Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11572] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. I rise to speak on the question of privatisation. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill although not directly privatising much or risking it— 
Darien Fenton 
: Not yet. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: “Yet” is exactly the operative word. As my friend David Clendon from the Greens pointed out the bill establishes a whole group of very powerful council-controlled organisations which puts in place the future of asset sell-offs and strategic assets at that. There is a transport council-controlled organisation and council-controlled organisations for other huge assets. 
One of the thing the bill does do—which is why I said “not directly”—is remove the requirement for a referendum before the selling of shares in the Ports of Auckland. I would like to talk to the amendment that I have put forward in that regard which would place restrictions on the disposal of shares in the Ports of Auckland. It would put back in fact the protections that exist in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004. My amendment includes a consultative process and of course a referendum so that the people of Auckland would have a say on an asset that is incredibly strategic. That asset is very important to Auckland and indeed to the whole of New Zealand. The Ports of Auckland have provided up to $300 million in the last 5 years towards Auckland’s transport for example which is something that benefits all of Auckland. So it is a public good. The idea of a public good may be something that some members on the other side of the Chamber do not understand. Certainly ACT is not particularly strong on the issue of the public good. Again as my colleague from the Greens David Clendon has said ACT’s local government policy is pretty clear in that regard: its members would get rid of the Ports of Auckland as soon as possible if they had their way. Our concern is that removing the protection that currently exists in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act is exactly what that is about. 
The Local Government Act 2002 currently provides protections for strategic assets such as shares in ports and airports by placing special consultation requirements on councils before they can be sold. But this protection—which is why I referred to council-controlled organisations at the start—will be circumvented by placing assets in council-controlled organisations which after the moratorium expires on 1 July 2012 will have no obligation to consult the public before sale. Why would people think of selling some of those strategic assets? What is that about? Well in the case of ACT it is certainly just ideology. That is what those members believe. 
Phil Twyford 
: Blind ideology. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: As my colleague Phil Twyford says maybe it is blind ideology. None the less it is ideology and ACT members are pretty upfront about it actually. National on the other hand is much more cautious because its members know that those asset sales are something that people do not want. They do not want them. Members can ask Aucklanders whether they want to see their strategic assets sold and the answer overwhelmingly will be a big fat no. Unlike ACT members in fact National members are much more cagey about this one but they ultimately share a similar ideology. 
Paul Quinn 
: And Sam got “Yes”. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I say to Mr Quinn that we could go into election results including his own but I ask that we do not do that but get on with the matter at hand. I will talk about my amendment again because it is specifically what I am dealing with. This bill will mean that the right of Aucklanders to have a say will be taken away. I urge members opposite to rectify that situation and to look at my amendment. There is nothing wrong with it; I am sure that even Mr Hide would say that. Technically there is nothing wrong with this amendment so I urge members opposite to vote in favour of it. 
In the remaining time I will mention the issue of campaign spending because we have not had much of an opportunity to talk about that yet. Again we see a situation where it is money talking. It will be money talking literally. This bill provides increased campaign expenditure limits—excessively large campaign expenditure limits. For a mayoral race with 960000 voters the bill will mean that candidates can spend $580000.