Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill

I move, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to rise today for the third reading of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. I have had the honour of carrying this local bill through Parliament on behalf of Auckland Council from its introduction to this final stage. Reaching the third reading and seeing this bill likely to pass is an incredible moment. This is the first legislation I have carried through Parliament, and it has been a remarkable journey working with Auckland Council and colleagues across the House.

Knowing this bill will soon make a real difference for Aucklanders is truly exciting, a moment I will always remember. Throughout the development of this bill, I have had the privilege of engaging with colleagues from across the House. Many members generously shared their time, offered insights, and provided constructive feedback. Your engagement has strengthened this legislation, and I sincerely thank you for your willingness to listen, discuss, and contribute to a bill that will benefit Aucklanders for generations.

The purpose of this bill is straightforward: to ensure that the Auckland Future Fund is governed and managed as a long-term financial investment for the benefit of current and future generations of Aucklanders, with the aim of maintaining or even increasing the real value of its capital over time. In other words, this bill is about securing a sustainable financial foundation for Auckland now and for generations to come.

As Auckland is the heart of New Zealand, the benefit of this fund will extend far beyond the city itself. Improvements in Auckland will generate positive impacts for other regions across the country such as Northland, Tauranga, and Hamilton as well.

The Auckland Future Fund was formally launched in September 2024 and initially capitalised with the council’s remaining shares in Auckland International Airport Limited. Auckland Council’s longterm plan identified this fund as a key mechanism to diversify investments, protect the real value of major assets, fund services, and reduce reliance on rates. This bill formalised and strengthened this arrangement by embedding key principles of governance, investment, and distribution in statute. It ensured the fund remained a long-term financial investment and established a 75 percent supermajority first hold of the governing body for any decision to depart from the fund’s core principles.

The Auckland Future Fund spreads risk across sectors, regions, and types of investment, reducing exposure to uncertainty. It represents a shift in how we think about public finance. Whether they rely solely on rates, debt, or central government funding, this fund provides a pathway to a long-term financial resilience. It gives Auckland Council a tool to invest in the city’s future while shading it from short-term uncertainties and political pressures, strengthening Auckland’s ability to face future challenges with confidence. The fund is expected to generate an additional $40 million per year for the council from the 2025 to 2026 financial year. This means less pressure on rates, greater financial flexibility, and a stronger buffer for the city in times of uncertainty.

In the 2024 to 2025 financial year, the fund produced $38.4 million in distribution income, compared to just $10.2 million in dividends they would have received from retaining the airport shares. Combined, both the capital value and income mean the council is currently $100 million better off than it would have been without the fund. These are real measurable gains that demonstrate that the fund is already delivering strong financial outcome for Aucklanders. This legislation embeds credence and accountability in laws, and ensures the fund is managed carefully and wisely so it will continue to benefit Aucklanders for generations.

Looking to the future, this bill represents long-term planning and responsible financial management. It provides Auckland with a stable foundation to continue growing, investing in essential services, and meeting future challenges. It ensures the city wealth is managed wisely for the benefit of both current residents and future generations.

I would like to acknowledge the Auckland Council, particularly Mayor Wayne Brown and Councillor Christine Fletcher, who is actually present in the House today—welcome—for their leadership in establishing the Auckland Future Fund.

Thank you also to the Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown, for his support. I am especially grateful to both Mayor Brown and Minister Simeon Brown for putting their faith in me to carry this legislation. I also wish to recognise Auckland Council Head of Governance Stu Mullin and all council and parliamentary staff who have contributed to bringing this bill to the House. I also want to acknowledge the chair and all the members of the Governance and Administration Committee, as well as all the Aucklanders who took the time to share their feedback on this legislation.

Mayor Wayne Brown has asked me to pass on his sincere thanks and to read a message on his behalf: “The Auckland Future Fund is a long-term investment for Aucklanders, and this bill is the strongest protection possible to ensure the money is only ever used for what the fund was intended for: improving Auckland’s financial resilience.

“This is a sensible idea and an example of Wellington actually doing what Aucklanders want. The fund is already contributing far more than the airport shares it came from, and that will benefit Aucklanders in the future. I don’t go to Wellington, so Dr Carlos Cheung, reading this on my behalf, is the closest I will get to being in Parliament. Thank you to all the MPs from across the House for coming together to support this bill and to Dr Carlos Cheung for sponsoring it. This is a good example of Wellington working with Auckland on a sensible idea. I look forward on this continuing.”

I also got a message from Councillor Christine Fletcher, and she asked me to pass it on to the House as well: “In suggesting the establishment of the Auckland Future Fund to the Mayor, I recognised the huge financial challenges facing Auckland and the need to do things differently if we were to succeed in increasing our own rates revenue for council, in order to meet its operation.

“I wish to acknowledge James Colvin for his collaboration in working with me to build a business case to present to the Mayor as part of the long-term funding plan. The greatest risk I faced in developing this was to lose the trust of the public in the misuse of the funds. Therefore, I warmly welcome this strong legislative protection for the fund that will give the public confidence that this legacy will be respected now and into the future.

“I wish to record my gratitude to the directors of the CCO, chair Chris Swasbrook and the members David Callanan and Greg Strobo for their careful, yes, visionary approach to the fund and testimony, and acknowledge Megan Holley and the Auckland Council staff who have worked closely with the board. I sincerely thank Carlos Cheung and all the members of the Parliament who have guided this legislation with careful stewardship through the House for Aucklanders.”

In conclusion, with the support of all the colleagues across the House, this important legislation will pass, providing a strong financial foundation for Aucklanders today and for generation to come. The Auckland Future Fund ensures Auckland is ready to meet the challenges ahead with confidence and care. I’m looking forward to families in Mount Roskill and the wider Auckland community benefiting from this fund now and in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I was going to start by thanking Dr Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill to the House, but he thanked himself—twice—so I’m not sure that that’s necessary. I do, however, think it’s necessary to acknowledge and commend the hard work and creativity of Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council in drafting this bill. The council has demonstrated professionalism and a strong commitment to ensuring that Auckland will have the capital funds to support the city’s future, and we, of course, support that, and we also support this bill.

I think it’s important to note that there was nervousness and there was criticism from some of our Auckland representatives who wanted to keep some ownership of their locality’s biggest asset. As has been mentioned by Dr Carlos Cheung, this fund is primarily supported by airport share sales that will provide at least $1.31 billion to the Auckland Future Fund. It’s important to note that the former Manukau City Council was very vigilant on holding on to their assets, and so you can understand why the South Auckland - based councillors feel a sense of ownership and loss with this particular asset. In saying that, at least in this instance, it has been invested in what we think is an appropriate manner. That doesn’t mean that asset sales proposed by the other side of the House would necessarily be done in the same way. In fact, I doubt that they would.

