Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5713] 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 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— 
Phil Twyford 
: Have I let you down Rodney? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No the member has let himself down because I think that member has more talent than he is letting us see. I think that he is probably overcompensating and that although it is good to be— 
Hon members 
: Talk about the bill! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am getting to that. I think you are overcompensating. You have the enthusiasm you have the patience but what you need is a bit more consideration as I am going to explain in regard to this bill. You need to be a bit more considerate about what you are doing and what you are proposing and how you are approaching things in Parliament— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. He should just concentrate on the substance of the debate. Some rebuttal is fine but he should not bring the Speaker into it. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do apologise Mr Deputy Speaker. Just for clarification I tell the House that I was talking about Mr Twyford. It is true that Mr Twyford has not brought the consideration and therefore the knowledge to this that one would expect. The ambition is there the passion is there but we have not seen the knowledge or the intelligence— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This member has been speaking for 2 minutes and has not addressed the bill yet. He has continued to address the member promoting the bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a first reading. The member as I said when I rose to my feet earlier is rebutting some of the points made by the previous speaker. I ask the member to come back to the substance of the debate which I am sure he will do from now on. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me show Mr Twyford the difficulties he has. The first point I will make to the House and particularly to my colleagues on this side of the House who are not required to support this bill is that there are already significant existing protections of the manner that Mr Twyford is talking about within the legislation. That is so around local authority assets and it is especially so around water services parks and property granted to the council by endowments. Unfortunately Mr Twyford appears to be completely unaware or deliberately so of that fact and I wish that he had— 
Hon Member 
: He talked about it if you’d been listening. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I do apologise for not listening to the member’s speech well but it was very hard to do so because it did lack a certain passion. It did lack a certain logic so I found it a very hard speech to follow and quite frankly to understand. So it is true that I did switch off. I ended up just reading the bill. I know that if Mr Twyford had discussed this with Mr Hawkins who has some considerable experience in this area he would have been able to explain that there are those protections. He would have also been able to explain to Mr Twyford that there are also detailed consultation provisions and principles guiding the decisions that councils make. 
Melissa Lee 
: They don’t talk to each other. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I just do not know how it gets there. But council decisions of course are also subject to judicial review in the High Court which gives an amazing degree of protection. These provisions I tell my colleagues who might be wondering whether Mr Twyford has hit the nail on the head are in the Local Government Act 2002. The interesting thing about this Act which I have had many many complaints about is that it was actually drafted introduced and passed under a Labour Government. Mr Hawkins knows all this because he was there when that was done. But Labour had 9 years in general to fix any failings it saw in local government legislation including in particular the 6 years after the Act was passed. 
Phil Twyford 
: And then you came along Rodney. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: But I was always coming along. I was always coming along because I am different from Mr Twyford in this regard: yes I have his passion; yes I have his ambition; but I listened to people in Parliament. And when they told me to take a bit of time gain the knowledge and take consideration I actually listened. I learnt and I progressed. That is what I am suggesting—I am giving Opposition members the benefit of that I tell Mr Twyford. That member could do so much better. 
The 2002 Act focused on empowering communities and ensuring they were properly represented by their local authorities. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which has sparked Mr Twyford’s fury actually contains no provisions relating to the sale or purchase of community-owned assets. I suspect he has not read that bill which is my point. Those are rightly decisions for local communities and for those whom they have elected to represent them. All the existing controls on local authorities in the Local Government Act passed by Labour will apply to Auckland. It is the same everywhere in the country. 
