Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3656 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
It is that richness of facility and asset that my colleague Charles Chauvel is trying to
protect in his amendment. There is no protection in the bill currently before the House
for those assets. Why would the members opposite not expect the Labour Opposition to
get up and defend those things? They are public assets, and there is no guarantee that
the kinds of transitional arrangements that the Government is putting up will protect
these assets.
I will say one more thing about this amendment. It is a modest proposal. It is only
about the transition period; it is not even in perpetuity—although goodness knows we
could do with that kind of protection, as well.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Colin King—[Interruption] I have
called Colin King. The member has not been able to get a word out so far, and I have a
constant barrage coming from the other side of the Chamber. Can we just please hear
what Mr King wants to tell us.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): My colleague Maryan
Street has noted that new Part 9 is a temporary measure, if you will, in respect of the
Auckland Transition Agency. But I just point out a couple of things, as well. The
National Party pledged in its election campaign that it would not sell any public assets
at least in its first term. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill sets up a
transition agency of which all assets—including those that Manukau, for instance,
retained—fall under the purview and the power. Effectively, then, those assets have
been nationalised to the Government, because that agency is appointed by and reports
directly to the tsar of local government, Mr Hide. Mr Hide will appoint his assetstripping,
villainous mates to that agency, so one could quite logically say that Mr
Hide—and therefore, since he is a Government Minister, the Government—will control
all assets brought into the agency from Greater Auckland. Yet not one clause in this bill
guarantees that any of those assets will not be sold.
I ask the Minister—or perhaps a National member, because it was National’s
promise—to get up today. If National is not prepared to accept Mr Chauvel’s new part
that would guarantee that those assets would be retained at least during the transition,
then I invite a National Minister, perhaps Mr Brownlee, to get up and provide us with
that guarantee, therefore fulfilling his and his Government’s election promise.
Hon Member: An Auckland member.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, an Auckland member, as my colleague says;
an Auckland member would do. I look around. Maybe an Auckland member is hovering
around here—Mr Hide is the Minister in the chair.
This is important. We have to ask what the motivation is for not giving such a
guarantee. We know that Mr Hide’s whole life has been one of attempting to strip out
public assets and public ownership. His whole purpose for being, he tells us, is to assetstrip
from the public purse. There is no guarantee in this legislation that he will not
appoint his villainous mates to this agency—because he will. He will appoint those
people who have a motivation to strip out assets. I know I am right, and do members
know why? Why would Rodney Hide appoint people who did not agree with him? Of
course he would appoint those who agree with his philosophy—
Hon Shane Jones: And they’ll get a gong!
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And, as my colleague says, they will probably get a
gong. Mr Hide is on record many times as saying in respect of this super-city
proposal—and I am sure he will not disagree with me—that he wants more private
enterprise in local government. We know what “private enterprise in local government”
is code for. The good people of Manukau—and of other places, in other local
authorities—who chose to keep their assets, build them up, retain them, and gain