Bridges Simon: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5722] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Do that pointing thing again! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: This bill is such rank scaremongering I say to Mr Cosgrove. This bill is red tape for the sake of red tape. And it is more than that. It is interesting to reflect on some of the quite pertinent comments from Dover Samuels recently in light of this bill. He made the point about political retreads and he mentioned Pete Hodgson whom I see is in the House today. But I did not appreciate in relation to this bill the fact that new members as well have been caught up in the tired old stale debates of the past. I came into the House and listened to some of the maiden speeches at least—and we have some good members on both sides of the House—but what we have seen with Phil Twyford and this bill is— 
Paul Quinn 
: Going backwards! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is right it is a reversion backwards. It is a reversion to the tired old politics to the sterile old debates. It proves the point that Helen Clark is still texting Labour members. She is still texting them. Labour members are caught in the sterile old debates. 
I ask why this bill is needed because it is quite clear to me that we have the Local Government Act 2002 which is a framework that the Labour Government obviously could work with; Labour worked with it for 7 years in Government. The National Government has not brought in any related amendment legislation so we still have Labour’s law. Yet what does Labour want to do? It wants to bring in the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. Why did Labour not pass it? I heard Mr Twyford and other members opposite say the reason for the bill was that they could not trust National. We heard members opposite saying at the election that it was all about trust. I have news for Labour: the electorate did not buy that then and at 58 percent in the polls this week the electorate still does not buy it. The electorate trusts us and it does so more now than it did with the scaremongering under the previous Labour Government going into the election campaign. 
National is doing a lot about local government. We want to see much improved services and facilities for Aucklanders and I have been proud to play a part on the select committee led so ably by the Hon John Carter. Phil Twyford has played a productive role on that committee. He has also said some interesting things about local government and I think it is pertinent to raise those in the House as we discuss the bill he has brought forward. As he said in the recent  
Listener 
 article: “There was a feeling for quite a long time that the city wasn’t working properly with traffic problems crappy infrastructure and a downtown that looks like a bomb site. There was a lot of grumpiness about that. I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about it.” It is too late now I say to Mr Twyford. He had his chance. Labour had 9 long years to bring forward legislation but instead it comes forward with a slogan looking for some policy and with little more than that. 
I want to dig into the local government framework we have in this country because it becomes very clear when we do so that we have existing protections in the legislation that make it quite clear that we cannot just privatise assets although it is not as if that was something that the National Government wanted to do anyway. It is quite clear in the Local Government Act. Section 12 “Status and powers” states explicitly: “(4) A territorial authority must exercise its powers under this section wholly or principally for the benefit of its district.” Section 14 goes on to explicitly require councils to conduct their business “in an open transparent and democratically accountable manner;”. When making a decision a local authority must take account of the diversity of the community and the community’s interests within its district or region.