Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill

I move, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider this bill.

The Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill provides a framework for governing and managing the Auckland Future Fund and to add an additional layer of protection over the purpose of the Auckland Future Fund as a long-term financial investment for the benefit of the current and future communities of the Auckland region, and to set the first hold for departing the specified principle related to that purpose, as 75 percent of its governing body, commonly called a super majority. This bill is about the future of Auckland for the benefit of all Aucklanders.

I would like to acknowledge Auckland Council, particularly Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown and Councillor Christine Fletcher for their role in establishing the fund as part of the council’s long-term plan. I would also like to acknowledge Auckland Council’s head of governance, Stu Mullin, all the council staff, and all the parliamentary staff who have all contributed to bringing this bill to the House this afternoon.

As background, the governing body of the Auckland Council had established the Auckland Future Fund in September 2024 as part of the Auckland Council long-term plan, and it has been initially capitalised with $1.31 billion from the divestment of Auckland Council - owned shares in Auckland International Airport Ltd. Auckland Future Fund is intended to be a long-term investment fund for the benefit of current and future communities in Auckland. The purpose of the Auckland Future Fund is to protect the real value of the Auckland Council intergenerational assets so they can continue to benefit future generations, and to provide an enhanced return to the Auckland Council to fund services and infrastructure.

This bill is critical to ensure that the Auckland Future Fund can continue to function as a stable and resilient investment vehicle for the current and future generations of Aucklanders. As a council-controlled organisation, the Auckland Future Fund operates under the high-level direction of the Auckland Council but through an independent structure where the trustee board makes all key decisions.

The board of directors’ chair Chris Swasbrook, Craig Stobo, and David Callanan were recently appointed to lead the fund, following a robust appointment process. They received unanimous support from the performance and appointments committee and the council’s independent Māori advisory board as well. This board is guided by a clear set of investment objectives and policies set by Auckland Council. Established as a trust, there are strict protections over the fund’s assets, in particular the protection required for the fund to maintain the real value of its capital over the long term.

The Auckland Future Fund bill enables the diversification of Auckland Council investment, providing a buffer against financial shock by spreading investment across various sectors and locations. The fund is diversified to reduce the risk associated with over reliance on a single asset or investment. This diversification strengthens Auckland’s economic resilience, positioning it for sustainable growth and stability.

The fund has also been established to deliver revenue to help fund services and reduce reliance on rates. The council expects the Auckland Future Fund to achieve a target of an average annual return of 7.24 percent over the long term, after the management costs. Of the projected return, 5.24 percent will be returned to the council as an annual cash distribution, with the remainder retained to protect the real value of the fund over time. It is estimated it will provide an additional $40 million per year to the council, starting from the financial year 2025-26.

To ensure the fund’s assets are used for their intended purpose, the bill establishes strict guidelines for how distributions are made. Only individuals specified in the bill are authorised to make distribution decisions. Furthermore, if a proposed distribution falls outside the fund’s usual principle—for example, if the council wants to withdraw capital from the fund, it will reduce its real value—the Auckland Council can only approve it with a 75 percent majority vote, commonly called a super majority, provided it aligns with the long-term plan and has been properly consulted on. Such a decision would also require the governing body to determine that, in reducing the real value of the Auckland Future Fund, the council will achieve a benefit that is better for the current and future communities of Auckland than maintaining the real value. This ensures that any distributions are made in the best interest of Auckland’s current and future communities.

Also, we understand that this is a very important bill for the public, and the fund will be making a huge contribution to the future generations of Aucklanders, with increasing public scrutiny on how the council manages its financial assets. This bill also provides statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund by quantifying the principle for managing and distributing the fund’s assets. The bill fosters public confidence in the integrity and long-term sustainability of the Auckland Future Fund, ensuring that Aucklanders can trust that their financial assets are being managed responsibly.

This bill is not new to the House. We had similar legislation passed in 2022. The New Plymouth District Council has a perpetual investment fund, which is protected by the legislation the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Act 2023. Their fund was formed from the proceeds of the New Plymouth District Council selling their $259 million shareholding in Powerco Ltd in 2004. In 2021, their council recognised that legislative protection was required to ensure the fund was managed sustainably. This Auckland bill has a similar provision to the New Plymouth legislation, for the benefit of the current and future community of the region and for the real value of the fund to be maintained and increased over time.

This legislation will make a lasting difference to the future generations of Auckland, and I’m proud to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tāmaki herenga waka, Tāmaki here tāngata, Tāmaki-makau-rau. [Tāmaki that binds canoes, Tāmaki that binds people, Tāmaki of one hundred suitors.]

