister of Housing refused to clarify whether he thought the largest third sector housing group in New Zealand local government should be involved in social housing. The Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide said exactly the same thing but I guess we should not be surprised about that. The fact is that the Government needs to come clean on its priorities for local government and its expectations because it is ramming through these bills under urgency and it is not providing any protections for the people of Auckland in terms of their assets. The Government is saying: “Trust us; we know what we’re doing. You don’t need to worry.” The people of Auckland are not so stupid.