While the bill is a step forward for the city of Auckland, it does not change the fact that the Government continues to take Auckland backwards and we face several challenges in Auckland at the moment. As a result of National’s economic mismanagement in Auckland, Aucklanders continue to face an unemployment rate up to 6.1 percent in the June 2020 quarter—the worst of all regions. We face increasing food crisis prices, up another 5 percent on last year; new vehicle registration fees; increased public transport fees; and increasing food insecurity in the city. It is important to note that, because despite this very good idea by the Auckland Council, and the Auckland Council being able to think ahead and futureproof Auckland’s future, the Government, yes, have adopted this bill and taken it forward for them alongside Dr Carlos Cheung—I thank him for doing that—but we have to recognise that Auckland faces so many challenges and that this Government has done very little to alleviate the pressure for Auckland City. However, it is about the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, and I stand here today to say—it feels like it’s been a very long process, but I’m glad that we’re at the third reading and we support this bill.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to join with the Hon Carmel Sepuloni in congratulating Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill to the House. I had had a number of conversations with our mayor, Wayne Brown, about this intended bill when it was first being drafted up and understand why it landed with a member of the Government, given the convenience of working with the Government of the day.

I just want, firstly, to articulate for those who may be following along at home what this bill actually does, because I think it’s important to note that this bill does not action the selling of assets. That has already been done. What this bill does do is set up a framework for the fund that is to be established with the revenue that is generated from the sale of those assets, with requisite guardrails around it—namely, to ensure that there is a protection of the real value of Auckland Council’s intergenerational assets so that they can continue to benefit future generations.

I think it is really important to note what this bill does and what this bill does not do—that it does not sell these assets but, instead, sets up this fund and the guardrails around it—because I need to be crystal clear that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand unequivocally opposes the sale of our public assets. I am concerned about how, potentially, at some point in the not too distant future, commentary on this piece of legislation may potentially be taken out of context.

We’re stoked to see that the Government, and particularly the member Dr Carlos Cheung, is listening to Auckland, to Tāmaki-makau-rau, and to local government with this plea, but what we plea to the Government is to be consistent and principled in the listening that it is citing it is doing in creating and passing this legislation today, because Aucklanders, and even actually our mayor, are crystal clear that what Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland needs is surface light rail. We need public transport systems that bust our congestion and that are adequately funded. We also need meaningful and real action on homelessness, which looks like providing housing for everybody who needs it. Also, we know that the majority of Aucklanders agree with the need for far faster and more serious climate action.

However, unfortunately, what we’re hearing from this Government in response to all of these pleas, both from Aucklanders and from local governments across the country, is that what their intention is to do is to respond with a rates cap, to minimise the ability of local government to have that direct accountability to their constituencies when it comes to raising the revenue to invest in infrastructure, to invest in the likes of public transport and the likes of that climate action. Unfortunately, this bill does not touch the sides on the far broader and more significant issues that face local governments around this country, which successive Governments, actually, have commissioned reports on time and time again, to tell them exactly the same thing, but then do nothing to act upon that advice.

We had, almost 15 years ago, the Shand inquiry into local government, which told us that local government does not have the revenue necessary to invest in meeting its mandate. More than that, we had the Productivity Commission review of the Shand inquiry about six or so years ago, which said exactly the same thing. Then, about a year or two ago, we had the Future for Local Government Review, which again told us that we need to resource local government if we want it to work effectively, let alone meet its democratic mandate. However, unfortunately, what we’re met with right now is a ticking time bomb of the situation with local government in this country, and I here want to point to three particular things which are all deeply interrelated.

We have seen that there has been an historical rates increase for local governments all across the country as a result of rates being made artificially low for far too long and cost pressures accumulating. That has simultaneously been met with so many of our local governments being faced with the need to make their books balance under the auspices of a Government that is not willing to do its part in the partnership of meeting the needs of our communities. So many of our local governments are also being forced to sell off assets, which means that there is less of those assets available to leverage against should our local governments like to borrow into the future. The third point is that also so many of our local governments have had their credit ratings downgraded as a result of the Government chopping and changing the plan when it comes to three waters.

All of those three things point to a pretty bleak picture at the moment for the state of local government in this country, and I guess in my contribution what I am asking for from this Government and from all members in this House is a recognition of the fact that we are elected by precisely the same people who our locally elected representatives are. We hold the same responsibility, but we hold so much more of the budget. If I recall, off the top of my head, correctly, we are amongst the lowest in the OECD for the proportion of spending that occurs discretionarily within the local government sphere compared to the central government sphere. In the OECD, I believe, it’s an average of about 30 percent, but here in Aotearoa New Zealand, it’s less than half of that, at 11 percent. If people in this place want to bang their chest about localism and want to bang their chest about working in partnership with local government, we need to see that consistency and that principle carried on into the future.

In a nutshell, we support this legislation today, again, because it does not sell those assets but puts in place the guardrails around how those resources are to be managed into the future. I would just like to, in speaking to the broader context in summation, point out that if we are to go down the track, as the Prime Minister has foreshadowed in his public commentary this week, of the sell-off of our public assets and the need for a supposed mature conversation, I would broaden the remit of that mature conversation to one of how we are running our economy and who we are running it for. Our country is also well overdue a mature conversation on who is carrying the tax burden and, ultimately, the kinds of investment that we can make in increasing our productive capacity and in meeting all of the rhetoric that this Government talks about when it comes to growth. In fact, if you are to measure the actions of this Government against its own rhetoric, what you see from their shredding of public investment in our public services and in our public infrastructure is actually the diminishing and the whittling away of that productive capacity and of that very growth they say they care about. This is how you go about killing the golden goose.

In my final remarks, I just want to acknowledge and celebrate the incredible creativity and talent and innovation of Aucklanders and call upon this Government to do what it knows it actually can, which is to properly resource the infrastructure and our communities to help them to realise their potential. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is what Auckland Council is doing with the future fund; it deserves real credit. I want to acknowledge the former Mayor of Auckland, Christine Fletcher, who was a hero of mine as a young engineer for promoting and sponsoring fantastic infrastructure projects like the Britomart Railway station, and what has flowed from that? Incredible developments like Britomart Square and so many others. It’s wonderful to see you here, Christine Fletcher.

This bill, this future fund, is courageous, it’s practical, and it’s a grown-up move, because the adult conversation New Zealand needs to have right now is about how we manage publicly owned assets and whether we’re going to keep all of these old things in the shed or we’re going to bring them out and we’re going to dust them off and we’re going to see if we can turn some of these old assets into better, more productive assets that actually allow our city to grow.

I just want to refer to the member who’s just spoken, the member for Auckland Central, Chlöe Swarbrick, who described cost pressures facing local government. She’s absolutely right. She described council’s struggle to balance the books; she’s absolutely right. But what she failed to mention was that after many, many years of councils raising rates or taking on debt, they failed to make the tough choices. When they’ve got billions and billions of dollars’ worth of assets, like Auckland Council does—it’s got stadiums, it’s got land, it’s got all kinds of things. If you can’t make tough choices about which assets do we really need to keep for the benefit of our city and our people, and which assets do we really, really need to build and buy, and can we make a trade-off—if you can’t make those tough choices, your city just grinds to a halt. The growth happens, but ever more slowly and in an ever more costly way, pricing people out of homes and futures.