I love the city of Auckland. Like many, I came to the city for the opportunity that it presents, to learn, to work, to get ahead in life. From the outset, can I acknowledge Carlos Cheung for bringing this local bill to the House. I want to say that Labour supports the bill and its provision of statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund.

This bill will help to futureproof the fund and provide Aucklanders with confidence that their city’s investments will be protected. It will add around $40 million in return each year from 2025 to 2026. The hard work of Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council to progress this initiative and drive it into this House is a testament to their commitment to ensuring that Auckland’s future growth is protected. I want to thank Mayor Wayne Brown and all those involved for their tenacity, professionalism, and commitment to our city of Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland.

We know that if New Zealand is to prosper, Auckland’s success is our key. Our city drives over 38 percent of our national economy. This bill is a step towards greater success for Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, through productive investment that will support growth and support prosperity for many who live, reside, and work in that city. Auckland is a city with incredible potential. However, for this potential to be unlocked, it does require a Government that is committed to taking Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, forward through meaningful change and innovative projects.

This bill gives statutory protection to ensure it maintains or increases the real value of its capital over the medium term. The Auckland Future Fund is a council-controlled organisation and regional fund that will strengthen and protect Tāmaki-makau-rau’s, Auckland’s, financial resilience by diversifying the council’s major investments, providing long-term capital growth and cash distributions.

While the bill is a step forward for our city, it does not change the fact that the Government continues to take Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, backwards. The $400 million in additional revenue that this fund will provide is dwarfed by the $1.2 billion that Auckland lost in revenue when the Government removed the regional fuel tax. The Government has not provided an alternative revenue stream. Auckland Council has been forced to fund projects on their own that would have previously been shared 50/50 between local government and central government and that is appalling.

The Government has a responsibility to help ensure that Auckland has the adequate resources and revenue sources—$7.1 million cut to the major events fundings from this Government, impacting our city’s ability to market ourselves offshore. They have refused to consider a bed levy requested by Auckland Council, which would help uplift and invest in Auckland events and the cultural sector. Their good slogan “Just say yes” didn’t apply here.

As a result of National’s economic mismanagement and lack of action from the Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown, Aucklanders continue to face a transport deficit of $564 million and a higher unemployment rate than the rest of Aotearoa New Zealand. In our city alone, food costs are becoming more expensive, rental prices and affordability going up. They don’t like to hear it but for every Aucklander this is the reality—this is the reality. Increasing food insecurity in this city has been highlighted by many community providers and organisations just like Auckland City Mission.

💬 Cameron Brewer: Make it stop. Is this a split call?

There have been cuts to key social service providers, food banks, including North Shore Women’s Centre, Mr Brewer. Young people in Auckland are falling through the cracks. In the year to September 2024, Auckland saw an increase of 5,200 in the number of young people who are not engaged in education or training.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. We’ll be bringing it back to the bill.

I reference this because, while I acknowledge that this particular bill that we are putting forward today at the request of Auckland Council rather than the Government is a step forward, we can’t provide red herrings in front of us that takes away the attention from the Government’s inaction.

The Minister for Auckland is responsible for achieving outcomes for Aucklanders on behalf of this Government. He’s not doing that. This is not his bill. He passed it on to a backbench MP, Carlos Cheung, to bring Auckland Council’s bill to this House. While I accept that that sometimes is the done thing, I don’t accept that by reducing staff in the Auckland policy office and by making major cuts to our largest economic city that benefits all of Aotearoa New Zealand, I don’t accept that those things go unnoticed in this particular conversation—I don’t accept it.

What I do encourage is that this Government steps up to deliver real outcomes for Aucklanders. Part of that is the Minister for Auckland specifying what he’s responsible for, other than coordination, putting in some measurable targets so we can hold him accountable for delivering for Auckland Council and delivering for Aucklanders.

To finish off here, again, I want to say that Labour supports this piece of legislation. It’s progressive and it invests in the future of our city. I acknowledge the hard mahi, the work of Mayor Wayne Brown, but I also stand here, genuinely, today to the Aucklanders on the other side of the House to say, “You must do better.” We all came to Auckland for opportunity, to get ahead in life, to provide a great future for our young people. This bill is a step forward in achieving that and I commend it to the House.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. This afternoon we’re talking on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, and I want to acknowledge the member in charge, Dr Carlos Cheung. I, as I’m sure a number of members across this House did, had conversations with Mayor Wayne Brown when the kind of incubating of this idea was occurring. I know that having the Government’s backing meant a lot to get this across the line.

