SUBMISSION GUIDE 

Auckland Council’s next Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2024-34 is out for consultation until 28 March 2024. The LTP sets out what council wants to achieve over the next 10 years, and how it will be funded. 

The LTP is significant this year for the long-term negative impact it could have for Auckland as the Mayor attempts to privatise assets that belong to all Aucklanders.  The draft focuses on three potential options:

The Do LESS option

The Do MORE option

The Central proposal

The Central proposal is the Mayor’s proposal, and has been presented as the only option or the best middle ground option. However, there are significant issues with the Mayor’s proposal that should be of concern to all Aucklanders. It includes significant sell off of publicly owned assets, harmful service cuts and potentially commits Auckland to a gradual privatisation over the next 10 years of green spaces and community facilities. 

Our guide focuses on the sale of the operating lease for the Port of Auckand, the sell off of Auckland Council’s remaining Auckland Airport shares and opposition to the establishment of the Future Fund. We would encourage you to fill out the feedback form on other areas that you want to have your voice heard on. 

Overall Direction for Long-Term Plan

1a. Which option do  you prefer for the overall direction for council’s Long-term Plan

We would recommend that you select either put Do More or Other. The reason we suggest Other is that there are also aspects of Do More that could be improved - and in your submission you could explain how and why.

1b. What would you like Auckland Council to do more or less of?

We believe that this question is best answered by your priorities and interests, but as a minimum we would recommend selecting Do More for Transport, Environment and regulation, Parks and Community as well as Economic and cultural development. 

Questions 2-3 may depend more on your interests and priorities, and we would encourage you to fill those questions out according to your priorities. 

In general, we believe that some of the best things we enjoy in Auckland - including our Council-owned parks, libraries, pools, and amenities - come from public investment. We support greater public investment in services and assets that improve the well-being of Aucklanders and so that everyone can enjoy what makes our city special,

4a. What is your preference on the proposal to establish an Auckland Future Fund and transfer Auckland Council’s shareholding in Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) into this fund (enabling the shares to be sold)?

We recommend you select Don’t proceed with establishing an Auckland Future Fund and transferring AIAL shareholding.

Tell us why

We encourage you to write something along the following lines (it’s great to write in your own words):

The establishment of the Future Fund is a means to privatise Auckland. This is something that goes against what a council should be delivering, and could result in worse outcomes for Aucklanders. 

The returns that are suggested through the sale are unclear. The draft LTP does not take into account any professional management fees. This suggests that the Future Fund will not yield the returns that is suggested. This might mean that we end up privatising assets AND have a greater rates rise, as the returns are minimal once costs are factored in. 

It is also inevitable that the investment experts will want to invest in the most profitable businesses - a high proportion of which could raise ethical questions about environmental harm, carbon emissions, worker exploitation, and health.

A further sell off of the Auckland Airport shares simply makes no sense. These shares do not cost the Council anything, and like most large publicly traded companies, will increase in value over time. Much like all assets within the Future Fund, the expected returns from the sale will be much lower than is set out in the consultation document. By the time management fees and investment sale fees are taken into account, it is likely that the yield for Aucklanders will be incredibly low. 

It is also concerning that this plan does not empower Auckland Council to have debates about the specific asset procurement or sales. This will all be managed by fund managers who have no accountability to the people of Auckland.

It’s a tactic of supporters of privatisation to say that the proceeds of asset sales will be redirected towards community investment. They’re saying this because privatisation is generally unpopular and the supporters of privatisation are trying to find a way to persuade us.

In short, the Future Fund will siphon off revenue to investment advisors and consultants; will not raise as much money as is suggested; and is a vehicle for the selling-off of Auckland, which will make us all worse off in the long run, by reducing public control, driving down wages and terms and conditions, and lowering the quality of services that we think should be run for people not profit.

4b. Which option do you prefer for the future of Port of Auckland?

We recommend selecting the option to retain underlying Council ownership of port land and wharves, and continue council group operation of the port (through Ports of Auckland Limited), and implement the plan to deliver improved profitability and more dividends to council. 

Tell us why

We encourage you to write something along the following lines (it’s great to write in your own words):

The sale of the port’s operating lease is part of a plan to sell off a number of Auckland’s public assets. This will lead to increased prices for everyday products in Auckland, reduced profits for the Auckland economy and the loss of control over a key strategic asset. 

