Editorial: Councils need to show foresight

OPINION: ACT leader Rodney Hide says loudly and often that he would rather be known as minister for ratepayers, than minister for local government, because of the rates burden on individuals and businesses.

That is one reason he and Prime Minister John Key are so keen for Auckland to have a single council for the region.

Now he is widening his target. The Cabinet has agreed to review the Local Government Act, 2002, which conferred on local bodies "powers of general competence", allowing them to set up in opposition to rate-paying businesses.

One council, Mr Hide harrumphs derisively, owns a Lotto shop. He says he is keen for people to "have better tools" for controlling council costs, and has suggested greater use of referendums to choose spending priorities.

That idea has superficial appeal every ratepayer on a fixed income winces at double-digit rates rises and councils that underwrite expensive follies, such as bringing golf No1 Tiger Woods to play at Kapiti or footballer David Beckham to play in Auckland, or helping fund an unsuccessful season of My Fair Lady.

But sometimes, council-backed punts succeed. Councillors are elected not only to represent constituents but also to show foresight and leadership. They, rather than those who elect them, have access to the arguments, cashflow forecasts, and detailed information, which enables them to make a decision that might go against public opinion.

It is their job, then, not only to seek public input but also to explain afterwards why they acted as they did. The verdict rests with voters.

The minister would profit from Wellington's experience, rather than that of Lower Hutt, which he has inexplicably chosen to hold up as an exemplar. Does he not know that, last January, Hutt City Council voted to lend $1.7 million of public money to a developer that was yet to complete a building project?

Wellington City has had its share of clangers think the Sesquicentennial debacle. But some entrepreneurial mayors, including Sir James Belich, current Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde, and her successor, Mark Blumsky, made brave calls on expensive infrastructure for the capital. The result, a waterfront opened to foot traffic, a regional stadium, which has reinvigorated the northern end of the city, and a sewerage system that keeps Wellington Harbour largely pollutant-free.

Pre-construction referendums on those proposals might not have found broad public backing, yet most would now concede that the initiatives have wholly benefited Wellington, killing the perception that it was merely a blustery city peopled by public servants in brown cardies and suede shoes.

Nonetheless, Mr Hide will find a receptive audience for his bid to rein in council spending, not least in New Plymouth, for example, where, last week, residents learned rates would rise by more than 10 per cent next year. The minister's enthusiasm needs curbing, too.

Ratepayers need a champion, and a minister who claims to share their pain is a novelty. But councils need to do more than rates, roads and rubbish. And if their dreams are daft, they can be punished at the ballot box.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

Murray   #1   03:24 pm Jun 15 2009

I think these are some very good words from the editor which explain why we must rely on our elected representatives to exercise good judgment and why governance of local authorities by some system of referendums would not work.

But I do think our elected representatives are collectively able to gain a certain momentum with their projects and policies and might not attune to a changing economic environment with sufficient flexibility.

I do not think that local authorities should be proceeding ad lib with large scale, multi-million dollar spending on non-essential projects and services when there is such an obviously changed economic environment.

So many of these projects could be put on hold until there is more economic certainty - that ratepayers will not be burdened with what will prove to be inordinate debt and operating costs.

Examples which come to mind are Dunedin's $200 million stadium, Wellington's $50 million indoor sports centre and its $11.5 million bus route upgrade. Waterfront proposals in Auckland do not appear to have sufficient scrutiny.

I feel that there is an advantageous monitoring role which central government is not at present geared to undertake.

Ad Feedback