It’s worthwhile defining what this bill actually does, because I think some may think out there, potentially, that this is the vehicle for the sale of the airport shares. To clarify, that’s already happened. That is not what this bill does. This bill doesn’t even actually establish the Auckland Future Fund. What it does is put legislation and statutory protection around the kind of what we would call “raid protections” against the future potential use of that fund. The most salient parts in that are found in Part 2, clause 8, around principles for governing and managing the Auckland Future Fund. I think it’s worthwhile unpacking these two principles.

The first is around how the long-term fund must be governed and managed for the benefit of current and future communities of the Auckland region. This is something which I’d really love to get submissions from members of the public on, because there is not a definition of what we consider to be a benefit within this legislation. It could be the case with these trustees that potentially there is a diverging view or otherwise, but we don’t yet have any clarity as to how they will come down on making that decision. I think it’s really, really important that that benefit is defined in such a way that takes consideration of our environmental, our social, our cultural, and, of course, our economic wellbeing as well.

The second principle found under clause 8(b) is for that fund to be managed and governed in such a way with the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of its capital over time. Therein, I think, lies, again, a really salient point that if clause 8(a) is to be read in the context of clause 8(b), then potentially we might end up with some shorter-term decisions being made around particularly increasing the real value of capital over time, and potentially prioritising economic wellbeing over that environmental, social, or cultural wellbeing.

The first thing that the Greens really want to see here is clarification at that select committee stage for what “benefit” actually means; to whom, for what, on what kind of time horizon. We want to play a really constructive role here. As I’ve just alluded to, I’ve had conversations with counsellors about this, and obviously also directly with Mayor Wayne Brown, with whom I have a pretty robust and straight-up relationship, as I’m sure many others do, but we also hold out some further concerns around the broader context here, because this is not happening in a vacuum.

Nine years ago, back in 2016, a very riled up 22-year-old ran for the Auckland mayoralty on the premise of, actually, a lot of very similar issues to what we’re facing today. There were some real issues with how we were experiencing a brain drain. There was an infrastructure deficit. There were complaints and frustration about a lack of arts and culture infrastructure. I thought that it was really important that, instead of simply complaining about it, we all mucked in and did everything that we possibly could in order to take accountability and responsibility for our city, to realise that no one was coming to save us but that we had to do it ourselves.

At that point in time, when I was doing a lot of research and talking to a lot of really smart people, I found out that we are an outlier internationally when it comes to the proportion of spending that is spent at a local government level as compared to a central government level. In the OECD, the average amount of spending that occurs at a local government level is approximately—and, again, these will be really old figures—30 percent, but here in Aotearoa, from what I recall of about nine years ago, it was far lower than half of that at around 12 percent. That problem has only continued to compound.

We actually had the Shand inquiry 10 or 15 years ago, and then we had the Productivity Commission review of the Shand inquiry about six years ago, and then we had the review of the future of local government, which was published about a year or two ago. All of those inquiries and reports and all of that evidence has told us that local government does not have the resources necessary to do its damn job. We see that right now in the proof of how so many councils are being confronted with these incredibly challenging propositions to raise rates astronomically, or to sell their assets, which is something that I think fundamentally runs against the values that we hold as New Zealanders where we want to care for each other and the planet that we live on.

We want to be crystal clear that, while we are intent on supporting this in a constructive way and working through the select committee process, this doesn’t touch the sides on the broader issues which the Government’s austerity agenda will only further deepen and entrench. We support this bill to this stage and through the select committee.

The ACT Party will be supporting this bill to first reading, despite some reservations, which I’ll outline in a moment.

Firstly, I want to applaud Auckland Council and its elected members for taking the courageous first step to sell assets that they no longer had a strategic need to hold. It was a tough decision for many of those members to support the sale of those Auckland Airport shares and to place them into, essentially, an independent managed fund—the Auckland Future Fund. I applaud all the councillors, all the elected members who supported that move. It was necessary, it was courageous, it demonstrated a maturity that, unfortunately, some other councils around New Zealand have not yet demonstrated, but they’re going to get their chance.

This bill recognises that some assets once considered strategic or vital can actually be better run not under the heel of politicians, of people who have a whole lot of other things—like continuing to get elected—on their minds, but can actually perform better for ratepayers and respond to the kinds of challenges that, say, Auckland Airport has: needing to raise billions of dollars in capital over the next few decades.

Can you imagine going to Auckland Council and asking them to contribute their share of these billions to upgrading Auckland Airport? It doesn’t make any sense for local government to own assets where they cannot participate as a responsible shareholder. Thank you, Auckland Council; thank you, elected members—you’ve demonstrated great maturity. I look forward to councils like Wellington, like Christchurch, and others demonstrating the same level of maturity when it comes to making those decisions about transferring their existing balance sheet, which isn’t performing or isn’t delivering the assets they need into new assets.

