My private member’s bill to protect Auckland’s assets from privatisation was drawn from the ballot today.
No one trusts Rodney Hide and his cronies to keep Auckland community assets in public hands so my member’s bill will put any decision to sell community assets firmly into the hands of Aucklanders. The bill requires the sale or privatisation of any assets to be first put to a public referendum.
I’m hoping ACT will support the bill. They are big on referenda in local government. In fact Rodney Hide’s recent cabinet paper proposes that councils be required to put any ’significant or irreversible’ decisions to referendum. If flogging off the assets Aucklanders have paid off with their rates over generations is not ’significant or irreversible’ I don’t know what is.
I think one of the big anxieties underlying the super city debate is the fear that the super city is just the prelude to corporatisation of local government, and privatisation of our assets: the ports, the water, and our transport infrastructure, not to mention libraries, parks, halls and other assets. These fears have been fueled by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide’s proposed reforms of the Local Government Act which seek to reduce council activities to core services. And by ACT’s stated policy to force Councils to sell off their commercial enterprises. Bear in mind also that it is only a decade or so since the right wing were trying to hock off the ports.
My bill, the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill, would require the Auckland Council to hold a referendum if significant asset sales are being considered. An appropriate threshold for the value of an asset that would trigger a referendum will be developed through the select committee process in consultation with Aucklanders. But the Bill would outlaw the sale of a range of assets including parks, swimming pools, libraries and public housing – other than when a sale might be part of the normal day-to-day portfolio management and has been subject to the normal consultation.
Getting the luck of the draw today was perfect timing. Aucklanders will be following the super city select committee hearings over the next four weeks as the committee considers a couple of thousand submissions. My bill will likely get its first reading on June 29 so we have four weeks to get some good debate going on this issue. I would like to hear any thoughts or suggestions people have about how we can best do that.
Well done Phil – a good bit of luck there! Sounds like a sound bill, although good luck getting support from Act on it!
I guess it will take a while for this bill to make it’s way through to parliament, and I think that could be a good thing in some ways. If the rumours of privatisation continue to grow then public opinion may well swing behind this bill.
Are you Irish Phil ‘cos that’s certainly lucky!
The debate should be around what system of ownership is most effective, efficient and at least cost to ratepayers. I’m hoping the debate will be more than just a “your’e wrong, we’re right” debate.
The other thing that’s important to note in these times of fiscal alarm is the amount of cash tied up in the assets that is unable to be utilised. There is no logical reason at all why there can’t be partial floats to the public of shares in some of the assets to free up cash for spending on essential infrastructure.
Wonderful timing Phil. There is little doubt in my mind that people like Rodney Hide want referenda for things they are not interested in, but otherwise want autonomy to do what they like!
As an example – if the government REALLY thought that this was a good idea, how about setting a good example by holding a referendum on the “shed” on the wharf that is supposed to become “Party Central” for the World Cup? Note that the World Cup is being staged quite a distance away at Eden Park for a few days here and there!
Do I as a ratepayer think this is a good idea – no way!
There has already been enough money squandered in that general direction. Take the pitiful Britomart Centre – idle for most of the time – but then unable to handle anything approaching a mild peak in rail traffic. A completely stupid transport hub on a line to nowehere. Also, how many times do we need to restyle Queen Street?
Lets have some real investment in the suburbs – why can’t the ward councillors see to that? The waterfront is attractive in places like Devonport and Mission Bay. Forget downtown altogether.
Even though there is not a post on it I would just like to congratulate those Labour MPs who voted in favour of the medicinal cannabis bill. It’s a great shame that the bill got voted down. The number of Labour MPs who voted for it has actually raised my estimation of the party. However it is sad to see so many that voted against it. It demonstrates that party is still disturbingly conservative. If America’s toughest sheriff, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, can see it in his icy heart to allow people in pain to use cannabis (see the documentary American Drug War: The Last White Hope) it says something about those MPs who voted against this bill.
Thank You Phil-Finally a conduit for we that feel powerless!Time is certainly of the essence & the rate the Nat party is moving at is frightening.the Royal Commision made some points-there’s certainly need for restructuring to rectify inneficient use of resources (human & otherwise)funded by the ratepayers-but the Nat Party has subverted the
R C results & are looking at Ak central as a thing to be plundered (Barbarians spring to mind)There needs to be a lot of discouse rather than hearing about what sounds like “Big Boys Club” fervour-also ,you can’t trust a man in a yellow jacket (unless ,of course ,he’s stylish!)