It means employers who want to hire people—the new employees, the people applying for jobs, say, “I’d love to take the job, but there’s nowhere I can afford to live.” It means businesses who want to set up say, “Well, it would only work if I could do three loads a day, but, based on traffic congestion, I can only do two.” If we can’t solve those problems—and one of the ways we solve them is by recycling assets into new assets that we need—then we’re not having that tough conversation. We’re enabling bad behaviour and we’re limiting how, and how fast, our wonderful cities like Auckland can grow.

I applaud the council and I applaud Christine Fletcher and, of course, Dr Carlos Cheung, the sponsor of the bill, somebody who’s demonstrated that he listens to the needs of Aucklanders, as I know he did when he listened to Aucklanders about the speed humps and all the ridiculous things that Auckland Transport were doing to make our lives worse but weren’t saving any lives or the planet. Carlos Cheung listened to Auckland. This is a great example of that. Congratulations, Carlos. Bringing this to completion today is a great example of a local MP listening to local people and delivering a solution.

I just want to come back to this issue of lazy assets, because, for decades, central government and local government had both sat on lazy assets: ports, airports, buildings, all kinds of bits of land, growing gorse or barbed wire or rusting machinery. I know—I’ve seen it, because I worked at Auckland Council for three years in an asset management role. I saw it with my own eyes.

I saw people in one part of the city saying, “We want a new dog park.”, council saying, “We can build it for you, maybe a million dollars.”, then other people like me saying, “Hey you know, if people turn up in their really flash cars with dogs worth ten thousands of dollars—you know, a big pack of dogs—maybe you could charge them a small fee to use this dog park?” People looked at me like I was mad. But you know what, if people can afford to pay for a service, maybe we should ask them to chip in a little bit.

Arena Williams: Anti - dog park. How’s that going to go in Mt Roskill, Carlos?

SIMON COURT: So many lazy assets. Unfortunately for some of the Labour members barracking across the Chamber, they honestly believe in fiscal unicorns—that there are these money unicorns that fly around showering money on local government, any project that Rachel Brooking or Arena Williams thinks up. Maybe ratepayers or some wealthy banker—I don’t know—maybe some oil baron is going to turn up and buy it for you. They’re not. Aucklanders and Kiwis need to make tough choices.

Celia Wade-Brown: [Standing near Table of the House] Not the oil barons, thank you very much.

SIMON COURT: It’s not sustainable, what they’re proposing—

Tom Rutherford: Please don’t speak while you’re on your feet.

SIMON COURT: —raising taxes, raising rates, borrowing money, and not making tough choices. The Auckland Future Fund changes that. It takes money locked up in the past and invests it in the future. Asset recycling is about adult behaviour—unlocking capital from things councils don’t need to own—

Cameron Luxton: Paint the honesty box green, Rachel Brooking.

SIMON COURT: —and reinvesting it where it delivers value. That’s right, Cameron Luxton. Cameron Luxton, an MP from Tauranga—he knows what it’s like to live in a city where tough choices need to be made if you want your city to grow. That’s what responsible businesses do every day. That’s what families do every day. They sell one investment. They sell one investment to make a better one. Government and councils like Auckland should be no different.

The fund is projected a $40 million dividend next year. That’s not just a number; it’s real relief for ratepayers and it’s new money for infrastructure and services. But there’s a challenge, because if Auckland really wants to deliver on its growth ambitions, if it wants to be a world-class city, it’s going to have to be even more courageous and it’s going to have to go further. This council is going to need, like many others around New Zealand, to take an aggressive and innovative approach to leverage this fund and the other lazy assets they have on their balance sheet, because you can’t run a busy city if your balance sheet looks like a museum collection. The value of an airport or a port isn’t just in owning it; it’s using it to build what comes next.

I want to talk about the Port of Auckland—potentially a future opportunity for the type of asset recycling into the Auckland Future Fund that the airport was. It’s great to see Auckland setting up the port to become a truly commercial and profitable business. That’s setting the right direction, and if the port performs as it should—efficiently, safely, profitably—it could one day be a very attractive investment for private capital looking to partner with Auckland. That could be a KiwiSaver fund; it could be a local infrastructure or an international infrastructure investor.

These things are all available to New Zealanders right now, but what we need is courageous leaders like the former Mayor of Auckland and Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher and others who see the benefit of this. You think about the amount of capital tied up in an asset like the port. Councils don’t have to sell the underlying land, but what they can do is market the opportunity to run a business for a certain period of time and then use the funds that an investor is prepared to put into that to recycle into the next asset.

No one is talking about giving up the land and the future opportunities that presents. That’s how we build housing, we build transport and water infrastructure without incurring endless new debt. The bigger picture—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Privatise everything.

SIMON COURT: —this is now New Zealand’s conversation. I’m hearing it wherever I go, even in places like Dunedin, Rachel Brooking. I know they’re a long way from Wellington and civilisation, but even in Dunedin, they’re asking questions: how do we pay for the things we need, like a new town landfill? How do we pay to upgrade all of these buildings that need some kind of seismic repair? What assets do we own that we could recycle into something that we really, truly, desperately need?

We can’t keep taxing and borrowing for ever. We need to start reinvesting, and we can do that by recycling lazy assets. We can make our public balance sheets work just as hard as the people who fund them. Auckland’s leading the way; the rest of the country should follow. This isn’t about ideology. I want to reassure members, including the member for Auckland Central, Chlöe Swarbrick, who was concerned that this might lead to further discussions about asset recycling. I promise you it’s not about ideology; it’s about doing what’s practical. It’s about making the kind of choices that households and businesses make every day, that councils and Government have been insulated and isolated from for decades because they’ve been able to lean on taxpayers, lean on ratepayers, take on more debt. We saw what the previous Labour Government did—took on $60 billion—

Dan Bidois: $66 billion.

SIMON COURT: Sixty-six—Dan Bidois corrects me—during COVID. We’ve got absolutely nothing for it—not a hospital, not a school, not a road, not a port. Absolutely nothing. That shows you what lazy behaviour gets you.

Helen White: But we did do it; we built a whole lot of shit.

SIMON COURT: It gets you nothing, Helen White. That is why we need to use what we have to build what we need. That’s what ACT calls “fixing what matters”. I commend this bill.

Point of order. I was waiting for the member to finish his contribution. Madam Speaker, we had a member come to the Table and make contributions to the debate whilst standing at the Table. I would ask for your reflections on what took place there, please.

I saw what happened and I saw you intervene with a ruling and I thought the matter was dealt with at the time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find myself somewhat unexpectedly talking on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill and I was feeling a little bit sheepish on that. But then Simon Court decided to wade into Dunedin issues, so now I’m not going to hold back—I’m going to give in. I’ll tell you what I think.