The experience in Australia of selling off port leases from public ownership is that it gradually results in price rises for shipping. These price increases will naturally fall onto consumers to pick up. Increased prices for goods is the last thing Auckland needs during a cost of living crisis. 

Research commissioned by the Maritime Union of New Zealand has shown that in Australia charges on containers have gone from single digits to more than AU$100. Businesses and consumers have paid the price. What's more, one of the companies looking to buy the port - DP World - has paid zero corporate tax in Australia despite making billions of dollars from Australian customers

Selling off the lease would also take control of Auckland’s only port out of the hands of Aucklanders, it would undermine the jobs and safety of the people who work there, and it would mean handing the port’s profits to overseas investors. The port operating business is a key part of Auckland’s infrastructure, and it should be in the hands of the people of Auckland. 

The Mayor’s Central Proposal also does not factor in the cost of the fund manager fees. Presumably, a foreign investment company like BlackRock or Vanguard will be brought in to manage the assets. They do not provide these services for free. Nowhere in the consultation documents does it set out the cost of management fees.

Furthermore, workers’ protections and environmental standards are seen as a cost for businesses that have to run a profit. The Ports of Auckland has systems in place for these protections already, but a private company has to be driven by its bottom line, and so there’s a risk that workers’ protections and environmental standards will be neglected.

A private operator will have to cut more corners to keep costs down in order to make a profit. 

This proposal will also see an increase in the amount of private contractors and entities having a say in the management of Auckland Council’s business. This means more wealthy companies coming along and clipping the ticket at the expense of the people of Auckland.

4c. If the council group continues to operate the Port of Auckland how would you prefer the profits and dividends to be used?

We recommend continue to use it to fund council services

Tell us why

We suggest you say something like:

It makes little sense to channel profits and dividends through a Future Fund when Auckland Council already has the ability to channel these services through profits and dividends. All this does is allows a private fund manager to clip the ticket at the expense of the people of Auckland.

Auckland Council in of itself already acts as a Future Fund when it comes to investing in services. Publicly owned assets like the airport shares are a Future Fund. 

4c. If the council group continues to operate the Port of Auckland how would you prefer the profits and dividends to be used?

We recommend first option under this question – continue to use it to fund council services

Tell us why

We suggest something like:

Having the Future Fund making investments adds no real value for Aucklanders when Auckland Council can already make investment and funding decisions. 

Aucklanders are not well served by having unelected fund managers determining what can or cannot be done with Auckland’s assets. 

Continuing current investment in public services must be protected and going outside of the current investment practice raises a risk to the public services that Aucklanders rely upon. 

5a. What option do you prefer for Captain Cook and Marsden wharves?

We recommend no change - leave Captain Cook and Marsden wharves to be managed as part of the port operations 

Tell us why

For the same reason that selling off the Port operating lease is a bad idea, the transfer of ownership to Auckland Council takes the land out of the hands of Ports of Auckland and limits the space that Auckland Port has for its operations. 

The suggested waterfront development also could pose environmental risks and could be turned into private land for the use of private developers to make luxury waterfront apartments, rather than public spaces.

5b. What option do you prefer for Bledisloe Terminal?

We recommend the option to Keep Bledisloe Terminal as a Port of Auckland operational area

Tell us why

Transferring Bledisloe Terminal outside of the Port’s control means that the company will have to make decisions around its operations on the Auckland Port. It could cause cost increases or delays in the time that it takes shipped goods to get into Auckland. 

We should not make the Ports of Auckland Limited run its business with one arm tied behind its back. That does not serve the interests of Aucklanders. In any event, there are already waterfront areas for Aucklanders to enjoy that do not encroach upon the Port’s operations. 

Section 6 covers localised and technical matters. While these matters do not have a direct bearing on asset sales, we would encourage you to support the Natural Enviroment Targeted Rate (NETR) and the Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR).   We do also not support changes to the Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) – it should fund new or better public transport services rather than business as usual

The rest of the feedback form looks at Local Board priorities, which we would encourage you to fill out to support your local board team set their priorities. 

Thank you for taking the time to give feedback, having your voice heard is of such vital importance for our city.