Chauvel Charles: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3652] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The assets involved in the entities to which the bill refers are worth about $27.2 billion. They provide annual revenue of about $2.3 billion. The royal commission report and the explanatory note of the bill reveal that those assets which are currently owned by the people of Auckland are central concerns of this reform. One has only to turn to the general policy statement in the explanatory note to see that that is so. The need for safeguards and constraints in decision making by local authorities and their subsidiaries during the transition period is also identified as a central matter of the concerns being dealt with by the Committee today. 
That is why it is unusual in my view that there is nothing in this legislation to ensure that those $27.2 billion worth of public assets are protected during the transition period. An extremely powerful authority is being created by the legislation. It has all the powers of the entities that it replaces yet nowhere is there any safeguard to guarantee that those assets owned by the people of Auckland—which are listed in my proposed new schedule 2—will be protected and kept in public ownership during the transition period. The people of Auckland and indeed the people of New Zealand deserve an assurance that that will occur They deserve an assurance that this reform is not all about privatisation as many of us suspect either in the short term or in the long term but in fact there will be a guarantee that those assets are kept in the ownership of the ratepayers of Auckland. 
That is what my Part 9 would ensure. It requires that the Auckland Transition Agency should not sell or otherwise dispose of or sell any equity securities or surrender any voting rights in or relinquish any right to appoint trustees directors or managers of any asset or organisation listed in schedule 2 during the transition period. Obviously because of the scope of the bill the amendment deals only with the transition period but members on this side hope that no assets will ever be alienated in Auckland as a result of this reform. The protected assets that are set out in schedule 2 are the parks of the people of Auckland the swimming pools of the people of Auckland and the public libraries of the region and the assets of the region such as those held by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. 
Simon Bridges 
: Stop reading! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That member might benefit from actually reading the schedule instead of interjecting and deciding what his position is. It would be nice if National were to commit once and for all to public ownership of these assets rather than using mealy-mouthed weasel words about whether it has any commitment to the ownership of public assets. Make no mistake members on this side of the Chamber strongly believe in retaining these assets in public ownership. That is what my Part 9 is about and that is what my schedule 2 will bring about. It will forbid this shadowy appointed agency from selling these assets during the transition period without any public scrutiny and without any ability for the public of Auckland to have a say on it. I would like to hear the Minister in the chair John Carter take a call and commit that side of the Chamber to the position that is set out in this part. It would be great to hear a commitment not to sell Ports of Auckland Ltd Metro Water Auckland International Airport Ltd or Watercare Services. Those fantastic assets have delivered a great return to the people of Auckland. They are strategic to the future of the region and they must be kept in public ownership not alienated by the shadowy body of appointed cronies who will be running Auckland for the time it takes to deal with the transition. 
I would like to talk in particular about the assets in South Auckland because they are of real concern. Members on this side of the Chamber have been to meetings in South Auckland and have heard from ordinary people in that part of the region that they are worried that they might lose access to their free swimming pools as a result of this reform. They might lose access to the fantastic services that are currently provided by the excellent Manukau City Council of which my colleague Su’a William Sio was formerly the deputy mayor and of which Len Brown is currently doing a fine job as mayor. That city has made a real effort to reach out to its people and provide them with excellent services as have Waitakere City Auckland City and the other entities dealt with by this legislation. But nowhere in this bill is there any interdiction against the selling of those assets and that is a major omission. It is just like the absence of any decent personnel provisions which was the deficit that my colleague Darien Fenton sought to remedy earlier. This deficit must be remedied because the people of Auckland must be assured that there will not be any alienation of assets either during the transition period or afterwards. 
I spoke about the quantum of the assets involved and I said that the value of the assets was $27.2 billion with annual revenue of $2.3 billion. There must be an assurance—we must hear it today from members on the opposite side—that the assets will be kept in public ownership.