The first thing I’d like to say is that I join in the congratulations to Dr Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill forward. Local bills aren’t that common in this Parliament, but I too have had this honour with the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill back in the 52nd Parliament. That was a bill that that was far smaller in scale than this. It was a about local water scheme where there was a stock reticulation scheme where there was a dispute about the ownership or they were trying to sort that out, and they did that through a local bill in the Parliament. I do know what a great honour it is. There are a lot of MPs in Auckland, and that you had been asked to bring this forward is a real feather in your cap.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, and in saying we are supporting the bill, what I’m really saying is that we respect the decision that has been made by the democratically elected council by a 75 percent supermajority. I note that one of councillors and a former mayor, Mayor Fletcher, is here in the building—of course, a former member of this Parliament.

What I would ask—and this is an ideological divide; it absolutely is, and let’s not put the blinkers on this. New Zealand First would not be selling this if we had any part in this. Auckland Airport is an absolutely gold standard, blue chip investment. It’s far from rusting barbed wire and gorse. It’s under a major expansion, which is probably why the dividend is pretty modest at the moment—because it’s in a major expansion phase. It is a really important asset not just for Auckland but for New Zealand.

Simon Court did raise the issue in Dunedin. We had exactly this issue come up recently, and Rachel Brooking would know this well. With the local lines company, Aurora, the council were looking to do exactly this, and the parsimonious southerners, the Scottish Presbyterians down there, said, “No, we’re not doing this.” The council tried to, and there was a local revolt, because we know what a long-term strategic asset looks like. We didn’t go down that path, and we now have a $1.5 billion asset that has almost a guaranteed return as a lines company. We didn’t go down that path. However, the Auckland Council has, and New Zealand First will support this bill under those criteria. This is a local democracy issue.

I think one of the reasons why Dunedin didn’t go down this path was because there was an underlying lack of trust—that a big lump sum of money like this going back to a council would just be squandered over time. If you look at Auckland, what was the ASB, the Auckland Savings Bank? That was a local asset that now returns billions of dollars to the Australian economy, not our economy. That’s what happens when you sell your assets.

But this is a decision that has been made by Auckland Council, and bringing it here to this House is a very smart move to codify in law what the criteria are, what the guardrails are, to make sure that it isn’t squandered and is used for its intended purpose so that there is some hope that wherever it’s invested will be within the intent of the original decision makers and why the decision to sell the airport shares was taken. I think it’s really important that we have these guardrails, so, again, I congratulate the council for being forward-looking and recognising the fact that we need to protect what is a major investment, a major lump sum of money, so that it is used appropriately and not squandered in any sorts of vanity projects that we are somewhat prone to seeing around the country.

This is a smart move, and it puts at arm’s length the mechanics of how this money will be invested and protected against overly zealous future councils blowing the lot. That’s the New Zealand First position. I think we’ve made pretty clear. It is an interesting ideological debate, but it’s a bit of a phoney war at this stage. We’re debating someone else’s assets, but come the election, I’m sure that this will be a live issue. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Now that I am safely behind this side of the wall, I can continue. I do rise to support this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill at its third reading, but I want to draw a few challenges and contrasts. This bill was good legislative practice, both in its substance and in the way it got here. Although it’s actually fairly small, fairly straightforward, it still went through the whole select committee process, and we all agreed. We on the select committee asked the Auckland Council quite a number of questions. We had submissions from other organisations—not a huge number. We were able to hear every submission as a committee.

This bill is putting the proceeds from asset sales into a long-term fund. It is trusting the council to manage its own assets, and, in a way, that’s almost quite patronising. But given the attacks on local government from the Government benches, I think it is still worth noting your support for this bill. At the moment, the Governance and Administration Committee is debating the extent, with the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, to which we will let local government do anything. I think it’s most unfortunate when the blame for local government rates rises is—what’s the word—very shallow, because you take a few projects that you don’t like and pretend that that’s the bulk of the capital or operational spending. That is absolutely not the case.

I would really urge any member of this Parliament who is interested in local government to go back to the 2019 report from the late, lamented Productivity Commission—it’s still there; it’s on the Treasury website—and have a little look at that international comparison of the responsibilities and the funding, and you will see how New Zealand depends so much on property taxes. There is very little partnership in other funding with central government. As a percentage of GDP, New Zealand’s local government spending is less than 4 percent. Whereas there are many places—France, Korea, Japan, and, of course, the Scandinavian countries, Poland, Spain, Germany. You wonder why their transport infrastructure, whether it’s cycle ways or roads or rail, is better than ours. Sometimes it’s because they spend more money on it.

In New Zealand, central government is spending over 40 percent of GDP, which is around about 10 times as much as local government, and yet, local government has got 25 percent of the public infrastructure. It is just not fair to slam local government for not being able to look after that infrastructure effectively. Forty percent of GDP might worry you, but I would say Finland, the UK, Iceland—they’re all well above 40 percent, and they’re very good countries to have your education, health, and infrastructure.

Given that the previous speeches went wide about local government, thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging that broader conversation about central government letting local government do the right thing, agreed by the local people. This bill is a glimmer of hope that parties can work together for the benefit of local government. Thank you.

This is turning into a really interesting Wednesday afternoon, as we delve into the depths of ideology. We’ve just heard from the Greens, who said, “Will the Government let local government do anything at all?” Yet Celia Wade-Brown’s leader, Chlöe Swarbrick, was the one standing up and saying they shouldn’t have been selling the airport—“We shouldn’t have been selling that.”—trying to change what Auckland Council democratically chose to do, saying it was the golden goose. I think that party is full of dead ducks, personally, but a golden goose is what they called it.

She celebrated the fact that we heard from all the submitters. We heard from two out of 12. One of those was the Auckland Council, you’ll be shocked to hear! We heard from Dr Carlos Cheung. What a great advocate he has been for Auckland. I have no doubt—no doubt—that he will be here for many years as the MP for Mt Roskill, because he’s such a strong advocate for his community and so well respected. I’ve had the privilege of seeing that as I’ve travelled around and met people from the Mount Roskill area—just how well respected he is and how hard he works.

In fact, I was on the plane with—I’d better not name him—a former All Black the other day, and we were having a great chat about how the team were going. He said, “Do you know what, something strange happened.”—and this relates to the bill. He said, “Something strange happened the other day. For the first time ever, someone knocked on my door, an MP.”—because I talked about how we go knocking on doors. I said, “Where do you live?” He said, “Mount Roskill.” I said, “Was it a tall Chinese gentleman?” He said, “Yes, it was.” That just shows how hard Carlos Cheung is working for the people of Auckland, and this bill is yet one more example of the great work he’s doing.

Of course, we’ve had New Zealand First saying they wouldn’t sell anything. There’s been a lot of talk about future funds recently.

Glen Bennett: Good talk.

TIM COSTLEY: “Good talk,” says someone from somewhere in the country. New Zealand First just said that we shouldn’t sell anything. There’ll be a future fund that we’ll put assets into, but you wouldn’t sell anything to get the capital to put into that fund. I’m intrigued to see how that works.

