Carter John: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5717] 
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.