I know Mr Twyford lies awake at night worrying about me. But there is nothing to worry about. [ 
Interruption 
] No; they are all very happy. There is no actual change in arrangements from what there was under the previous Government. But the difference might be that on this side of the House we believe in local government and we trust it and we trust communities. The unwritten message in Mr Twyford’s bill is that Labour does not trust anyone. Labour does not trust the community. Labour does not trust local authorities. It is still in the old “Helen Clark nanny knows best” mentality. Labour members have not learnt to respect people and other institutions because they believe— 
Hon Member 
: She’s still texting them. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know; I understand that Helen Clark texted Phil Twyford to put this bill in the House. They got their instructions from New York. If we think about it we see that Mr Twyford and by implication the entire Labour Party including George Hawkins who knows better are actually insulting the councillors who are working hard up and down the country to make their communities safer with good standards of living and decent services. This is also a vote of no confidence in the very bill that Labour passed in 2002—it is absolutely. If they were serious about this on the other side of the House they would have passed it when they had an opportunity. They did not do anything. They did nothing for Auckland and nothing for local government. Why? They did not respect the people of New Zealand. Suddenly Mr Twyford sweating away in the night worried about nothing— 
Phil Twyford 
: About you! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know Mr Twyford is worried about me. I can understand that because he must look at the ACT leader who has such charm intelligence and power and think: “What’s he got that I haven’t?”. That is what he lies awake at night and puzzles about. I am trying to give him some help. So what we have here is a manufactured little crisis because Mr Twyford cannot sleep at night and is worried about how to show his Labour Party colleagues that although he might make a fool of himself in the House every time he gets a question—and they roll their eyes behind his back and groan—he will show them that he can lift the standard and he will scare the people of Auckland into a great huff and a puff. He has written a bill and what do we have here? Actually all we have is a bill that is a stunt. It is a simple scaremongering stunt and that is why I say to Mr Twyford that I am very disappointed in him and I am very disappointed in this bill. I believe that if he had decided to work constructively on the issue of Auckland’s governance we could have shown Parliament at its best. Thank you very much. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 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. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you would not do that to pensioners yourself. I have to say that this Government cannot be trusted. Yes it is up in the polls at the moment but that will not last. People like Paula Bennett will regret not supporting this bill. She is in a minority of National MPs in Auckland she is one of the poorest polling members and she will be down the gurgler. She will be gone. 
I think it is interesting that people in Manurewa indeed the whole of Manukau are worried what will happen with their swimming pools. OK at the moment there is protection but we all know National Governments of old and— 
Hon John Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: John Carter is laughing as he thinks of all the money. When they want to do an asset sale they will grab them. They are already talking about a $250 million saving in assets. They will sell them—that is how they will realise that $250 million. The assets will go. This Government can sit over there and we can have someone from Tauranga thinking he knows all about Auckland but he does not. He does not know a thing about Auckland. I know he has been there once or twice. But that is not very good. Perhaps he should ask Ms Lee what happens to people who stand for public office in Auckland when the party sees they are not up to it. That is what will happen in Auckland. They will see that people cannot trust the National Government to hold on to assets. It does not matter what the asset is and it does not matter whether it is $250 million that it will save on public buildings. We have already seen the National Government talking about the airport and how that may go. In the end I think people will realise that this bill is an honest attempt to do something about protecting Auckland assets. 
Now I am going to criticise this bill so those Tories who have gone to sleep had better listen. I think this bill should apply nationwide. If this bill is referred to a select committee I think we should discuss more than protecting just Aucklanders. We ought to protect the people of Christchurch and Invercargill. We should protect people up and down the country—everyone. We should even protect people from Kaiapoi and Tauranga. We should look after all of New Zealand. Hopefully at the select committee this bill will be amended so that it covers the whole of New Zealand rather than just Auckland. There may be 1.4 million people in Auckland who deserve the support of this House but so do all New Zealanders. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 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. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 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. 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re joking! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: No that is what it actually means. The member intended to secure the assets but if this House passes this bill it actually gives local government in Auckland the ability to sell assets more easily than if it wanted to do so now. 