Even less detail comes from the other side of the House, as they stand up and say we should take this bill and have this on a national level, a future fund for all of New Zealand, based on the Singapore model—but you wouldn’t sell anything; you’d transfer assets into it. You wouldn’t sell them, but you’d grow the fund. I don’t know how that works, because in the places like Singapore, where it works, you put assets in, which is what Auckland Council have done here. There’s a lot of debate, and we’ve heard it over the last hour. Should the airport be sold? Should the shares not be sold? It’s too late; they have been sold. This decision was made. It’s part of the long-term plan from last year. Auckland Council made the decision. This is about what we do with the funds now, going into an account where they can be used, they will be grown, they can be invested somewhere else. We can sell something else. That’s how we’re going to trade up and get more money for Auckland City.

That’s what this is all about, and on the other side of the House, they’d say, “Well, you wouldn’t sell anything”—but magically it will be growing! The Green Party was saying, “We’ll just tax everyone more, borrow some more. That’ll be the answer.” It is absolute insanity, but I think it’s important to just remind ourselves that what’s not up for debate in this bill is whether you should be selling shares in Auckland Airport. Auckland Council have taken that decision. There was a democratic decision made by Auckland, by the people they have voted to represent them, and now it’s about what we do with that money and how that fund is handled. Again, this is what Auckland Council have asked for. We are doing our due diligence over the legal aspects of the bill, looking at the legislation, making sure it’s going to serve the correct purpose, but that decision has been made. It’s really interesting to hear the ideology of the other side, who want to borrow more, want to tax more, want to somehow not sell the assets to get more value out of them. The mathematics is confusing. What we’re talking about here is what we are going to do with this legislation.

Really, it looks pretty simple when you read it. It’ll be a four-page Act when it comes into force. I know this has been highlighted, but the Allan McLean fans in this House will know that there’s a lot of talk about when a local bill or a private bill should come to pass. When should it just be done through a trust? Well, the “Takapuna Ice Cream Bill” was a really interesting one that we’ve just passed through this House as well. Why can’t this just be a fund? As we’ve just said, the decision was made by Aucklanders about what to do with their shares. The decision has been made that they’ll put it in a fund that will continually grow and be used to pay for the things that they’ve consulted on in their long-term plan, the kinds of things that Aucklanders might want in the future—I assume, to leave Auckland!—but other things as well. Why would it need this Act of Parliament?

One last time—this is the last time we’ll have time to cover this in the House—the reason is it is slightly different to something like the Allan McLean trust variation bill that we went over last year, where it was already an existing Act of Parliament and the law needed to be changed. We all remember the story of Allan McLean: leaving Scotland, coming out to Australia; gold mining; his brother’s life being threatened; Fan So, the Chinese man that helped him to escape; they moved to New Zealand; he sets up a refuge for women and young girls in New Zealand—the great work he did. There are a lot of fans on this side of the House for what Allan McLean has done, but the difference in this case is that there is no Act of Parliament that exists. The reason we’re creating one is almost entirely for what we read in clause 11. It’s about the distribution of funds.

What they have said is, “Hey, you should always ensure that the total of the fund is growing each year—that the balance either stays even or goes up.”, but they have said there are specific requirements that you can meet if you want to spend it down. I think back to the 2011 Rugby World Cup. I was a fan of a big waterfront stadium in Auckland. That was the opportunity. Richie McCaw was always going to lead the men to victory, as he did. That was the chance, winning at home. Could we have a big waterfront stadium so we wouldn’t have Helen Clark and the wokes complaining about concerts late at night? But the decision wasn’t made; it was a big spend of money. But there may come a time that, with some kind of asset like that, Auckland says, “This is worth it. We’re going to spend down the capital in the future fund, but it will create opportunities. It will create growth. It might create employment. It might create more tourism, more hospitality.”

Carl Bates: Explain what those are. Labour don’t understand what they are.

TIM COSTLEY: That’s a good point, Mr Carl Bates, MP for Whanganui—great man. The reason we’re going to do that is there are specific criteria, and what they have said is that there must be at least 75 percent of members on council who are entitled to vote that vote for the resolution.

Now, that 75 percent is really important, because otherwise, under normal law, it could only go up to 66 percent. To get to 75 percent, what they call the “supermajority”, to make sure we’re really protecting these cases, so that you can’t easily tilt the numbers on council and come in and spend down the fund and just fritter it away on the kinds of pet projects that that everyone hates—to protect that at 75 percent—it has to be set by an Act of Parliament. We tested this in the select committee. We looked at this carefully. We looked at this closely. There isn’t another way around it. That, for me, is the bit that meets the threshold to say, yes, it is worth us setting aside time in the House, the time of Parliament, of the House staff that work here, of all those that work in this House: the Clerks, the Hansard team, security guards, everyone that is part of this—and we’re so grateful for their help in this place. It’s worth us all putting the time into this to protect it with that 75 percent supermajority.

I should point out, in fairness to council—because I do think they’ve done their due diligence in this—it is not just a 75 percent majority that we are enshrining in legislation, but also that they have to meet these grounds: that the proposed distribution, the spending of that money, will achieve a benefit for Auckland that is better for the current and future communities of Auckland than just maintaining or growing the cash. Hey, we could just grow the cash and that gets us a 5 percent return maybe next year. No, it is better for us now and into the future—there’s a future focus—that we invest the money, that we spend the money, and that reducing the real value of the capital is the best means of achieving that benefit. In other words, have we considered another way to build the stadium? Can we do both things at the same time on two sorts of parallel railway tracks?

Also, there has to be consultation take place explicitly in the long-term plan. You can’t just come up with this idea at a council meeting and suddenly convince everyone “Do you know what? Let’s do that waterfront stadium. We’ve got the Auckland Future Fund. We just need three-quarters of us to agree.”—“Yeah, let’s do it.” No, you have to actually go out, consult the public through that longterm plan process, and there will be a chance for the Auckland Council to do that in the next 18 months. There are really clear, I think, criteria that explain to us and give Aucklanders some certainty that this bill is the right option and that their future needs are being protected in terms of assets that are being sold. They can rest easy knowing they’ve got MPs like Melissa Lee and Cameron Brewer and Dan Bidois and Carlos Cheung, who are in the House right now fighting for them, fighting for their future, enshrining this.

We don’t need the crazy ideas on false economics from the other side of the House, the dead ducks from the Greens, or the ideological debates. What we need to do is support Dr Carlos Cheung, MP for Mt Roskill. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tāmaki-makau-rau, Tāmaki Herehere, Tāmaki Herenga Waka. The Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, today, Labour will be supporting. It’s been a long time coming, and can I acknowledge Mayor Wayne Brown; Councillor Fletcher, who is with us here today; Stuart and the team in the mayor’s office who have been doing the hard yards, answering questions in the background and supporting us to get through this third reading today.