The reason for legislation that the public is given is often fraudulent. We are led to believe (by Labour in the first instance) that Auckland needs to be reconfigured because it is “dysfunctional”.. Most of us out here agreed with that, and most of us out here who have been around long enough to recall would have said that the way to fix it would have been to give all the councils’ powers to the Auckland Regional Authority and shut the rest down. Hide and the others are still citing dysfunctionality as the reason for proceeding, but it is patently obvious that the real agenda is asset sales and gifting valuable monopoly services to political friends and underwriters. Congratulations Phil. I hope you can use this issue to build a grass roots insurrection.
Thanks Phil- finally,we who feel powerless,have a reliable conduit!Time is certainly of the essence & the rate the Nat Party is moving at is frightening.The royal Com made some valid points-the old beaurocracies certainly need restructuring to save (not add!) ratepayers money but the Nat Party has subverted the findings & see Ak City as a thing to be plundered (Barbarians spring to mind)there’s need for a lengthy discouse rather than what sounds like “Big Boys Club”fervour
-PLUS you can’t trust a man in a yellow jacket-inless of course he’s stylish!
Well done Phil – I am a state house tenant – I have seen my community get flogged off to the lowest bidder, and some of my better off friends made money buying, then selling, houses that should be tenanted by low income people in need. A city is an organism, and requires nurturing, because not everyone gets a bargain with privatisation, some gotta get a gottage. Cheers Phil.
Thanks Phil-finally a reliable voice for we who feel powerless!Time is certainly of the essence & the rate the Nat Party is moving at is frightening-the Royal Comm made some valid points.As taxpayers,we don’t wish to see beaurocracies we fund operating inefficiently,but the findings have been subverted by the Nat Party who see Ak city as a thing to be plundered (Barbarians spring to mind!)
There is a need for much calm discourse rather than what sounds like “Big Boys Club” fervour
PLUS -you can’t trust a man in a yellow jacket(unless he’s stylish)
^^ Even David Garrett voted for it. Mr Capital Punishment himself.
Good work: timely and potentially very fruitful politically. SuperAuck is a major issue with long hairy legs that will haunt NACT for a long time.
Local govt ain’t sexy – but it’s a pervasive below-the-radar favourite of Joanne Public, and the consultative requirements of LGA2002 have woven a subtle magic too downscale for the haughty noses of the tories to detect. Communities and individuals have learned to expect engagement and respect – and many of those individuals are core tory stalwarts who have actually come to enjoy their communities and status. (same applies to the RMA)
Suggestions? I’d start with history: an expose of the “success” of previous privatisations (Telecom, BNZ and NZR spring to mind: a simple distillation of how many hard-earned taxpayer dollars-per-head has gone offshore, current service compared to other countries etc), and comparisons of rates paid on an individual property should show up the “efficiencies” of the 1989 amalgamations.
Highlighting a few stellar community/council/community board-led success stories that would be threatened by Central Control would help, and play the NACT at it’s own game: repeat, repeat, repeat: “Local Democracy Under Attack!” “Hands off our Assets!” “Amalgamate this!”
Fantastic work, Thank you for putting forward a Bill for “Protect of Aucklands Assets”. Auckland is definately under attack and needs protection.
Hopefully the sale of any “significant assets” will not only be delayed by a select committee/consultation with Aucklanders but STOPPED.
Cherie
Oh,and another thing, the panic about developing Queens wharf-I’m sure all the people with cafes & restaurants in the viaduct are looking forward to the competition!After doing the hard yards since missing out on the Americas cup return.Why spend morre than necessary for such a temporary thing as the rugby world cup- sure,an area with a big sceen/decent looking tarps/astro turf/hot-dog stand/mobile coffee & then utilise the more than adequate array of cafes/restaurants a stone’s throw away waiting (and paying thier rates,meanwhile) for the business.
Good on ya Phil, keep up the good work.
@Phil: “not to mention libraries, parks, halls and other assets.” That surely is political fear mongering Phil? Even the C&R wouldn’t privatise them.
As for assets likely to be sold, why not ? If better value can be offered to the ratepayer by selling them isn’t that the financially and ethically sound choice ?
Hard to trust the party that paid 100% too much for Kiwirail on financial matters. You appear to be driven by ideology rather than rationality.
Thanks Phil-finally,we who feel powerless,have reliable leader!Time is certainly of the essence & the rate the nat party is moving at is frightening.The Royal Com. made some points & there’s certainly a need for restructuring to rectify inefficient use of resourses(human & otherwise)but the Nat Party has subverted these findings & see Ak City as a thing to be plundered(Barbarians spring to mind!)There’s need for a lengthy discourse,rather than”Big Boy’s Club” fervour
PLUS,you can’t trust a man in a yellow jacket-unless he’ stylish!
