Convenor of Keep Our Assets Canterbury (KOA). This was published in the online Press (12/6/24), under the title "Aftershocks In Council Finances".

In December 2023 the Christchurch City Council voted not to proceed down the path recommended by the Board of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL), which is the holding company for the City Council's commercial assets, such as the port, airport, Orion, Enable and Citycare. CCHL wanted the Council to give it full control over "its" assets, a move which was obviously intended to lead to asset sales. For details, see my article "Christchurch City Council Votes To Keep Our Assets. Grassroots Campaign Succeeds (For Second Time)", in Watchdog 165, April 2024.

This Council vote was an earthquake in the world of Christchurch local government politics and business. And the aftershocks keep on happening. The City Council instructed CCHL to pay it higher dividends (rather than raise money by selling assets). This was followed by some Councillors calling for the CCHL Board to resign, saying it is unfit for purpose because it's still governed by an assets' sale mentality.

In turn, this was followed by the immediate resignation of four CCHL Directors, including the Chair. They said it was because of the Council instructing them to pay a higher dividend to Council. It transpired that the Chair jumped before she was pushed, because the Council had voted to remove her. Obviously, there is a power struggle between the Council and CCHL and, fundamentally, it is over the issue of asset sales.

The abrupt departure of half of the CCHL Board, including the Chair, provides an opportunity to have a good look at this model of handling Christchurch's publicly-owned assets (which belong to us, the ratepayers and residents). And it is clear that the model is unfit for purpose. It is a self-defeating exercise for the Council to replace the dearly departed with another bunch of businessmen and women, doubtless professional directors.

Time For Council To Bite The Bullet

It is time for the Council to move those assets back under direct, accountable and democratic control. If that means bringing some or all of them back in-house, so be it. The "arms-length" model of control has put the Council into contradictory and embarrassing situations. For example, it has declared a climate emergency in Christchurch, yet the airport company (of which Christchurch City Council owns 75%) has been allowed to go on an Otago land-buying, empire-building spree, on a quixotic quest to build an airport at Tarras. When numerous organisations (including KOA) have questioned the Council about this, we have been told that it can't interfere in the affairs of a company that it owns, because it has to operate at arms-length. What nonsense!

CCHL has been set up to be undemocratic. That's why the Council's December 2023 vote was such a shock to the system of CCHL and its business mates. The Council was, commendably, acknowledging the consistently expressed wishes of the majority of Christchurch's people not to sell public assets, and it moved to exert some long overdue democratic control over CCHL.

Rather than looking to sell some or all of our public assets, the Council and the likes of CCHL should be looking to grow the existing assets and expand the portfolio. To give one example - public transport is universally deemed to be a major part of the necessary response to the climate emergency. But Christchurch has no publicly-owned public transport. We used to until quite recently, when the Council sold off Red Bus (it eventually ended up in overseas ownership).

Let's Stick With It

The City Council's December 2023 vote was a circuit breaker in the whole seemingly inevitable process towards asset sales (a process that started under the previous Council, which tested the waters with its unsuccessful attempt to sell Citycare). This is an excellent opportunity to rethink the whole model of how our public assets are managed and how they can be improved to serve the public good. Once they're gone, they're gone, and with them the dividends they provide to the city, and the control and ownership that the people of Christchurch have over our vital infrastructure. The democratic decision has been taken to avoid that outcome - let's stick with it.

Watchdog - 166 August 2024