It is a good thing, this future fund. Labour supports this bill and its provision of statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund. It will help provide Aucklanders with the confidence they can know that it will help current and future councils to invest productively, helping to support our city to grow and to become more prosperous. The fund operates as a council-controlled organisation and regional fund under high-level direction from council but through an independent structure where the trustees board makes key decisions. This is estimated to return 7.24 percent per annum over the long term, with 5.24 percent return to council as an annual cash distribution, and the rest protecting the real value of the fund. It is approximately $60 million to $70 million per year returned to the council from 202526. That is money invested in Aucklanders; that is real money, real returns, and real investment in our greatest city in this country.

I do acknowledge the further investment that is required back in Auckland, back in transport, back in infrastructure that has been cut under this Government. But for today, we will celebrate that this bill is going through, that it’s an achievement of Mayor Wayne Brown and of all of our councillors here that have done work on this today. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise and contribute to this debate about three very important topics that are near and dear to my heart: Auckland, the future, and funds. It’s great to be here. It’s a great day for Mount Roskill. I would like to start out by acknowledging the hard-working member from Mt Roskill, Dr Carlos Cheung, an outstanding member. It’s a great day for Mount Roskill, as it is for Auckland. Christine Fletcher, it’s great to see you here; congratulations on your re-election and thank you for your leadership in this matter. Thank you to the Governance and Administration Committee—hard-working. You’ve had some big topics this Parliament, and I appreciate your contribution. Thank you to the council team—Stu Mullin, a guy that would always say there are no votes in the electorate office. I treated that to mean “always be out and about in your own community”. Thank you to Stuart for his constant advice and wisdom.

Auckland is a great city. It is the greatest city, in my view, in this country, and I’ve lived all around the world. I’ve lived in Paris, Kuala Lumpur, I’ve lived in San Francisco, I’ve lived—I need to check my notes, because I don’t know where else I’ve lived. I’ve lived in Kuala Lumpur, and I must say, Auckland is the best city, by far, that I’ve lived in, and I’m not putting other cities down, but it is the only city that I’d want to live in in New Zealand. From the wonderful run along the Tamaki Bay Drive to the mountain ranges in the Waitakere hills, to the wonderful old splendour of the Chelsea Sugar Factory, it is a great city.

But it’s got some really big challenges in the future, as we know. Those challenges are around water infrastructure; transport, and that includes roads and other public transport; and ports. We’ve got some massive infrastructure challenges in this city so that it maintains its standing as a wonderful place to live, grow, and raise a family.

It’s often said the regions are the backbone in New Zealand, and I would agree with that.

Carl Bates: They are.

DAN BIDOIS: But increasingly—they are, as Carl Bates, member for Whanganui, said—with the demographics change in New Zealand, Auckland is going to be the backbone of the country in the future. It is essential that we have the finance and funding capabilities to make sure that this city thrives into the future. This is what this bill is about. It is a part of the funding solution for Auckland’s future.

Let me turn to the purpose, which is about making sure that this fund lives in perpetuity for future Aucklanders, for years to come—Aucklanders, hopefully, like my son, your kids, kids across the House, and their grandkids as well. This fund is all about maximising the return that can then fund the infrastructure needs for the future. This is an independent fund. We have a 75 percent threshold for distribution, and that is, I think, and as Carlos Cheung thinks as well, a high enough threshold to ensure that that fund continues to grow and that it is only needed when there is near unanimous views across our Auckland Council Chamber.

Just in terms of the bill, I have read it. It isn’t a big lengthy bill, and I know members here have read it, because it isn’t that lengthy, but sometimes good things come in small packages. It really talks to the governance and management arrangements for this bill, the investment structure, and the distribution structure as well. Again, part of the solution is this bill, but I want to now turn to other parts that will help fund Auckland’s future. Our Minister, Simon Watts, is working hard around this Government’s rate cap policy; we look forward to announcing that very, very soon. We have also been very clear to councils up and down this country: get back to the basics, focus on the basics. And what is that? It’s core infrastructure, core services that every New Zealander, every Aucklander, every ratepayer deserves and expects.

We just passed in this House, a bill yesterday, the time of use charging bill, that allows a further funding option for councils to be able to fund public transport and other infrastructure needs. It passed with unanimous support, and I certainly look forward to helping to roll this out in years to come. It will be a bumpy road, but it is part of the funding solution for the future.

We’ve also got regional deals, which are part of this Government’s strategy around making sure that we partner with councils. I, certainly, want to acknowledge Wayne Brown, the mayor, firstly for his re-election—very strong re-election result—but secondly for his willingness to engage with this Government on a regional deal to make sure that we partner with them where they need it. We’ve heard the mayor’s calls loud and clear. We want to stick to our knitting and let council actually get on with it as well.

But we can’t have this debate without actually turning to the area and topic of asset recycling. Our Prime Minister has made it clear that on this side of the House—well, most of this side of the House—we should have a grown-up, honest conversation about the assets that we have and what is the best use of those assets. I come from an economics profession, which is a bit dry and boring, but, essentially, the key theme in economics that comes up is: who is the best organisation to get the best outcomes for those assets? If you can convince me that, actually, it’s the Government ownership or local council ownership, then fair enough. But I think for New Zealanders up and down this country, they would say, “Well, actually, it doesn’t make sense for Governments or councils to own certain assets.” The council made this decision as they started to sell down their assets and shares in Auckland Airport.

I think that it’s high time that we as a Parliament have that same conversation, because the fact is, we’re talking about the future. The future we need to talk about is the level of debt that this country has endured and has accumulated, largely due to the $66 billion that that Opposition spent in the last six years. They are funds that, sadly, our kids, our grandkids are going to be saddled with unless we have a serious conversation about how to get that debt down. Most of the people on the other side probably haven’t learnt that we are paying $8.8 billion, this year alone, on our interest bill. That’s 5 percent. Look, we need, I think, a serious conversation. This side is certainly up for that, and this bill is good.

Can I just wrap up and say this is a wonderful bill. It does, I think, go some way to addressing the infrastructure and funding needs—

Dr Carlos Cheung: Funding model.

DAN BIDOIS: —the funding model, as Carlos Cheung just reminded me—for the future. I want to commend those who have been part of this process. It takes a lot to bring a bill like this to Parliament. Thank you to the member for sponsoring. Thank you to, again, those from council and those who have been part of this process. I welcome this bill’s passing and I look forward to the day when we can start to see the benefits of compound interest and the benefits of the rate of return that will actually give a fantastic option for councils up and down this country. I know this model was actually started in Taranaki; they were the first mover with this fund. We are the second mover, as Auckland, and I look forward to, potentially, other councils right up and down this country doing similar things so that we all can have a better, brighter future in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to acknowledge Councillor Fletcher. It’s lovely to see her here in the House today, because she, obviously, started her political career here. I get to work with Christine Fletcher in my electorate, and it’s a very collaborative and successful relationship. Congratulations to Christine Fletcher for being part of actually building this solution.