Most asset sales in the past have turned out to be huge mistakes in hindsight, hence the reason why generally only fringe neoliberals advocate for them anymore. Elvis, if NZ Rail hadn’t been sold off for a song in the 1990s then then we wouldn’t have had to buy it back would we?
This Bill is designed to ensure we don’t make VERY expensive mistakes like that again – or at least if we do the people have been given a chance to have their say on the matter.
ak, excellent advice. Phil has made a very clever move with this Bill, as asset sales is perhaps the one clear cut issue in this whole sorry ’super city’ saga that everyone can understand from the ‘get go’, and that the Tories are terrified of. Anything less than public support for the Bill from the Nats will confirm what everyone already privately thinks, that there is indeed a secret privatisation agenda. Pile the pressure on.
Elvis, what nonsense. Hide and his cronies and Nat ‘fellow travellers’ are already salivating over water and the port and airport, and would love to sell the rest too. If C&R want to protect community assets, then get their Tory mates to vote for the Bill. Simple. It’s called ‘putting your money where your mouth is’. What are they afraid of?
Just a little off tangent, I’ve just blogged on the Herald piece today that informs us the the Transitional Authority has taken upon itself the job of appointing the second and third tiers of the new council’s management – power creep in action, much as to be expected
@Jarbury Re Kiwirail: that makes no sense at all. What it was sold for in the 1990’s has no relevance to what Cullen overpaid in 2008. Cullen went against Treasury advice by buying it and Toll extracted a 100% premium because they knew that Labour Party polling indicated it would be popular with their constituents. Taxpayers paid $700 million to buy a few votes for Labour (& probably the Greens.)
@Jennifer Cullens blocking of the sale of Auckland Airport shares last year to the Canadian Pension Fund was pure ideology and did immense damage to the investments of retired New Zealanders by wiping value off their shareholding in AAL. The shares to be purchased were already in foreign ownership so it would have made no difference to a strategic asset.
If selling the airport, sea port, public housing or any other council asset reduces council debt and reduces my rates: lets do it. Quoting my colleague Alex Tarrant:
“Rates charged by local councils in New Zealand rose 8.4% in the March quarter from the same period a year ago, figures released by Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) show. This is almost three times the 3% increase in the consumer price index over the same period.”http://bit.ly/Terph
Jarbury, your claim that Most asset sales in the past have turned out to be huge mistakes in hindsight, hence the reason why generally only fringe neoliberals advocate for them anymore is not correct at all. If we take the sale of Telecom as an example it is unequivocal that the sale led to much improved telco services. What could have been done better relates to process, not outcome. For example, Australia sold of Telstra in tranches and for a long period of time retained well over 50% ownership, before selling down again in times of high growth thereby maximising the price.
Private ownership has done nothing to prevent the Port of Tauranga functioning as one of the best in the country.
The scaremongering over water is equally hilarious. After all, without food we die but you don’t see the government nationalising supermarkets and greengrocers do you?
Selling shares in these assets will free up much needed capital that will be available to spend on essential infrastructure. If the process is thought through there is no reason why some of Auckland’s $30 billion of cash tied up in assets cannot be released.
Great initiative! And lucky timing! How can I and networks I am involved in partipate in debates/submissions etc?
Good on you!
Great in principle but what about the substance? Why not include in your bill, since you’re naming groups, the countless community organisations which make up the social and cultural infrastructure essential to this region? They generally occupy council-owned facilities at a pepper corn rental which allows them to spend time and resources on service delivery. These are the flax roots organisations and facilities which are often overlooked (your bill a case in pint) and which have little protection. CABs; Arts/theatre facilities; Community Houses; Social Service groups…..
Nick, this isn’t an outright prohibition on selling assets, but rather just says that a referendum should occur on the issue. If it can be argued that selling a particular asset would have a particular benefit then people might vote for it.
For example, if we had a referendum on selling $1.5 billion of council assets to fund a CBD rail loop then the people might well vote for it. By requiring a referendum it would ensure politicians actually proposed a good use for the money raised by the asset sale.
At least there’s plenty of evidence around to prove that public asset sales to private interests is a bad idea. Just hopefully the left of center parties actually put that evidence to the public. I’m not hopeful that Labour will as then they would need to tell the public why they didn’t, and had plans to, bring Telecom back into public ownership.
That is, obviously, supposed to say “and had no plans to”.