Paul Quinn 
: Sloppy. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Sloppy? I have to say it is absolutely dopey. Do members know what is most disappointing about this bill? It is that there is no intention to sell the assets. The Government has never made one comment about selling the assets of Auckland. I have never heard any of the current mayors suggest that the assets be sold. I have never heard anybody go out and campaign to sell. What is disappointing is that this is all about politicking and scaring the people of Auckland. You know I thought we had actually got past that. It is a little disappointing. We have had a very good select committee. We have had good communication with the people of Auckland. Phil Twyford has been part of it and I have to say made a good contribution to that process. It is disappointing having set up that environment whereby there is good communication and good understanding between the people and the select committee that this member has brought this bill to Parliament. I have to say that on this occasion I thought we might have moved past these politics but unfortunately Labour members cannot bring themselves to do so and are out there politicking on this issue. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 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. 
Paul Quinn 
: Conspiracists! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is no conspiracy; I will tell members what has happened in Wellington. One thing we must congratulate Rodney Hide on is being completely open about his intentions unlike the members of the National Party. He has made no secret of his privatisation agenda. The other day he said: “I love privatisation.” Those were his words. Last night on  
Campbell Live 
 he said: “I would love to privatise Ports of Auckland.” 
Let us be under no illusions. Let us ignore the spin and the discomfort of the National Party. That is what this bill is all about. Thank goodness Phil Twyford came up with this bill! If it is defeated tonight we will seek to put amendments into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
Previous speakers have recounted horror stories of Auckland assets that have been flogged off with disastrous consequences. I will contribute a story about a Wellington asset that was sold off about 15 years ago. It is like a parable of what happens when one sells a good well-functioning community asset. In 1994 I was a Wellington city councillor. The smarties on the council Kerry Prendergast her predecessor Mark Blumsky and Fran Wilde decided it would be a brilliant idea to sell off our well-functioning local electricity network. First of all they set it up as a saleable entity called Capital Power then they launched a campaign. They said that Capital Power was a high-risk investment and we would be fools to hold on to it. They said that if we sold it to private enterprise it would run it much more efficiently and they promised that electricity prices would fall once we privatised it. There was no referendum. Wellingtonians were not allowed to have their say. A majority of the councillors—not me I assure members—sold off this precious asset that had been built up over generations to a Canadian company TransAlta for a couple of hundred million dollars. Then the Canadian company sold it to a Kansas banking group for about $1.5 billion then on to Vector and now it has gone to the richest man in Asia who runs it in partnership with the Chinese Government. So after a decade $1 billion or more of profits have disappeared out of New Zealand. Electricity prices instead of going down have gone up by 600 percent over the last decade. And our electricity network is owned by the richest man in Asia. 
Here is the hypocrisy revealed by the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill: Rodney Hide wants to say that if a council wants to build a new asset it must have a referendum but now he is opposing a bill that says a referendum should be held when a council wants to sell a major asset. So we should hold a referendum when we want to build an asset but there is no problem when we want to sell an asset—we can just flick it off. That is the agenda of Rodney Hide and the National Government and nobody should be under any illusions about it. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena 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 Maori 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 Maori Party is proud to return our support of the people of Auckland for the Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 whanau hapu 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 Maori 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 Maori living in Tamaki-makau-rau to participate freely and openly in a process to elect councillors to the Maori 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. 
Maori do not participate in local government elections. That is a simple truth. Indeed in 150 years of Auckland City there have been only eight Maori councillors. The question is whether we allow that sad record to continue in a city that is the centre of the greatest Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori to participate in the electoral process. 
