Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3657 revenue from them, will now have those assets completely stripped away under an agency that Mr Hide will appoint his mates to, and that is absolutely answerable in all ways to him. His policy is to sell off assets. I ask Mr Brownlee whether he will take a call. Will he respond, perhaps by interjection, and say that he will guarantee that Mr Hide will not be able to strip, through his mates on this agency, the assets of the super-city? Or perhaps Georgina te Heuheu will respond. There is silence. Silence means they have answered the question. I say to those who ask why we are sitting here today that today, if this bill passes, the Government will have nationalised unto itself—yea, nationalised to Mr Hide—all the assets of the Greater Auckland region. Then I tell those people who are listening to hold their breath. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: New Zealand’s not listening. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: What an arrogant little new member that member is. He said: “New Zealand’s not listening.” I suspect that in that member’s electorate, and in Epsom and in other places, they are listening and they will be listening if asset stripping takes place. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Michael Woodhouse. Michael Woodhouse: Mr Chairperson— Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I point you to Speaker’s ruling 16/1 in regard to the use of cellphones. I ask you to ask Mr Quinn to remove the blockage from his ear. He has been using his cellphone for about the last half an hour. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not really a point of order. Members know the rules about cellphones. They are not to be used in the Chamber, although, having said that, there is some inconsistency because the Chamber is littered with other sorts of phones. I am not sure how we justify the distinction, but we do. SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My colleague Mr Roger Douglas pointed out to me that he wondered whether you had noticed that we were here and were trying to take a call. He thought that maybe you had not noticed us. I just wanted to make the point that we are here and we are very, very anxious to take a call on this matter. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that I am well aware that she and the Green Party are here. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the question be now put. SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this proposed new part, because this actually gets to the heart of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I have already said that what we are seeing here, with this bill, is “Rogernomics Part 2”. Suddenly all of New Zealand can understand why Roger Douglas took himself out of retirement to come back to Parliament, and why Rodney Hide chose to be Minister of Local Government. At the time some people were a bit perplexed. Why would Rodney Hide want to be Minister of Local Government? But now the reasons are all unfolding. We need to be clear that ACT and the new right have realised that they have been thwarted in this term of Government from selling off assets—further State-owned enterprises—at the national level. The Prime Minister has made that clear. I can imagine a breakfast where they all got together and contemplated “What are we going to do to advance our agenda in this term of Government, because unfortunately we will not be able to achieve our objective of selling off the remaining publicly owned, State-owned, enterprises in New Zealand?”. They said: “Ah, I know what we’ll do. There is $28 billion worth of assets in local government.” I can imagine them sitting around at a breakfast meeting, saying “I know what we will do. First of all, we will get rid of those
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 39: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 91 and 92:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146:
HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?