Can Auckland’s local government leaders stop rating and start supporting?

By Daniel Newman, Member, Manurewa Community Board

Sometimes living north of the Bombay hills can be hard-going. As a person who lives in Manurewa, I live in a community that produces great sportspeople. We are a community that cares for our environment; give generously to support the well-being of families and whanau; and we succeed in business.

Yet despite all of this we can still suffer the ignominy of Auckland-centric humiliation. A classic example of this was the debate on the waterfront stadium. Notwithstanding whether one favours the waterfront or Eden Park, the process that resulted in two of the region’s civic leaders publicly declaring war on each other, cast Auckland is a very poor light.

Sadly this is not the first time it’s happened. Regional land transport and rates billing have been a lightening rod for local government politicians to underperforms in the eyes of an increasingly cynical ratepayers. Now it appears that history is set to repeat itself courtesy of a self-preserving paper titled: “Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance Proposals”.

The paper is a product of work undertaken by local government representatives and officials and central government officials. On face value the paper represents a watershed, an opportunity for improved governance of Auckland.

Yet scratch just beneath the surface and you soon discover some quite cynical objectives, which if implemented would inevitably lead to two guaranteed outcomes: (a) the jobs of the region’s mayors and councillors would be preserved, and (b) new direct and indirect forms of taxation and levies will drive up the financial burden of local government on the Auckland region’s ratepayers. With the twin objectives of ‘jobs for the boys’ and ‘increased costs to the ratepayers’ so firmly entrenched in the paper, one can only assume that that the fingerprints of the old guard of civic leaders are all over the recommendations.

Not surprisingly the public have been deliberately excluded from this exercise. When the plan was first hatched to expand the powers of local government in Auckland, consultation was in the first instant limited to a “Political Reference Group” comprising two politicians from each local authority. This exclusive group of people enjoyed the unique privilege of being able to provide feedback on so-called ‘issues and options’.

Once finalised, the paper was then submitted to each of the local authorities in the Auckland region for consideration. At no stage was the public consulted, despite the fact that the paper concocted behind closed doors has the potential to cost the region’s ratepayers tens of millions of dollars each year.

At least the paper’s authors had the insight to recognise that the public would no doubt be cynical. The paper itself states: “Particular attention also has to be made to determining the mechanism for, and scope of input and consultation with, both the public and Tangata Whenua. To date their input has been limited and this will need to be remedied through the next phase of this project”.

Not surprisingly Auckland’s local government leaders consider that they fill an important role in strengthening the governance effectiveness of the region. So amalgamation is off the agenda.

Instead the politicians propose the creation of a new entity, possibly called the Greater Auckland Council (GAC). This entity would have expanded powers, including powers to charge current and future residents and businesses through new devices such as a regional fuel tax and regional development levies. If the figures obtained from the Auckland Regional Council are correct, regional development levies alone could cost new property owners (young families who are trying to buy their first home) up to $70 million a year.

Ratepayers face the prospect of increased rates to fund facilities such as the museum and MOTAT. This is all well and good for high-income ratepayers who are able to travel and enjoy such facilities. But what benefit does MOTAT offer to a low-income ratepayer in Clendon who has never been to that facility?

The politicians also desire the power to gouge more money out of consumers by requiring Watercare to pay six of the councils (Auckland, Manukau, North Shore, Papakura, Rodney and Waitakere) a dividend. That is bad news for consumers.

Take my territorial authority, Manukau City Council, as an example. Having just established Manukau Water (a company that is required by the council to directly charge ratepayers for water and wastewater), Manukau City Council wants a third bite of the cherry. Not only does Manukau City send me an annual rate bill, now I am billed directly for wastewater. The combined cost of the two bills means I am paying significantly more this year compared to 2005.

Not content with the consequential cash windfall, Manukau City want to gouge Watercare, the organisation responsible for providing bulk water and wastewater services to the Auckland region, to empty its coffers and flood the council treasury with even more money.

It’s the thin end of the wedge. How long will be before the council’s blackmail the government and Watercare into abandoning the statutory requirement to deliver water and wastewater services at a minimum price? And who will pay the price if the councils get their way? The ratepayer.

I’ve never been personally opposed to paying rates. I expect to pay my fair share and expect that every dollar levied by the council will be spent wisely. I don’t know many people who begrudge the payment of at least something to offset the cost of services and facilities provided by local government.

But it’s hard to see how Auckland is receiving value for money.

Is local traffic congestion easing, thus allowing me to travel quickly from one destination to the next? No.

Do Auckland’s commuter trains run on time? Not always.

What are the chances of getting a building consent within 20 working days following the date of lodgement (in compliance with the requirement of the Building Act)? Not good.

It’s gotten so bad that my own council won’t even fund the construction of a pedestrian crossing on Hill Road, Manurewa, adjacent to the Botanical Gardens, despite the fact that residential development in The Gardens more than justifies such a facility to aid pedestrians. Rather than simply invest in that facility, the council is instead contemplating the local rest home developing part of its site so that a financial contribution can be charged and paid as a condition of the necessary resource consent being granted.

Why have things deteriorated to the point where a local authority is relying on a facility that provides residential and geriatric hospital care to fund pedestrian crossings? Is the value-system that motivates this kind of funding decision really what the Auckland region needs?

The Local Government Act 2002 granted local authorities wide powers to govern in the interests of communities. Thus far the performance of a number of those authorities appears to be mediocre at best.

In Auckland, having failed to agree on the location for a stadium, the local authorities are now busy exploring ways to supplement their decision-making powers with new powers to tax and levy. The proposed governance structure empowered to facilitate this plunder is based on the same people having an even greater role than what is currently provided.

Certain aspects of life north of the Bombay hills continue to challenge one’s patience and tolerance.

Daniel Newman lives in Manurewa. He is a current member of the Manurewa Community Board, having first been elected in October 2004. He is a home owner who pays rates to the Manukau City Council and the Auckland Regional Council. He is also billed directly by Manukau Water.

The views expressed in this opinion piece reflect the views of the author and not necessarily the Manurewa Community Board.

ENDS

© Scoop Media