Finally I raise— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member should be brought back to the bill itself. The bill has nothing to do with the seats. It is all about the assets of Auckland. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member speaking for a constituency has made his views quite clear. I understand the points he has made. The point of order is not upheld. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe. Finally I raise an idea for consideration about how we can ensure the full participation of Maori in governance arrangements including the management of those assets. In our Treaty policy the Maori Party signalled an interest in joint ventures as a means of advancing the reconciliation between iwi hapu and the Crown. In a similar fashion we see public partnerships with collectives of hapu and iwi as an excellent way of ensuring the protection of local body assets for the whole of the population of Auckland in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are happy to support this bill. We look forward to Mr Twyford taking steps to ensure that local government acknowledges the authority of mana whenua as the bill goes—if it goes any further—through the House. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 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—Mangere) 
: 
 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 Maori 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) 
: 
 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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 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 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —left New Zealand First to prop up Jenny Shipley’s National Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that this is a robust debate but one member has the call. There is constant screaming—and it is screaming—by Mr Henare and Mr Quinn at the top of their voices. I suggest that you might want to bring some members to order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will uphold that point of order. I was calling for order. I understand that there is a bit of passion around this matter. The member on his feet though has been a little bit more political than probably was necessary. We will have just a little bit of caution from either side. Let us get on with the debate. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am just getting started. The sale of Wellington International Airport split New Zealand First in half. It split it in half— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Rubbish! You weren’t even born then. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well maybe the numbers might not be quite right but certainly Tau Henare and his mates split away from New Zealand First so they could prop up Jenny Shipley and help her to sell Wellington International Airport. The local government reorganisation in Auckland is splitting this National Government as well. The reorganisation of local government in Auckland is splitting National ACT and the Maori Party. 
I have to say that I support the Maori Party’s position on this— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh you do now. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I do support the Maori Party’s position on this issue as does the Labour Party. I want to know who was the senior member of the National Party who sent around the memorandum to all caucus colleagues about the fact that this issue is “too far-reaching and too important for a party currently sitting at 1 percent in the polls to decide alone.” Yet the entire local government agenda of the National Government is in fact being driven by Rodney Hide Roger Douglas and the ACT Party a party that at its core believes in the sale of State assets. 
Those members would love to get their hands on the local government assets in Auckland and sell them off. Those members are quite crafty. They know that National went around the country at the last election and promised not to sell State-owned enterprises and State assets—in its first term mind you. There was the qualifier that National would not do it in its first term. ACT members knew they would not get their hands on those assets this term. So what would they focus on this term? They would focus on the assets under the control of local government. 
The issue is one of the things that are splitting apart the coalition of ACT National and the Maori Party. According to the memorandum sent around the caucus: “Clearly we are at a crossroads. The ACT Party has threatened to end its relationship with National if we allow Maori seats on the super city. Despite multiple arguments in support its mind cannot be changed.” But that situation is not unusual for ACT members because they do not really tend to listen to other people’s arguments. Once they have made up their minds they know best. They know what is good for New Zealanders and they will just give it to them. It is the Roger Douglas “never waste a good crisis” theory. They want to sell State assets which is why National and ACT will vote en bloc against the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill which would ensure that Aucklanders get a say in the sale of any assets owned by local government bodies in Auckland. 
I say in conclusion that I have only one objection to this bill which is that it does not apply to the assets of all local government bodies around the country because I do not want those members to get their hands on Wellington’s assets either. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 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 Maori representation be tossed overboard. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I was just wondering how one smells a stitch-up. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Mr Henare that we now know that Rodney Hide has threatened to throw his toys out of the cot if the Government listens to the royal commission’s recommendations on Maori representation. 
On three counts the Government has offended the democratic values of Aucklanders. It is no surprise that John Key wheeled in John Carter—the man who should have been the Minister of Local Government and the kindlier gentler face of reform. It is not just what the Government is trying to do to Aucklanders; it is the arrogance in the way that it has gone about it. It is the arrogance of the Government breaking its manifesto promise to consult Aucklanders on the findings of the royal commission the arrogance of ramming the first super-city bill through the House under urgency and the arrogance of taking away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. Is it any wonder that Rodney Hide was so distrusted and so disliked by Aucklanders that John Carter was brought off the bench to try to restore some calm? It raises the question of what kind of role Mr Hide plays in John Key’s political management strategy: attack dog or court jester? Mr Hide gets to fly all the kites to test public opinion and whenever this particular Minister crosses the line the nice Mr Key can laugh it off and say that it is just Rodney. 
Why do the people of Auckland so distrust Rodney Hide? Has his association with the super-city and his mishandling of the process cast a shadow over what should have been a bright new day for local government in Auckland? Can anyone blame Aucklanders for fearing for our publicly owned assets when Rodney Hide is the leader of a party that advocates the forced privatisation of council assets? 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.