Jones Dail: General Debates 
Jones Dail: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11729] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to raise the issue today of whether the sale of Westhaven Marina in Auckland is illegal. New Zealand First is appalled at the state of affairs that is developing on the Auckland waterfront with the proposal of Ports of Auckland Ltd to seek foreign buyers for Westhaven Marina. What express statutory authority does Ports of Auckland have to sell Westhaven Marina? New Zealand First policy on foreign ownership of New Zealand property is clear: we are totally opposed to it. Any foreign buyers of property of national importance such as the Auckland waterfront should bear this in mind before entering into any purchase. 
If the Parliament of which I was a member from 1975 to 1984 had had a proposal before it to sell land from Auckland Harbour Bridge Park through to Queen’s Wharf the person proposing such a sale especially to foreign interests would have been accused of treason. The important waterfront of a trading nation should be held for the best interests of the country rather than sold to line the pockets of a few investors. Other New Zealand First MPs and I worked on the Auckland wharves at the beginning of the container age. What would happen if there were a disaster in the remaining area belonging to Ports of Auckland and it became incapable of being used? Where would the people of Auckland turn if there were a disaster on the remaining piece of land? What could they develop for harbour purposes if such a disaster took place? 
I have read the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Palmer on certain assets and he makes the point that the current law regarding ownership of the assets can be altered only by Parliament. His opinion seems to be written though from the point of view of Ports of Auckland Ltd. 
The history of the area is clear. In 1875 the wise founders of Auckland endowed the Auckland Harbour Board with 2023 hectares of harbour bed and included the land that the Ports of Auckland company is now trying to sell. The Auckland Harbour Board carefully looked after its assets which were passed over to Ports of Auckland in October 1988. In the early 1990s Ports of Auckland fought hard to retain ownership of the Westhaven Marina through considerable court battles because it was regarded as part of its business. As Ports of Auckland fought so hard to keep the marina why is it now selling it? It seems obvious to me that the area was established by the people of Auckland who always believed they owned it and now Ports of Auckland no longer wants it. The marina should be transferred to a special body established by an Act of Parliament for its administration. That would not be difficult. I have previously introduced legislation in Parliament for the establishment of the Westpark Marina. The same principles apply to any part of the Auckland waterfront. 
Does Ports of Auckland have the statutory power to sell? Although there is no doubt that Ports of Auckland was established to operate on a commercial basis it is equally clear that it was meant to do so while retaining the assets that were vested in it. Its business is not the sale of its assets but the development of its assets. The Port Companies Act makes it clear that it is “An Act to promote and improve efficiency economy and performance in the management and operation of the commercial aspects of ports and to this end—(a) To provide for the formation of port companies to carry out port related commercial activities and control the ownership thereof;”—in other words not to sell them. Thanks to court cases we know that Westhaven Marina is a port-related commercial activity as are all Ports of Auckland activities. Usually a power to sell assets is expressly set out in the Act or in a deed. I cannot see any such express power of sale in the Act. I might be wrong but I believe this matter should be investigated. 
Section 5 gives power to the port company to operate as a successful business for the purpose of carrying out port-related commercial activities and to control the ownership of port-related commercial activities. It is not a power of sale of such activities. Again section 27 authorises a transfer of the land only to a port company in terms of the Land Transfer Act and not to any other body. In other words no other party has a legal authority to acquire the land because the Land Transfer Act’s definition of land does not give the Land Transfer Office the power to create fee simple titles for the foreshore or seabed involved. Specific statutory authority is required; hence the authority in the Act. In this case the authority is limited only to Ports of Auckland. New Zealand First would expect that the Overseas Investment Commission would decline the sale of this nationally important property to foreign interests. 
What do the Labour members of Parliament for Auckland care about this matter? What does the National Party care about it? What is the member for Mt Albert doing about it? She was in the House when the legislation was passed. What is the leader of the National Party doing? The two of them should stop indulging in slanging matches such as we have seen today and start doing the jobs for which they are paid—including that of representing Aucklanders. Perhaps the ninth ACT member of Parliament is only too keen to see the waterfront sold to foreign investors in keeping with ACT’s policies. What are the Greens doing about it? Nothing—even though this is an environmental matter. Labour and National have joined together to sell important assets such as the Whenuapai Air Base and now I see them selling the Auckland waterfront. New Zealand First is today supporting Auckland first.