Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6499] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I want to go back to something Mr Carter said earlier and that was with regard to what Labour stands for. Mr Carter was questioning whether Labour knows what it stands for. I found that kind of ironic given that Steve Chadwick has just talked about the fact that Labour stands for looking for the social cultural and economic benefits of Auckland City rather than just the economic benefits. 
I think that what this bill has brought to light if people have not already realised it is that National’s priorities have not changed. They have not changed at all and that is something I want to speak about a little bit before I get on to the local boards. Early in the piece when a public consultation meeting was held in the Mt Roskill electorate National decided that it would get out there and consult even though many of the decisions had already been made. 
National had one of those meetings in Mt Roskill and given that I live in Mt Roskill I thought after dinner that I would walk up to the meeting and see what the National members of Parliament had to say and the way in which they listened to the local residents. I went there knowing that Jackie Blue would be there. Unfortunately although Jackie Blue is the National member working in Mt Roskill she did not really talk. I think she just said hello at the beginning and then John Carter took over. 
I found the meeting really interesting and I gained quite an insight that night. I did not know any of the people at that meeting and I sat there listening to what they had to say. I was pleasantly surprised that everything they had to say with regard to the concerns they had was aligned with everything Labour was pushing for. Members on this side of the Chamber cannot be criticised for not listening because the things we have been pushing for are evident in the submissions that have been made and the concerns that have been expressed in all the public community meetings—not just the ones held by Labour but the ones held by National. I can attest to that because I attended one of them and it made the whole issue of priorities spring to light. 
We are seeing a return to National’s traditional agenda. Unfortunately it has always been there but it is has not been as overt as some might need it to be in order to be able to see it. One thing that does concern me—and we can see this; it is quite blatant—is that the National-ACT candidate for mayor of the super-city is John Banks. 
One of the big issues that has been raised as we have moved round Auckland City has been the concern about the sale of public assets. I congratulate my colleague Phil Twyford on the Not Yours to Sell campaign he has been running. It is something that a lot of people have picked up on. It is a very real concern. The National Government can go out there and say it has no intention of selling public assets or it can go out there and be very quiet about it but we know that National’s No. 1 person—and ACT’s No. 1 person—who is running for mayor John Banks is renowned for his reputation with regard to the selling of public assets. So selling public assets is obviously high on the agenda for National and ACT. 
One issue that has been raised across Auckland especially in Manukau is the fact that some areas of the Auckland region have held on to their public assets. Manukau has made a lot of revenue from the public assets the council held on to and chose not to sell. So when we discuss the details of this bill it is very important that we look at the underlying agenda. The underlying agenda is that National’s priorities have not changed since the 1990s. National still wants to sell our public assets at every opportunity and its agenda is epitomised by the fact that someone like John Banks is its No. 1 person and is standing as the National/ACT candidate for mayor of Auckland. 
I will just touch on the matter of the matter of the size and number of the local boards. The royal commission proposed six councils roughly modelled on the existing councils. We have all the facilities there. It would be a complete waste to see those go. The Government then announced it wanted 20 to 30 community boards. We have argued for fewer boards than the Government proposes to enable them to be large enough to be viable and influential.