What we heard from some Opposition members here today, though, is quite remarkable. Labour MP Shanan Halbert complained about cuts that central government has made to funding Auckland and Auckland-based activities. Now, the difference between this coalition Government, with ACT in it, and the former Labour Government is that this Government is looking at spending line by line, cutting wasteful spending and finding ways to reallocate spending to infrastructure and services that Kiwis actually need right now. This Government is not throwing chum to a feeding frenzy of consultants feasting on hundreds of millions of dollars of bike bridge and Auckland light rail fantasies.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Just landlords, bro.

We’re not, and Auckland Council gets it. That’s why they’ve taken a mature decision, Shanan Halbert, and why they do not deserve to be lectured by members of the former Government. It gives me hope, though. It gives me hope that councils like Auckland Council can take the step to put their assets in a trust tasked with making a profit for ratepayers. Now, that might be remarkable to those reborn, born-again socialists in Labour and the Greens who don’t believe in profit, but, actually, it is a mature thing to have your assets make a profit so you can return that to ratepayers. The Auckland Future Fund intends to reimburse Auckland ratepayers with a $40 million dividend in the 2025-26 year. That’s $40 million that won’t end up costing ratepayers a whole lot of extra rates.

The other good thing is that these assets won’t be a political plaything for politicians in the future. What local government needs is more courage like this. What local government also needs is to find ways to liberate the billions of dollars they hold on their balance sheets and assets to pay for the new assets and infrastructure that they are going to need. ACT and the coalition Government will be supporting councils to make these tough decisions. We’re also putting in new tools around infrastructure funding and financing, which Minister Bishop and I will be announcing in the next little while. It may mean that councils need to mobilise existing assets they’ve so far been reluctant to. That’s what businesses and households do: they sell stuff they no longer need and they use that money to buy and fund and invest in the things they do need.

ACT does support this bill. We have some reservations about the entrenchment provisions, because we’re concerned it might limit the flexibility that future councils might need, but we support it to first reading.

Look, thanks, Madam Speaker. I want to start by congratulating Dr Carlos Cheung for introducing the bill and congratulating the Auckland Council and Wayne Brown on several counts—first of all, for establishing the Auckland Future Fund; secondly, on this bill to put some legislative discipline around that fund; thirdly, on not frittering away the proceeds from the Auckland Airport shares but actually setting them aside in that fund for the future benefit of Auckland residents and businesses; and, also, I might say, on a disciplined approach to running the council, and I think they’re doing a good job there.

I think this bill is all about Auckland Council being responsible on behalf of the future citizens of that great city. The bill sets out the principles and it says that “The Auckland Future Fund must be governed and managed [as a long-term fund] for the benefit of current and future communities of the Auckland region”, and it has the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of the capital fund over time. I think that is a very responsible approach to take. It also puts some management and Government disciplines around it and says that this fund would manage, essentially, independently. It keeps it away from the politicians, as you’ve already heard in this debate, and I think that that is a very good move as well.

The bill also establishes some disciplines, and it requires that any larger distribution or drawdown on the fund requires a super majority of the council, and that’s 75 percent. I’ll tell you what, getting 75 percent of any council for a really controversial issue is not easy. It also has to be subject to a community consultation process through the long-term plan. That is also a very significant discipline and there are some responsibilities around that, that that consultation needs to be a genuine consultation. That makes a challenging proposition for the council—a future council—to draw down on that. It does allow, as you’ve already heard, sensible distribution. What it does is make sure that this fund continues to support the ratepayers of Auckland City going forward as well.

As Carlos, in introducing this bill, said, other councils have taken this approach before, particularly New Plymouth District Council. We have the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Act 2023, and that does a similar sort of thing of putting aside that fund for the long-term benefits of the residents and ratepayers of the New Plymouth district. These funds are backed by legislation. It gives discipline; it also gives confidence to the people of those communities to know that that fund is going to be there for a very, very long time. That’s really, really important, so it’s good to see councils who want that discipline put on them.

The other thing I might say is that asset sales are often not very popular, and we’ve already heard that before. What this does is it allows councils to say, “We want diversification instead of having all our income earning assets in one place”—a Powerco, an airport company, whatever it might be. It allows them to diversify those assets, which, of course, is good investment practice. I might say there was another council not too far from here that actually was looking at doing a very similar thing. They fouled that up in part because they couldn’t work out what they were going to do with the proceeds. I think that they lost confidence, not only of the residents and ratepayers of the area but also of themselves, and ended up having to back out of that and couldn’t even, in the end, land a long-term plan. There is a lesson in that.