Elvis, again, nonsense. If you really think that selling off assets will lower your local tax bill, you need medication. That was the line Roger and his mates sold us back in the 80s, and what do you know, our taxes and government charges went up and services went down. Give me a break. NAct will not dare touch central government state asset sales this term, so they are honing in on Auckland’s $28 billion in community assets to get the ball rolling. These folks have debts to pay, the political kind. Ironic.
If they try to sell the Auckland Airport shares they will likely have to do it to non NZers. That would interesting to see them try.
Draco, I assume its because there is more than one provider of telecommunications services, but did you notice there is only one water and wastewater provider in Auckland, and one airport, and one sea port? Juicy pickings.
Good news. I have just had notification that I will be able to present my oral submission to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee hearing sometime in July. We need to stand up for assets that have been built up over a long period of time and not allow control to slip away.
This bill certainly has come at a great time.
“Bear in mind also that it is only a decade or so since the right wing were trying to hock off the ports” Yes and look how successful the listed Ports of Tauranga is compared with other ports.
Congratulations.
Rodney Hide has said publicly (on Maori TV) that he would sell Watercare if the decision was up to him. Debate over your Bill will force him and his National Party mates to make their true veiws known in a very public arena.
Incredibly insightful and timely. I live in California and at present, we are facing bankruptcy. The Governor has been threatening closure of state properties (including our extensive State Parks System) and sales of valued public land holdings. His declared intention is balancing a 24 billion dollar budget imbalance.
I agree that generations have bought and paid for these treasures, and I resent Arnold’s attempts to bandage Congressional oversight with these measures. The State’s financial problems go MUCH deeper than one year’s imbalance. He is proposing NOTHING to improve the system, just some patchwork juggling.
Hang in there Phil. We, the people, need champions!
More failed ideology from Act.I smell Uncle Roger playing Jim Henson to Rodney’s Miss Piggy, with an “invisible hand” very firmly inserted.Perhaps we could seek an opinion on this from Max Bradford?He could tell us what we should do when there is nothing left to sell?
Hope that we were one of the parasites who profited from the sales and can therefore still afford to live in New Zealand, or simply head to the workhouse with the rest of the working poor?
On ya Phil, it’s well past time that someone picked up the cudgels .
I.b. is right. There are thousands of clubs and groups who use council lands and facilities (halls, fields, sporting facilities, paddocks). I would like to see some protection for them under legislation.
l.b and TopCat – Not sure I follow your argument. My bill tries to stop the new super city selling off economic assets. How would you want to try and protect community groups, and from what?
Jo Elvidge – Hope to have a campaign website up and running in the next couple of days with actions you can take to support the Bill. Also check out http://www.cc4a.net.nz/
to everyone, thanks for all the good wishes and suggestions…keep it coming
Phil,
There is nothing to stop the new Auckland Council selling off land and sportsfields to boost their coffers. Individuals sporting clubs all lease the land for virtually no rent. In Waitakere, for example, we have 15-20 soccer clubs all of whom have there clubrooms on council land. The regional football association has said it wants to reduce the number of clubs. The easiest way to do this is to get the council to sell off the land they use- It would be a very easy way for the council to make money quickly to sell for housing. All over Auckland groups like pony clubs, aeronautical clubs, table tennis clubs, scout groups etc are in the same boat. Ask the Auckland Trampolining Association how easy it is to find somewhere to operate.
TopCat – The Bill specifies parks (as well as libraries and swimming pools) among the assets that cannot be sold without a referendum….unless of course a sale takes place in the course of normal portfolio management. So that would cover your scenario of sports clubs having the land sold out from under them. But perhaps it could be more comprehensive and include any recreational or community facilities?
The following quote is from the BBC Radio 4 Programmes – The Reith Lectures – Episode 4 – A New Politics of the Common Good, which I find very relevant in this case:
“This trend has two bad effects: one fiscal, the other civic. First, public services deteriorate as those who no longer use them become less willing to support them with their taxes. Second, public institutions such as schools, parks, playgrounds and community centres cease to be places where citizens from different walks of life encounter one another. Institutions that once gathered people together and served as informal schools of civic virtue have become few and far between. The hollowing out of the public realm makes it difficult to cultivate the sense of community that democratic citizenship requires.”
Read the transcript of the whole broadcast for another perspective.
How an we publicly demonstrate support for your bill?
Petitions? Demonstrations? Media coverage?
Tell us what to do.
[...] member’s bill went down tonight. It was expected given National and ACT’s declared intention to block vote [...]