Dyson Ruth: Local Government Borrowing Bill Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Dyson Ruth: Local Government Borrowing Bill Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:675;Page:21297] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Like my colleague Phil Twyford I am pleased that Labour is able to support this legislation in its third and final reading. I have some anxiety after hearing the member Nicky Wagner who has just resumed her seat. She is from Canterbury. Despite hearing the concerns expressed by Phil Twyford in his contribution earlier on this legislation about the fact that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation gave Minister Gerry Brownlee a suite of wartime powers such as the power to instruct the Christchurch City Council to sell assets and the frame that has been developed by the Government around the potential of sale of assets—constantly blaming Canterbury for the shortfall in funding for the crisis with the reinsurers and for the fact that other parts of our country might have to give up something because of the Christchurch earthquakes—and despite the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation the member who just resumed her seat said not a word in defence of Canterbury keeping ownership of our strategic assets. 
That is of real concern to me because around this legislation we have a clear choice: do we follow the opportunity for some efficiency some savings and some money that can be saved by ratepayers and local authorities and put into our communities or do we follow the path that clearly John Key and the National Government are on—and I say that with the greatest respect to Rodney Hide who has always been absolutely consistent in this area—and the view that they would prefer which is one of a total slash-and-burn and getting out of every single ownership model that they can? I am troubled that the member said not a word in defence of our ownership in Canterbury of our strategic assets but I suppose we will wait and see what happens as time progresses in that regard. 
Although there are a variety of reasons why we support this legislation the primary reason is that it is hugely preferable to the option of privatisation. If we say: “Let us look at ways that our local authorities can make more money can save more money and operate more efficiently.” everyone is in support of doing that and then we get a range of options. One of them clearly is the privatisation option where we just have to hock off something. That is a really short-term model. It saves money in the short term but in the longer term we lose a huge amount. We lose the benefit of strategic ownership and obviously we lose the income stream from whatever the asset is. 
In New Zealand currently if we look at our power companies we see we have a large income as a result of the generation and the distribution of power throughout our country. It is income that is derived from New Zealand citizens. It is collected by the Government. It is then distributed back through other channels. Whether it is through education and health superannuation or our social security system it is distributed back into our country. All New Zealanders own those assets and all New Zealanders benefit even though of course we resent paying higher power prices. Why would we want to sell off that strategic asset so that some owner other than the New Zealand public gets that income? We still have to pay the price and as we have seen in other privatised parts of the system we actually pay a much higher price when the owner is anyone other than central government. 
Another one of the models that the Government could have considered is the public-private partnership and again this legislation is in preference to that. This is about mobilising the savings of New Zealand investments. It is about local authorities having the opportunity to save a significant amount of money. It is a very efficient proposal. 
The local government bond bill was floated from an idea originally suggested at the Job Summit 2 years ago. It is very interesting that this is one of the few ideas that has been picked up from the Job Summit given the fanfare around the fact that the Prime Minister was having the Job Summit. Very little has come out of that but this legislation has come out of it right towards the end of this parliamentary term. This has taken so long to come from a really good idea supported broadly across the parties in this House yet it has taken all this length of time to come to fruition. 
The concept of the local government bond bank was also proposed by the Capital Market Development Taskforce. That task force was set up when Labour led the Government in 2008. It reported to the National-led Government at the end of 2009. At the time the Government said that it supported that recommendation but all it has done since is to set aside $5 million—a tiny amount of money in the overall scheme of things—in the Budget last year. 
The funding agency is a win-win situation both for local authorities and also for New Zealanders and the public particularly for New Zealanders who are looking for safe and new opportunities for investment and for saving. We will know as investors that that investment is good for our communities. That is always a reassuring thing. People are quite particular about the ethical regime under which their investments occur now. People look more at the downstream effect of their investments. Not only do New Zealanders know that they are investing for the good of their community—and they have some personal benefit from that as well—but also they are ensuring that through this efficiency they are taking one more option of privatisation off the National Government agenda. I think that will be a very good thing particularly given the fact that a number of the assets that are in the ownership of local authorities are monopolies. The only thing worse than a State monopoly that runs inefficiently is a private monopoly that runs inefficiently. We do not need either of those models and local authorities have done New Zealand proud in the way that they have demonstrated their ability to own and have management regimes that ensure the strategic assets of local government and central government are able to be managed very efficiently. 
The other point that I will mention which goes back to the situation in Canterbury is that it is still to our frustration anger and deep regret that the Government has not seen fit to restore our right to democracy in terms of our election of a regional council. Every other citizen in New Zealand has the right to vote for his or her regional council. In Canterbury that right was taken away from us with no justification and no reason. That measure was rammed through Parliament in a totally inappropriate way and it caused some of the biggest anguish that I have ever heard in Canterbury from National Party supporters and even members against their own Government. That residual anger remains. People resent having their democratic right taken away from them. I was really hopeful that the Government might see fit to restore that democracy before the upcoming election. We have only a small number of sitting days left before the House rises for the recess for the election and then we start again after 26 November. I urge the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide to put on some pressure if he has any influence at all. I am not sure of his status with regard to influencing his other ministerial colleagues these days but if he has any ability to influence his other ministerial colleagues I would ask him to use it and restore our democracy in Canterbury. 
It is quite an unusual situation when Labour National and ACT all support legislation as I know do the other parties around this House. But I think it is not only a very good indication of the way that this legislation has gone through consideration by the external groups—as I mentioned by the task force in particular—but also it is a bit of a tribute to the Local Government and Environment Committee as it gave this legislation rigorous consideration. It made sure that the potential or unexpected consequences of the legislation were considered. I will conclude by paying tribute to all the members of that select committee and also to the officials who have worked so hard to ensure that this legislation will get such widespread support.