Just to finish off with a couple of other points, I do want to make an observation about the return—Carlos Cheung noted the return that there was intended to be on this fund —on Auckland Airport shares. I looked at what it was worth in 2000 and what it’s worth now. It was about $1.05, 25 years ago; it’s now $8.50. If you put that over time, it’s almost a 10 percent return in the share price alone, not including dividends. It hasn’t done too badly for the ratepayers and the shareholders over that period of time.

💬 Hon Mark Patterson: Why’d they flog it off?

Well, that is a good question. New Zealand First, of course, has always taken a very strong approach on asset sales, because we believe if you’re going to, as Simon Court said, recycle assets to pay for something else—another asset—you want to make sure that that new asset actually earns you a return, which is pretty much commensurate with what you were selling before. To sell an asset to then buy another asset which earns you nothing, and is probably a liability, is not a very smart move.

Of course, at a national level, this is one of the reasons that our balance of payments is where it is. It’s one of the reasons that our economy is where it is. We will be so much better off if we hadn’t flogged off assets. It’s not just public ones but also private ones over a long period of time, because our living standards will be so much higher.

If I might just finish, Chlöe Swarbrick said that we have not enough money—local government has not enough money. That is true as a country as a whole, and I hope that the Green Party will now turn around and say, “We actually need to grow our economy because if we don’t do that, none of us are going to have enough money.”

The member’s time has expired.

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Today, I rise as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau to speak on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, a bill that will shape the economic future of our city and will determine how we protect intergenerational wealth.

For Māori, the principles of kaitiakitanga, guardianship; and manaakitanga, collective wellbeing are central to how we manage resources. We have always planned for the long term, ensuring that the whenua, taonga, and economic opportunities we have today are presented for future generations. In that respect, this bill has good intentions: to establish a fund that safeguards Auckland’s assets for the benefit of current and future communities. But intentions alone are not enough.

This bill raises serious concerns from a Māori perspective. Just to remind the House: the decision to capitalise the fund by selling Auckland Council shares in Auckland International Airport was made without proper iwi consultations. Ngāti Whātua, Tainui-Waikato, and other iwi have deep historical and economic interests in that taonga. The airport is more than just an asset; it is a strategic and cultural landmark. Māori should have been at the table before this decision was made.

Beyond that, this bill lacks guarantees of Māori representation and its governance. How many of the 75 percent are Māori representatives? How can we talk about benefiting future generations, when Māori, who have the largest-growing populations in Tāmaki Makaurau—250,000 living in our city—are not explicitly included in decision making? If this bill is to reflect the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori must be partners in managing the fund, not bystanders watching from the sideline.

We also need stronger safeguards around future asset sales. The bill allows for more public assets to be added to the fund. But who decides what is sold? Māori communities have long fought against the loss of public- and Māori-owned land, only to see it sold off with little consultation and even less benefit to our people. If this bill is to protect intergenerational wealth, it must ensure that Māori have a say in what gets sold, how funds are invested, and who benefits from the returns.

Yet we will support this bill at first reading, not because we agree with all of it, but because we believe this process is not yet finished. By moving this bill to select committee, we create an opportunity for Māori to have their say, for iwi and hapū to determine stronger protections, and for this House to ensure that Auckland’s economic future reflects mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. If Māori are to be partners in shaping the future of Tāmaki Makaurau, this bill must change, and we will be watching closely. Kei a tātau te tikanga. The choice is ours. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Well, it is another great day for Mt Roskill, and I want to acknowledge their favourite son Carlos Cheung, who brings this local bill in his name to the House. I tell you, I’ve been in Auckland a couple of times in this role, and, jeez, they love him up there, don’t they? I just hear such great things. He’s everywhere; he’s working so hard—along with our great team from Auckland. I think of Cam Brewer in Upper Harbour, I think of Greg Fleming in Maungakiekie, and, of course, Dan Bidois in Northcote—and, jeez, he’s doing a great job.

💬 Shanan Halbert: You’re obviously not hearing right.

We’re certainly not going to take a lecture on economics from Shanan Halbert telling us how to do a better job with the economy.

I’ll tell you what Aucklanders want: the ability to make a few decisions for themselves. In part, that’s what this bill is about. They want options in their back pocket. They want a few more dollars at the end of the week. That’s why you fundamentally have to grow the economy if you’re going to deliver that. And it adds on—not just the early childhood education boost, the FamilyBoost, the tax reductions; it is about growing the economy so they have more money, so they have more opportunity, and they have more choices.

💬 Cameron Brewer: No more regional fuel tax.

It’s not a tax; it’s an excise, remember! But, apparently, now it’s allowed to be.