This solution came out of a very angsty discussion about the airport shares and whether they would be sold. What has been built is a solution which has received support from the council and the representatives and, I believe, from the public. It’s a solution that addresses those fears—that by selling something that was an asset that was treasured by a community and built up by a community, it’s going to remain within that community and benefit it in the long term. It is a long-term fund, and there have been mechanisms built in, guardrails built in, which mean that it should be a safe place, and it should be something that actually endures into the future. I think that’s a fantastic part of what we’re doing here today. I think those are very real fears that people have about asset sales, for very good reasons. We had a history of asset sales in the past that have been problematic, to say the least, and we’ll be talking about those, no doubt, as we go into the next year.

I also want to talk about how this is not a get out of jail free card for the Government, because Auckland is intensifying. Auckland, in my area in particular, is getting a lot more housing, and it’s getting it because it will make the Auckland economy more productive. It will bring a whole lot of productivity into the whole of New Zealand, if we do that well. If we do it badly, it will be very difficult for the people of Auckland. It is really important that this Government support the infrastructure needs of a growing Auckland, because the taxpayers’ dollars come from Auckland, and it needs to be adequately supported. Alongside those intensifications that are going on, we’re going to need to make sure we have decent stormwater.

I reject the suggestion of the other member, Dan Bidois, that there’s a need to make sure we’re just doing the basics, because what are the basics? The basics also include building very good community. It’s really important that those communities are happy places, where my grandkids and my kids can thrive. Those are really important things. I don’t believe that we should restrict what our local councils do. I actually think it’s really important that we respect those local councils to do the job that they’ve got to do closer to the ground. It is very important that they are adequately resourced to do that.

This fund is a good start, because it’s hard out there, and it’s hard for people to pay their rates. This will take the edge off. But it’s also important that the Government, as it brings in policies that mean there’s going to be more houses in an area like mine, actually steps up and make sure that the rail works, that the public transport is done, that we do have good stormwater, because otherwise the place will flood. All of those things are important. It’s important that it respects the job of the council to make sure that we have a decent community in place, not just one that is haphazard. It needs designing and building, and the best people to do that are the Auckland Council. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you so much. It gives me great pleasure to speak in the third and final reading of this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. I want to commend its sponsor, Dr Carlos Cheung, and all the work that you have done in getting this through—it’s been incredible—and all the work that you do as the MP for Mt Roskill. If there’s any particular group that wants you re-elected more than the National Party, it’s the Labour Party. The Labour Party wants you re-elected more than the National Party—it’s unbelievable—because the other option’s not so good. I digress, but Auckland is under huge pressure, and this is timely. Auckland is currently growing at about 50,000 people per year, and Statistics New Zealand say it could reach 2 million people by the end of the decade.

I want to reinforce that this is the Government for Auckland—this is the Government for Auckland. How do we know that? Well, we know that when you look at the SkyCity convention centre—the keys have been handed over, and the opening will be next year. We know when you look at the City Rail Link, and the fact that John Key pulled the lever on that, and it will be Christopher Luxon who cuts the ribbon on that. We know when you look at the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill that also got unanimous support in the House—something that the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Employers and Manufacturers Association have been calling for, for a number of years: congestion charging. Also, when you look at the Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection Act that we passed last month, there are 19 new protection areas—the most protection for the Hauraki Gulf ever. I also want to acknowledge, like others have, Christine Fletcher. She has been a big leader in the Hauraki Gulf, and, of course, she being a former MP and one of the architects here of the Auckland Future Fund—so I want to acknowledge Christine in being a brainchild of this Auckland Future Fund.

Isn’t it interesting, as far as asset recycling goes, we get unanimous support? If you call it asset recycling—I think it’s the word “recycling”—the Greens are on board. You can see what we’re saying there. I would like to think that, as others have said, we can have a grown-up conversation about asset recycling. What a brilliant idea to put it in a perpetual fund—that $1.3 billion of the last shareholding of Auckland Airport, with a special dividend from the Port of Auckland—put it in a special, perpetual fund.

I’d also like to see more public-private partnerships (PPPs) pertaining to Auckland. As well as congestion charging and the likes and perpetual asset funds, I’d like to see more PPPs. Let me give you the best example of a PPP in Auckland, to say that they can be beyond the roading infrastructure, and that is Spark Arena—the 12,000-person indoor arena which is Spark Arena. In 2004, when that deal was done, when an events company went into lease with Ngāti Whātua, the Auckland Council paid $68 million. That events company has it for 40 years, and, guess what, we’re into the second half—we’re into about 19 years. At the end, in about 2044—in 19 years’ time—Spark Arena will get handed back to the Auckland ratepayer for zero.

Dan Bidois: Wow.

CAMERON BREWER: They are the kinds of public-private partnerships that I want to see more of, Dan Bidois—and, guess what, the teenagers that go there to listen to Tay Tay or whoever, they’re not interested in who owns the arena. Public-private partnerships have to be part of the future for Auckland.

This is a great day—it is a great day for Mount Roskill. Again, I commend the sponsor of this, Carlos Cheung, on the fabulous job that you’ve done. I commend the Auckland Council. I congratulate Mayor Wayne Brown on his 100,000-plus majority. I congratulate those councillors and local board members that got re-elected. We look forward to working with them. We are continuing to support Auckland, and this is only just the beginning. The best is yet to come. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real joy to be able to speak on this important bill for Auckland. I asked for a call on this because this is an important one for the many people who have worked on it, not in the least Dr Carlos Cheung. Can I congratulate you on having this bill in your name, working it through the parliamentary process with a number of Auckland leaders. It has been a real pleasure to be able to see this come together, not only with Government support but support from across the House. You have done a great job there.

I also want to acknowledge—like many have—Mayor Wayne Brown. It takes tenacity to get something like this over the line with Aucklanders, who care about their assets and about the way that the council manages this; he has done that. To his deputy mayor, Desley Simpson: she is an incredibly hard-working deputy mayor. As a team, they are the engineer and the Energizer Bunny. Aucklanders are so well served by this dynamic vision that they have managed to bring to this term and council. I want to really make sure that people understand just how much work this has taken to be able to land this in a way that Aucklanders understand and broadly support. It is just another reminder of how important locally elected people are to something long term. This has been an idea that has floated around for a long time. But it takes leadership to be able to land something like this.

Can I also acknowledge the former Mayor of Auckland Christine Fletcher, who is in the House with us today. You know, it is important that people like this are around to see these ideas come to fruition. She has been an advocate and champion for Auckland’s assets not only in her time as the Mayor of Auckland but also within the Cabinet of a National Government. It is so important that these ideas that have come to fruition today are supported not only by current Aucklanders and current Auckland representatives but also by those people who occupy this place, in our collective, public discussion in Auckland about what is important to the future.

