Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6546] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 A few things have been said since I last took a call so I would like to go back to them. Whilst my colleague Lynne Pillay was speaking the member for Maungakiekie talked about State housing and said Lynne Pillay needed to go with him to visit State housing. I want to point out a very clear point of difference. The point of difference is that unlike the member for Maungakiekie we would not put a billboard outside a State house and then agree with a policy that would sell State housing and leave those people out on the road forced to pay market rentals when they cannot afford them. So that is the point of difference. 
I am thinking that perhaps we have given the National Government far too much credit. We have put the blame almost entirely on Rodney Hide. We keep saying that it is a case of the tail wagging the dog but I think we have a very clear example here of the strategy of good cop bad cop. I think we need to hold the Government to account on this. It is not a case of good cop bad cop—the bad cop being Mr Rodney Hide and the good cop being Mr John Carter and Mr John Key—it is actually a classic example of bad cop bad cop. There is no good cop in that game; I am sorry about that. I hope I have made that point very clear. 
I return to the issue of privatising assets. This is an example of Rodney Hide being put out there as if he is the one who wants to privatise assets. There is also the issue of Maori representation. Rodney Hide has been put out there as if he is the one denying Maori representation. Let us think about this. Let us all be very clear in this Chamber about who the leader of the Government is. Is it Rodney Hide? No it is John Key. He is responsible for this. Let us make that fact very clear. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Good girl! She wins the prize. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I thank Sandra Goudie for that. That interjection was as intelligent as she usually is. Let us talk about the privatisation of assets which we talked about earlier. The Government says that it is not its responsibility. Mr John Carter says the Government has no responsibility for the privatisation of assets. We are looking at $28 billion worth of assets in Auckland and the Government says it is not responsible for them. It is very clear that a right-wing agenda will be driving the sale of these assets and the Government hopes that that right-wing agenda will be driven by its candidate for mayor Mr John Banks the former National MP. So Government members need to take ownership of the fact that it is not just Mr Banks’ agenda and it is not just Mr Rodney Hide’s agenda; it is actually the National Government’s agenda to privatise assets. 
What effect will this have on people in Auckland? It will have a huge effect. National members’ interests are all in business. They are not interested in the everyday New Zealander out there using the parks and the libraries and getting free access to swimming pools because the Manukau City Council makes good revenue from not having sold its public assets. Those are not the things that the National Government is interested in. National members are not worried about kids from low socio-economic areas who do not necessarily have $1 $2 or $3 to throw towards going for a swim. They are not worried about those kids. They are quite happy with a one-size-fits-all approach. National members think that whatever people in Remuera pay is what people in Otara should pay as well. The privatisation of assets is on the National Government’s agenda. It has a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole of Auckland. Whatever is happening in Remuera can happen in Otara Mangere and Waitakere. That is what National wants. 
I go back to what I was saying about Mr Rodney Hide and the fact that he has been used as a scapegoat in regard to the denial of Maori representation in Auckland. It has been very clear that the National Government is not supportive of Maori Pacific people and other ethnic communities. I quote a former National MP whose name is Arthur Anae. Last year a Victoria University student did a master’s thesis on minority representation in Parliament and Arthur Anae was quoted as saying that he learnt the hard way that all the National Government cared about was minority groups with deep pockets. He learnt the hard way that National does not care about Pacific communities or Maori communities. Arthur Anae knew—and he acknowledged it when he was interviewed for the thesis—that he had made a mistake.