Anyway, to this local bill—and it’s yet another local bill coming from Auckland. We’ve already got the “ice cream bill”, and now we’ve got this one. It’s good to see the council up there are obviously busy. You know, I take slight issue with Wayne Brown; a lot of people have made great comments about him. He is, of course, the one—I am the proud MP for Horowhenua and Kāpiti—who infamously said, “Horowhenua, wherever that is.” I am pleased to see, though, Mayor Bernie Wanden from Horowhenua sent him a “Horowhenua—wherever that is” T-shirt, and he was wearing it in his Christmas message this year, so maybe the education goes in. I’m tempted to move an amendment when we get to committee stage to see if we can add in “part of this fund goes to educating mayors as to the location of Horowhenua”. It’s a great place to visit, and every Australian must go as well—come to Horowhenua; it’s a great place to be.

To the bill, to the bill—I can feel your eyes on me, Madam Speaker. To this bill specifically, one of the questions—because it is a local bill, another local bill for Auckland—that I think will come up in select committee is: “Why does this have to be an Act of Parliament?”

The answer, we’ve heard in part from some of the earlier contributions, is around wanting to have protections in place. Actually, this is formed as a trust, and the trust deed can capture those, but they want to have an extra layer of protection. I acknowledge that and I can understand the driver of that, but, also, we don’t want to get too far to the other end of the spectrum, where we see everything becoming a local bill and Parliament spending lots of time on this—obviously, the last one was allowing the Takapuna Boating Club to sell ice creams, or things to that effect. There is a spectrum. I understand that this is a significant piece of work that you want to see protections for in the long term, and so I understand that, on balance, that’s a good thing.

Some of the parts that were spoken about—in fact, the Green Party talked about clause 8, but I’d actually like to talk about clauses 7 and 9. Firstly, clause 7—and this is another thing I think we should look at the select committee stage—says that the AFF, the Auckland Future Fund, has to comply with certain sections, but it may be implemented either internally within council or externally through one or more trusts. Now, it’s being implemented this time through a trust, and that’s where the protections come from, but there’s nothing to stop it then being transitioned and still complying completely with the Act, and then being implemented internally within council. That will be a question that I think will be worth teasing out with officials just to ensure that that balance sits at the right place.

The Green Party contribution focused on what the community benefit is. Well, we have just been through that in the Governance and Administration Committee, looking at what the community benefit is for proceeds that come from the Takapuna Boating Club and any commercial activity that takes place there—and I think some good advice: that may not warrant many changes. But, of course, people will be welcome to have their view and to make their comments through the select committee process.

Then it goes on to clause 9, which is all about the investments and how it’s done. I think, actually, Carlos Cheung did a great job of explaining those and how it has to be divested by qualified persons that have to act independently of council. This isn’t up to councillors saying what they want; it’s independent. And as he called it, the supermajority clause, clause 11(2)—if they’re gonna bring that capital down, then it needs 75 percent. Those are a few questions I’d like to see teased out through the select committee process.

To be fair, I’d take Horowhenua over Auckland any day, for the record, but until that day, I do commend this bill to the House.

I suggest to the speaker who’s just sat down, Tim Costley, that the only reason he would take Horowhenua over Auckland any day is he has not visited Titirangi or the fine beaches of the west of Pīhā and Whatipū and Karekare. Auckland has many, many wonderful places in it—as, of course, does Horowhenua.

This is an interesting bill concerning our largest city and some of the measures that the Auckland Council has debated fairly robustly over the past year or so, as to how to look to the future, how to build itself for the future, what it can do to ensure some kind of effective use of assets and some kind of long-term gain.

It’s an interesting solution, this one—one that I don’t think was in Mayor Wayne Brown’s mind when he first started thinking about what to do with the airport shares—but, through a process of consultation and engagement with city councillors and with the broader community, this is the solution they’ve come up with: to establish a future fund for Auckland and to put the proceeds of the sale of the Auckland Airport shares into that fund. That’s a pretty sensible move. It is actually a compromise move, I think, from the point of view of the mayor, but a compromise that he was prepared to make and a compromise that he came to with some pretty robust work from some committed councillors. If we’re going to talk about mature processes, that looks like one to me.

I do want to take up some points that have been raised by previous speakers. Takutai Tarsh Kemp did raise the point of to what extent iwi were consulted and to what extent iwi will be represented in this future fund. That’s actually a very good point and one that does need to be teased out through the select committee process. Now, I note that in clause 9 of the bill, it says that an investment decision may only be made by a person who is “appropriately qualified;”. I take it that a person, in local body terms, could comprise a committee—that might be a way of ensuring that we’ve got really good iwi representation in there as well.