I also want to acknowledge the founding trustees of the Auckland Future Fund, particularly Chris Swasbrook and his experienced colleagues, for guiding the fund through this first phase. It would have been difficult, again, to build public support for this, and then to show value around that fund, and they have done that well. I want to, also, add my congratulations to the Auckland Council staff, particularly Phil Wilson. He’s a celebrated Manurewa boy. We are proud of our Manurewa locals who do well, and he has won a celebrated career in council governance and leadership over decades, and this is one of many achievements that he can be proud of, to have contributed so much to Auckland. Obviously, to my very clever husband, Max Hardy, who has also had a good role in this, and we are proud of him as a family. Also, to the mayor’s office team, there have been a number of accolades. To our favourite, Stuey Mullin, the all-star in that office, but can I also make my acknowledgments to Jazz, to Luke, and now to Tamsyn, taking up the reins. Good on you guys; let’s keep going with this vision for Auckland which needs to be driven not only by the political staff but by the Auckland Council, who are tasked with doing this important work.

Finally, I want to acknowledge those councillors who have carefully worked through the issues at play here alongside the constituents. This wasn’t an easy one for all councillors. Councillors Henderson, Fairey, and Hills—who I very, very much admire—laboured over these decisions, and I know met with many of their constituents about how they would make this sort of decision. Then, for them, they all gave very considered comments. I particularly want to acknowledge Councillor Henderson for what I found to be a very moving speech on this, about the importance of the future of Auckland to him and his children. They have obviously worked through these issues very carefully, and I want to acknowledge them as supporters of this for a longer-term vision of growing assets in Auckland.

But I also want to acknowledge, very much, my local councillors, Councillors Filipaina and Fuli, for whom this was a difficult decision, because they had had personal experience of the way the Manukau City Council, and its amalgamation into the super-city, had contributed significant assets, particularly the Auckland Airport. From their perspective, it was so important to make sure that these assets—that were contributed by South Aucklanders and grown up over time by South Aucklanders contributing not only to their rates but to local community work that had enabled the council to hang on to that strategic asset, then into the super-city. The argument was that fairness matters here, and I agree with them. It is important to me that this future fund now delivers on the promise to South Aucklanders, who, over many generations, have contributed to the Auckland Airport asset, which is no longer in public hands, and that they see some benefit of this. It is so important that the Auckland Future Fund returns that benefit to South Aucklanders.

Just in the Manurewa area, to catch up in its investment in playgrounds to an area like the North Shore, you would have to invest around $70 million just to catch up, just to get on par. It’s really important to me that this Auckland Future Fund recognises that and recognises the deficit and investment that South Auckland has dealt with over time and that this council is working towards over a longer period to rectify. I thank those councillors for the tireless advocacy, as well as Councillor Newman and Councillor Angela Dalton for their work in highlighting these issues.

Just some quick points. As Councillor Henderson says, this fund is a $1.3 billion regional wealth fund, and that’s a great thing to be able to have. It’s designed to invest in the long-term benefit for current and future Aucklanders, turning what was available to council into an intergenerational investment. I hope that this focus on growing the value of this fund is also matched by investment to improve the things that make Auckland great: our local environment, our local facilities. It is a visionless and sad view of the future of Auckland when we have a member stand in this House from the ACT Party and say that there isn’t value in things like dog parks and like those things that we would really like to see Aucklanders all have universal and public access to. I’m very, very proud of cross-partisan support for many of those things, and I don’t think it is a view shared by most people in this House, because it is an important role for the council to be able to continue to provide those public facilities to Aucklanders.

One question I want to raise here that we have to ask ourselves in Auckland is, as Aucklanders, now that there is this vehicle for strategic ownership of assets—there are some strategic utilities in Auckland which were privatised in the 1990s—is that working for us? Is it working for Aucklanders that the energy trust, which was privatised in 1993, is still held completely at arm’s length from any sort of local representation or any sort of input from the council, who were duly elected by Aucklanders and are accountable to them? Now that we have this kind of fund, is it appropriate for us to now investigate, as not only Auckland MPs but alongside our council colleagues, a better mechanism for public accountability and control of those assets?

The third point I want to make is to underscore those points made so eloquently by the Auckland councillors who are based in South Auckland: this has to be fair, and it has to be fair for South Auckland. To maintain public trust and confidence of Auckland as a whole, in something like this, we need to show that everyone is getting a fair go, and if South Aucklanders consistently feel that they have contributed more, over generations, to an asset, then it is fair that those people can expect a kind of investment that will bring them at least up to par with the rest of the city and that they will get a fair go from their council. I hope that is the case. I encourage the mayor to take on board those concerns, in what has been an excellent job of landing this with Aucklanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you so much. As the last speaker on this bill, I’d just like to start by congratulating my colleague and baby younger brother Carlos Cheung, who is so much taller than me and bigger than me—he stands so tall that sometimes I feel like I get a pain in the neck when I actually look up to him. A bit of a joke there, but I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Christine Fletcher, former member of Parliament for Eden and Epsom, who actually became the Mayor of Auckland as well as councillor for a long time. I know how hard she works to serve her community, and she was one of the people who was responsible for the establishment of the Auckland Future Fund, so I acknowledge her.

Being the last speaker in the Chamber, it just feels like I’m repeating everything that everyone else is saying. I just want to quote you something from the website of the Auckland Future Fund—their vision. It says, “The Auckland Future Fund is an investment for all Aucklanders and future generations, and is designed to enhance the financial and physical resilience of Tāmaki Makaurau. By diversifying Auckland Council’s major investments, the Auckland Future Fund is part of a financial strategy to better protect and strengthen Auckland in times of need.”

This fund is all about getting one asset and becoming many assets that Auckland Council and the people of Auckland can actually benefit from. How this fund was funded is it was initially capitalised from the $1.31 billion divestment of their Auckland Airport shares, and it is invested in many things. I’m just looking at the clock, Mr Speaker, and we’re getting very close to the dinner break, and I just hope that this bill gets passed before that.

I just want to say when a city works, you get great cities around the world. I know that Dan Bidois, my colleague, was talking about how his favourite city was Kuala Lumpur (KL)—I grew up in KL, but I have seen many other cities that actually do what they do really well. I hope that with this fund, Auckland City can grow and perform better for the city of Auckland and their citizens. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have one final call which our friends in Te Pāti Māori usually would take, but I’m just standing as the final speaker to say that this is a really good piece of legislation and it’s really forward-thinking, and, actually, we need to put some credit on Carlos Cheung, the great MP for Mt Roskill—hard-working local MP. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes, through the council, but Mr Cheung has eloquently led this process through the parliamentary process, as a local MP, as a local member, and as a local bill, and I think he’s done an incredible job of it—stewardship through the process. I just wanted to put credit on his name for what he has done, along with everybody else who has been acknowledged. The Auckland Future Fund has taken some great leadership from him as a local MP in Auckland, and I think he deserves all of the acclaim that comes with that.

I think, ultimately, this is pragmatic, it’s forward-thinking, and it’s fiscally responsible legislation, and that’s what we like to see as a National-led Government. That’s what we like to see in 2025 and that’s why I think this is a fantastic piece of legislation, and therefore I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.