Keep Our Assets Canterbury (KOA) hasn’t appeared in Watchdog since issue 145, August 2017, when we reported that the Christchurch City Council voted in June 2017 to restore City Care to its strategic assets list (meaning that the Council would have to consult the public before selling it). This was the culmination of a long back down by the Council.

It had announced, in 2015, that it planned to sell City Care as the first step in an assets sale process supposedly necessitated by the need to raise capital to clear debts incurred by quake rebuild costs and obligations. KOA – of which CAFCA is a key part, and of which I’m the Convenor - tackled the Council head on about this. We said that the debt claim was bunk and that the figures for the debt were manufactured.

We said that the decision to sell assets was a perfect illustration of Government-led disaster capitalism or shock doctrine, motivated solely by ideology i.e. to take advantage of the shock of disaster to ram home a privatisation policy. We opposed the whole assets sale policy. And we very actively opposed the specific proposal to sell City Care, campaigning tirelessly on the streets and in the Council Chamber throughout 2015 and 2016 and into 2017, under the slogan of “Save City Care”.

KOA’s campaign included running John Minto as our Christchurch Mayoral candidate in 2016 (John’s article about his Mayoral campaign is in Watchdog 143, December 2016, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/43/01.html. That same issue has an article about CAFCA’s role in the Mayoral campaign, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/43/02.html). In 2017 KOA claimed victory, as City Care was saved and we were proven right on all points.

KOA hasn’t gone away and we’ve been kept busy in the intervening year. And it looks like some of the powers that be are hellbent on having another go. Christchurch's Mayor, Lianne Dalziel, was recently quoted as saying: "What I would like is to be able to have an intelligent conversation without somebody just standing there with a little placard in their hand saying 'no asset sales' or 'keep our assets'" (Press, “ChCh Asset Sale Talk Divides”, 28/6/18, Tina Law, https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/105041627/christchurch-mayor-wants-intelligent-conversation-about-selling-assets).

ChCh Has Had “Intelligent Conversation” About Asset Sales

Lianne must have been having a senior moment because KOA was never so coy as to muck around with "little placards". On several occasions we went right into the Christchurch City Council's Chamber during Council meetings with a great big banner saying "Keep Our Assets". Joking aside, KOA is pleased that the City Council has passed its Long-Term Plan with no asset sales included. It is not Council policy.

Obviously, the Mayor is not so happy. KOA reminds her that Christchurch has very recently had "an intelligent conversation" about asset sales. It was called the 2016 local body election, where KOA ran John Minto as our Mayoral candidate on a "No Assets Sales" platform. Obviously, Lianne won the Mayoralty but enough Christchurch residents and ratepayers voted for John, and the Council candidates who also opposed asset sales, for the message to sink home.

The people of Christchurch delivered their intelligent answer. They didn't want assets sold. This is déjà vu all over again. The arguments presented in 2015/16 for asset sales are the same ones as being presented now - that Christchurch can't afford the rebuild costs and is going into too much debt, which is pushing rates ever upwards. The arguments for keeping our assets are the same as then. Put simply - that the people of Christchurch are better off with those assets than without them. And, once they're gone, they're gone.

One obvious solution is to renegotiate the onerous cost share agreement imposed on the 2010-13 Bob Parker City Council by the Key National government, forcing Christchurch ratepayers into paying for various anchor project white elephants. We keep being told that what is now called the "global settlement" is being prepared between this Government and the Council. But no details are being made public.

The whitest of the white elephants is the covered stadium, for which the Council has budgeted $253 million and brought it forward by two years in its list of priorities in the Long-Term Plan. There's an obvious candidate for saving a cool quarter of a billion dollars or, at least, putting it further down the list of priorities until the city can afford it and more pressing needs have been met.

By contrast the Council has budgeted a measly $30 million for repairing or replacing Council housing damaged in the quakes. Those priorities are the wrong way around - the Crusaders have got a home, at the temporary Addington stadium; the Council needs to prioritise those that need a home. Put a roof over their head before putting a roof over a stadium. To add insult to injury, the Rugby Union - which will be the biggest single beneficiary of the stadium - is refusing to contribute one cent to its construction.

Councillor Raf Manji has resurrected the idea of partial asset sales, specifically by listing the airport company and Enable (the city's broadband network company). Why would the city sell assets that make money - Christchurch Airport is a heavily used cash cow - for ones that don't make money, such as a stadium that will sit unused and generating no income for a lot of the time? That's voodoo economics. Nothing has changed as far as KOA is concerned. The case for keeping our assets is as strong as ever.

More Bread & Less Circuses, Please

The Christchurch City Council received the biggest insurance payout in New Zealand's history (even if it was substantially less than the amount actually claimed). How much of that money - hundreds of millions of dollars - was allocated to repairing and replacing quake-buggered Council housing? KOA wants to make clear that we're not opposed to a stadium per se. But we don't see it as being a top priority item, while so much of the more unglamorous, but absolutely vital, work has to be done that will benefit the people of Christchurch in their everyday lives.

Our message is simple - fix and build Council housing as a higher priority than the stadium. More bread and less circuses, please. And here's a couple of things to consider for when the stadium is actually built. Make sure that it is added to the strategic assets list, so that it can't just be sold off by a future Council without public consultation. And make sure that it is operated by the Council, not a private company. If Christchurch ratepayers and New Zealand taxpayers are, between them, paying half a billion dollars to build it, then ratepayers and taxpayers should reap any financial benefits, not a private company.

Speaking personally - as a ratepayer I would rather my ever-increasing rates go towards fixing and replacing Council housing than to the stadium. As a regular attendee at the current Addington stadium (including during the most atrocious midwinter weather) I'm happy to keep going there for as long as needed. Indeed, having experienced both, I find the much-maligned Addington stadium preferable to the former (quake-buggered) Lancaster Park in some respects.

And as an Addington resident I find it very convenient indeed that the stadium is but a short walk away. So, as a ratepaying rugby goer, my message to the City Council is: don't bust a gut to rush up a white elephant stadium. The Crusaders have got a home at present, imperfect as it may be. Prioritise those in Christchurch who need their Council homes fixed or replaced.