💬 Simon Court: We voted out co-governance. We got rid of it.

There’s space in there for movement, but I do think it’s an issue that needs to be teased out.

I note that the member Simon Court, who spent a lot of time commending councils for making mature decisions by selling assets, is also the member who likes to give mature advice to women about how to manage periods; perhaps he might like to reflect on what he does in that regard. “Mature” should not be a synonym for saying “a decision I approve of”, all right? That particular party is fond of selling assets. Just calling it “mature” is not the same as saying it’s a good decision. Decisions each need to be weighed on their merits. Sometimes it will be a good decision; sometimes it will not be.

Here we do have what I’ve seen is a really good process of consultation, engagement of a mayor working with his councillors to set up this future fund. That’s the kind of process I think we should regard as one that’s really effective—indeed the sort of process we engage in in this House: consultation, negotiation, trying to come to compromises, eventually making our way through decision processes.

Finally, I’d like to note that Wayne Brown has just announced—in a decision that was actually kind of well foreshadowed—that he will be standing for the mayoralty again. He is, as we’ve noticed, someone with whom many of us have a very robust and straightforward relationship. I’m looking forward to a robust and straightforward mayoral campaign in Auckland this year. I’ll be there for it, and I’m sure many of us will be too. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won’t actually take too much time, because I think a lot of things have been addressed, but I start off by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill in the name of my friend Dr Carlos Cheung, MP for Mt Roskill.

I think one of the things that many people who are watching at home and many members who haven’t actually read the bill might think is that we are creating the fund. We are not; it’s already established. It was established last year as a result of Auckland Council’s long-term plan for 2024 to 2030. It was a 10-year plan that they had, and what they wanted to do was establish a fund that could be beneficial in the long term—beneficial to Aucklanders, both physical and financial resilience for the people and the council.

As a person who lives in Auckland, someone who actually moved to New Zealand and settled in Auckland, I am really pleased that the council has had the vision to see the future and wants to work towards the future. New Zealand, as in Auckland, being successful and prosperous will give the future generations a better opportunity, and I think that’s a good thing.

What happened was that they had shares in the Auckland Airport. What they decided to do was actually sell that and put it into the fund. I think it was a New Zealand First member who talked about the value and how it increased from something like $1.80, and now it’s more than $8. They did sell it for quite a lot of money. I think it was something like $1.3 billion that they raised through the sale of the Auckland Airport shares.

What that fund that they’ve already established is—they have a board of directors who are financial people who are experts in this area. It’s not the councillors who will be making decisions on the investment that they will actually make with the fund but the experts in the Auckland Future Fund (AFF). They will make decisions on the investments that they will invest in to grow the pot, so they will grow the investment that they have. Currently, with the Auckland Airport shares, it’s $1.3 billion, but they will grow that for the benefit of all of Aucklanders, and I think it’s a good thing.

Earlier, someone said, you know, instead of having all of your eggs in one basket, you actually want to diversify and actually return for the council a bit of a dividend so they have spending money for the council so they can spend on things like projects. Earlier, the Māori Party MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp talked about consulting with Māori people. I mean, these dividends that council gets through this fund, they will invest in things like transport and access, environment, cultural heritage, opportunity and prosperity—Māori identity and wellbeing, belonging, and participation being at the top end of the vision that they have for how they will invest that money from the dividend that they get from the AFF.

The other aspect of it is that there are percentages that will actually grow the fund from the dividend as well, apart from the investment, so that long term they will keep on growing this fund for the benefit of all of Auckland. I think it’s a wonderful thing that this particular bill is not here to start a fund or sell the airport shares; those things have already happened. This bill is specific to making sure that they put in structure to safeguard that investment, to make sure that it is not councillors who make the decision but specific people who have the knowledge and the acumen to grow that fund. I think it’s a good thing, and I recommend this bill to the House and congratulate my friend Carlos Cheung.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution from this side of the House. Labour will be supporting this bill. I do want to thank colleague Dr Carlos Cheung for introducing it to the House. As I begin my talanoa, I just want to go back a little bit, where other members may not be aware as to where the Auckland Airport shares actually came from and were derived from.

I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the community of “South Side”, South Auckland, particularly in the ex - Manukau City Council days, particularly to the ratepayers and the residents who were living, at that time, pre-2010, in Māngere, Ōtara, Papatoetoe, Clevedon, Howick, and Botany. If you were a resident or a ratepayer before 2010, you would have understood that you were part of this growing pot of funds of Auckland Airport shares. I want to pay tribute to you. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, fa‘afetai, and thank you.

For those of you listening at home, it was explicitly those living in those areas who supported Manukau Council in terms of their patience, their foresight, and their business acumen of investing and purchasing, originally, those Auckland Airport shares. I understand that the Manukau Council teams at that time were strongly opposed to the sale of council-owned strategic assets, and largely due to the mind-set at that time of those who valued public airport shareholding. I want to pay tribute and quickly acknowledge the members of council, specifically Councillor Alf Filipaina, Councillor Lotu Fuli, and the board members of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, because of their strong stance of where the Auckland Airport shares came from.

We are now in 2025—get that—and through this bill, the main purpose will be to provide the statutory protection of this trust money, and rather than be spent on other priorities of Tāmaki Makaurau, the Auckland Future Fund that has now been established will do and provide that investment for Auckland. I also understand that because of the sale, of the transaction that happened, $1.3 billion is now in the Auckland Future Fund. I do want to thank the mayor and the Auckland Council Governing Body for having the robust discussion and, then, being able to move forward with the transaction, particularly with the fiery exchanges of elected members, to where the journey of investment is for the previous Auckland Airport shares.

We’ve heard a lot of our members discuss that the Auckland Future Fund, which is now a council-controlled organisation, is part of Auckland Council’s financial strategy to protect and strengthen Auckland’s fiscal and financial resilience. The trust members are obligated to keep that promise for Auckland. It will be utilised for the benefit of current and future communities because it is the largest populated area in Aotearoa, with 1.7 million people, and growing at 1 percent per day.

My cautionary point would be, as I finish up, that this local bill requires the protection via legislation to protect the real value of council’s intergenerational asset, to continue for current and future Auckland generations, and to provide strong returns to the Auckland Council to fund future services and infrastructure. It will be very important that should other councils’ strategic-owned assets be put forward for consideration to head down the same trajectory, I strongly want to emphasise that the trust members, that the Auckland Council, speak and have the extensive public consultation, because we know Auckland is a very diverse community, a community of many voices, including iwi, and it’s really important that Aucklanders get to have their say. Fa‘afetai.

First of all, I’m humbled to receive the support across the House for the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill to pass on the first reading.

First of all, I’m here to address some of the issues or some of the concerns being raised by the previous speaker. First of all, I agree with our speaker across the House: Auckland’s success is the key. I think this is the reason why Auckland Council decided to bring this bill, because they believe this is the Government that can bring Auckland back on track. This is the reason why we’re having that, because one of the objectives for Auckland Future Fund Trust Limited is to set up a new approach, partnering with central government to provide regional leadership and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.

They believe in a National-led Government; they believe we can bring Auckland back on track and deliver a better outcome for Auckland. I can see that my colleagues here—Cam Brewer from Upper Harbour; we’ve got Rima Nakhle from Takanini—all work very hard every single day to make sure we have a better outcome for Aucklanders. The Opposition also questioned about the choice of the members to bring the bill to the House. I just want to assure them that this is the decision of Auckland Council, and it’s also after a discussion as well. They wanted to choose an MP who always puts people as their top priority. They wanted to choose someone who is passionate to advocate for people. They wanted to choose someone that is more community focused and people focused. I believe that that is the reason why they chose me to bring the bill to the House.

Also, I want to address the concern raised by our member from the Green Party as well. How will the fund be benefiting Auckland, especially in environmental issues? Basically, the Auckland Future Fund is focusing on maximising the contribution to Auckland by providing a strong return and protecting the real value of the fund. The distribution from the fund will deliver the outcomes of the council, and Auckland Council has set six major outcomes for this year, and one of them is environmental and cultural heritage. There’s no doubt that the return and the distribution of the Auckland Future Fund will be paying on that sector as well, to make sure environmental issues can be addressed as well.

My colleague Tim Costley was talking about a local bill selling ice cream, but I just want to make sure this bill does more than that. This bill is about benefiting every single Aucklander, and it’s very important for the future generations of Aucklanders as well, so I’m very much looking forward to working with colleagues, both on my side and across the House, on the Governance and Administration Committee.

Also, in terms of other issues being raised about this, the fund is consulting with iwi and it has a Māori focus as well. I can tell you that in terms of the set-up of that Auckland Future Fund, basically they have consulted with the Māori Advisory Group as well, and they are actually working on developing and achieving a Māori outcome plan, and this is appropriate for the organisation, and making sure this is reflected in the scope and the nature of its activities as well. One of the Māori strategy’s outcomes will be the main focus for Auckland Council as well.

Lastly, again, I’m humbled to receive the support across the House for this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill as well, and looking forward to having more discussion during the select committee process to ensure the bill achieves its purpose, and for the benefit of Auckland as well.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill.