By Greg Presland

The proposed Sky City convention centre has caused a lot of recent comment. The commercial details have been kept confidential, but what appears to be proposed is that Sky City be allowed to have up to 500 more gambling machines in consideration of which it will construct a $350 million Centre in Auckland City without public money being invested. Some have called it legislation for sale.

Sky City and the Government say that the economic benefits will be significant. But there is deep public concern with both the proposal that the number of machines be increased and also the process whereby legislation will be sold to make a commercial deal stick. Essentially the state is avoiding the need to pay public subsidies by creating more problem gamblers.

Legislative change is required because under the Gambling Act 2003 Casino activity is heavily proscribed. Section 10 of the Act decrees that no new casino licenses are to be issued. Section 11 states that entities “must not increase the opportunities for casino gambling.” Under section 12 an increase in the opportunities for casino gambling includes “an increase in the number of gaming machines unless the increase is accompanied by a reduction in the number of table games that the Casino Control Authority, or the Gambling Commission, believes is proportionate”.

I personally have major difficulties with the proposal.

For a start gambling is a pernicious destructive activity. It destroys lives and families and causes misery. I fully support Waitakere City’s sinking lid policy which has meant that the number of gambling machines out west are on the decline.

Quantifying the damage caused is difficult but I believe that a purely financial analysis will confirm that this is a poor proposal. The Problem Gambling Foundation estimates that every ten new machines will result in eight new problem gamblers. They believe the annual financial cost of these extra problem gamblers is $5.9 million. Obviously without the detail of the proposed agreement being known figures are only rough but in financial as well as human costs I believe the total cost will be far too high.

So I have moved the following resolutions for the next Waitakere Ranges Local Board meeting:

1. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board reaffirms Waitakere City Council’s gambling machine sinking lid policy.

2. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board supports a new international convention centre for Auckland, but does not support any deal that will result in an increase in gambling machines in Auckland, including an increase in the number of machines in any venue.

3. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board supports stronger measures around harm minimisation of the effects of gambling including, but not limited to:

(a) The appointment of harm minimisation officers responsible for identifying problem gamblers and intervening;

(b) Pre-paid gambling cards with daily and weekly spending limits;

(c) On-screen harm minimisation messages that would be displayed before pokie machines could be activated;

(d) A system that prevents medium to large prizes from being reinvested into pokie machines.

4. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board encourages the Governing Body to advocate to Government a request that the percentage of profits returned to community funding paid by casinos is increased beyond the current level of 2.5%.

5. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board seeks that the Governing Body advocate to Government for the introduction of measures to address any loss of income experienced by genuine community organisations as result of the sinking-lid policy.

People’s comments and feedback on this issue and this proposal is welcome. I should acknowledge the work of the Puketepapa Board and in particular Michael Wood and Julie Fairley whose resolutions form the basis for my proposal.

By Greg Presland

I have been trying to find out for some time what the average salary of a POAL wharfie is.  My curiosity is because of the well publicised figure suggesting that it is $91,000.  This figure seemed high, has been ridiculed by the workers themselves, and it has been bandied around in an attempt to reduce public sympathy for the Maritime Union workers and justify workplace reform.

I have always thought the attempt to deunionise the site was wrong and that publicly owned entities ought not behave in the way that POAL has.  I was happy to publicly express my support for a proper civilized negotiation process which included good faith bargaining.

I have also previously expressed concern at the flow of information from Council Controlled Organisations.  These are publicly owned entities but the corporate structure has I’m my humble opinion made the job of getting information much more difficult.

So I thought that I would see if I could get POAL to release the information it relied on to justify its claims.  After all I am an elected local representative and Auckland Council does own POAL.  Surely the information would be made available to me.

I first wrote to Chief Executive Doug McKay.  My email said:

“Dear Doug
I have been trying to get a response from a variety of sources concerning this issue but so far have not received a satisfactory response.

I note that POAL claim stevedores earn on average $91,000 per annum and that the Maritime Union denies this.  Can you advise the following:

1. How this calculation is achieved.
2. In particular what expenses and benefits it inclused.
3. Does it include superannuation payments.
4. Has this information been previously provided to Councillors
5. If so to who and when. “

Doug replied by providing a fact sheet that had been given to Councillors.

The information was interesting and did provide some information about how the wage was calculated. It said “Superannuation and medical insurance worth $2055 annually are included in the average remuneration figures”.  But apart from this figure a breakdown was not forthcoming.

So I wrote back.

“Thanks Doug the information is appreciated but does not answer the questions.

There are no details of how the $91k figure is reached.  I have looked at the website and if the total generic figure for employees expenses is divided by the number of employees then the figure is approximated.  But I would like to see the total paid in wages and confirmation of the total number of employees.  Can this figure be provided?”

Council’s PR department responded in the following terms:

“I have attached the information from the POAL website as it is a little hard to find and does provide some of the detail you have asked for.

To answer your question more fully we would need to ask ACIL for the information who would have to ask POAL to provide it.”

I was then sent a further email from the officer handling information requests.  He said:

Greg, further to your request to Doug regarding a more detailed breakdown of PoAL workers remuneration and allowance, I have not been able to get further information other than what has been previously supplied. I have checked with Gary Swift, CE of Auckland Council Investments limited, the CCO with oversight of the port and they do not have this information either. PoAL is not subject to LGOIMA, so we cannot progress the request via this avenue either.”

I was troubled by this.  Surely Auckland Council should get some financial information about POAL?

So I sent a further request.

“Dear ####

Thank you for your reply.  Can I submit this further LGOIMA request because your original response is troubling.

1.         What financial information is provided by POAL to ACIL?

2.         Has Council asked POAL for confirmation of its claim concerning stevedores wages?

3.         Has ACIL asked POAL for confirmation of its claim concerning stevedores wages?

4.         Your response is interesting.  Does Council have a policy that requires POAL to provide Council with accurate financial information because of its status as beneficial owner rather than under LGOIMA?

5.         Has my or any other request for information generated a request to POAL for information and if so what was POAL’s response?”

I then received the following response:

“Greg, in response to your further request of 22 March, I have raised the matter with ACIL and the Council’s CCO monitoring unit. The response is as follows:

1. What financial information is provided by PoAL  to ACIL?

PoAL submits financial information to ACIL that is related to meeting its performance objectives.

2. Has the Council asked PoAL for confirmation of its claim concerning stevedores wages.

No

3. Has the ACIL asked PoAL for confirmation of its claim concerning stevedores wages.

No

4. Does Council have a policy that requires PoAL to provide Council with accurate financial information because of its status as a beneficial owner rather than under LGOIMA.

POAL is not subject to LGOIMA. As noted above PoAL reports financial information via ACIL to the CCO Strategy review Sub-committee.

5. Has my or any other request for information generated a request to POAL for information and if so what was POALs response?

No.

In addition I have been advised that the issue of stevedore wages was reviewed by Ernst Young.  The link to this is http://needforchange.poal.co.nz/the-facts/default.htm“

So I then asked Council to ask POAL to answer the questions.  My request was as follows:

Dear ####

Thank you for your response.  Nothing personal but it contains no useful information.

For instance I wanted to know details about the financial information provided.  You could have responded “annual financial reports” or “tax return figures” or “detailed breakdown of all areas of expenditure” or “whatever is on the website is what the Council is given” but your response is absolutely meaningless.

And I appreciate that POAL is not subject to LGOIMA.  But as an elected representative I thought that I should be entitled to some information given that Auckland Council is the beneficial owner of POAL.

I ask that my request for more detailed information be conveyed to POAL and that you advise its response.

In relation to the Ernst and Young review all that appears to have occurred is that someone has got their calculator out and done the same calculations.  Can you ask POAL to provide the data sent to Ernst and Young.

The response that I received was as follows:

“Greg, Your request for more detailed information has been passed on to PoAL. They have declined to supply any further information.”

I must say that I have found this whole process frustrating.  I feel like I have been given the runaround.  A publicly owned entity has put out information into the public arena that it has used  in a battle to deunionise a worksite and drive down wages and conditions.  Despite an elected representative asking it to justify its figures it refuses to do so.

There is something wrong with the Council Controlled Organisations model in the super city if this can happen.

By Greg Presland

One of the most controversial aspects of the Auckland super city revamp was the worry at the loss of democratic control over decisions that used to be made by elected representatives.  Auckland Transport was perhaps the area where the loss would be most pronounced. Historically the Auckland Regional Transport Committee was the organisation that set the strategy for Auckland transport.  It comprised of ARC Councillors, councillors of the Territorial Local Authorities and representatives of such other esoteric groups as public transport users.

Then with the  advent of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority the governance was changed.  ARTA became the creator of strategy.  But at least ARTA’s board was appointed by the locals and subject to oversight by each of the territorial local authorities.

Super City changed things for the worse with the transport of the Auckland Transport Agency.  Instead of there being a board with locally appointed directors Rodney Hide and the Government hand picked the members.  Auckland Council can make and has made subsequent appointments but for now the Board is mostly a group of individuals appointed by a Government that appears not to consider peak oil a significant threat.

The consultation document just issued for the latest round of strategy reviews reflects this world view.  The issues section anticipates the continuous increase in private vehicle usage for decades to come.  The only role of the strategy is to try and accommodate this growth. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it appears almost inevitable that peak oil is occurring now.  When an august body such as the International Energy Agency says it has occurred we should take note.

The Government has been advised that world demand for fossil fuel resources will continue to grow, with prices likely to continue to increase as existing fields are depleted and new fields are developed in more difficult-to-access areas.  Not only are there significant sustainability and environmental issues but there are major financial implications for the country.  Between 2002 and 2010 the amount paid by NZ for petroleum imports increased by 133% while the volume only increased by 7%.  Worryingly there is predicted a sharp decline in local petroleum production from now to 2016 as existing fields such as Tui and Maari peak in their production, and before any new developments come on stream.

So what does the draft strategy identify as challenges? It considers that the challenges are population growth and associated need to travel.  The report states (page 7) that the demand for transport is anticipated to increase by almost 60% over the next 40 years.  Freight and Commercial trips are expected to more than double.

The solutions proposed are integrated land use and transport planning, intensification with improved passenger transport, and more roads.  The analysis screams business as usual.  And as usual it tries to deal with the problem by increasing the supply of transport of infrastructure, not by managing demand and attempting people to think about alternatives.  For instance if half the working population one day a fortnight could stay home and telework there would be a significant beneficial effect on congestion. Global warming is referred to as an “environmental effect” and the description of the effect is “negatively”.

Peak oil is not mentioned.  There is a reference to “rising energy prices” but as a historical occurrence rather than something that will continue into the foreseeable future. If it was up to me the report should have an alternative scenario written. This would say that there is a significant risk that petroleum will increase in price dramatically over the next decade.  If it does then the experience of 2007 when a spike in oil prices caused a dramatic increase in passenger transport usage may become an all too regular occurrence.  As increased fuel prices hit people are going to stampede to public transport.  The only thing that we can do is invest in transport systems that do not rely on petroleum and start doing it now.  Rail has to be electrified, the inner city loop has to be built so that the rail system’s throughout can be doubled, and the compact city model has to be followed so that the imperative to drive long distances is reduced. And there are environmental, financial and social imperatives in persuading people to think and try alternatives to private car use.

Submissions are open now and must be filed by 4 pm Friday March 23.

By Greg Presland

Auckland Council is reviewing the area’s dog bylaws and policies. This is a herculean task and is something that will attract the attention of a number of we sties. There are a number of different policies and bylaws throughout the legacy territorial local authorities and to understand them and attempt to reconcile them all has taken a lot of work.

A balance needs to be struck. Dog owners tend to be very passionate about their pets and people who do not own dogs are fearful at the thought of “bad” dogs so the reconciliation of each group’s expectations will require some deft consultation.

The date for the close of submissions (February 27) is approaching quickly so I thought that I would offer a few comments. Submissions are welcome and should be addressed to the Council. The Local Board will have some decision making powers in relation to dog access rules in local parks and on local beaches and can also advocate to Council on the form of the proposed changes so feel free to include myself and the other local board members in any correspondence.

The documents are complex. They have policy and legal implications so the need for complexity is understandable. If I have a criticism it is that the summary document has no useful information in it. Rather than generate one summary for the whole region which just keeps saying that things will mostly be the same but change occasionally there should have been a pamphlet for each board area detailing what the changes would be.

The statement of proposal report contains some interesting information. There are approximately 107,000 dogs in Auckland, 96,000 of which are registered. In 2010 Auckland Council received 27,885 dog complaints. The top three complaints are roaming, barking and acts/aggression. There is also emphasis on the need to exercise dogs and also the realization that dogs and their owners benefit from regular exercise.

So what are the proposed changes all about?

They can be summarised in five different areas:

1. Dog ownership rules
2. Access to public areas
3. Access to regional park
4. Access to beaches
5. Obligations of dog owners when their dogs are in public

I will attempt to summarise my understanding of each area in the following paragraphs.

Dog ownership rules

All dog owners will have to be registered. Existing restrictions on the number of dogs that you can own will continue. Every household can have one dog, properties under 2,000 square metros can have two. For an owner to have more than this number they will need to apply for a licence.

Access to public areas

The previous Waitakere City rule prohibited dogs from or within 10 metres of any playground. The new rule will prohibit dogs from any playground and they must be under control on a leash if in the vicinity of any playground when in use.

Dogs will also be prohibited from any sports surface and at all times must be leashed when in the vicinity of a sports surface when in use. This is also essentially a continuation of the existing policy.

On roads, private ways and council controlled car parks and boating areas leashing will be required.

Access to Waitakere Ranges Regional Park

In the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park area it is proposed that dogs will be prohibited from all picnic areas, water supply buffer lands and reservoirs, the grassed areas at Cornwallis, Whatipu Scenic Reserve and Pararaha valley, Lion Rock, North Piha, South Piha outside of daylight saving hours, Lake Wainamu and surrounding areas, the Tasman View Lookout Track, Cascades Kauri Ark in the Park area and on associated beach and foreshore areas. Cornwallis Beach sand area is a designated off leash area from sunrise to 9 am daily. Otherwise the rest of the regional park is a an on leash area.

Access to beaches

This is an area that will attract a lot of attention and the definition section needs some work as its meaning is currently unclear. Prohibited areas include South Piha from Labour Weekend to March 31. Bethells Te Henga is an off leash area during specific hours. North Piha is also off leash apart from areas shown as a rock or reef wildlife area. Marker poles should be observed. My reading of the changes is that there will be some further time limitations imposed so access to beaches will become tighter.

Obligations of dog owners when their dogs are in public

The first one is that if your dog does doggy do it is your job to clean it up. If your dog is in heat she needs to be contained when in public. Dogs classified as menacing will face mandatory de sexing. If dogs are caught uncontrolled on more than one occasion they also face the prospect of being de sexed.
If you want to have your say you can do so in a number of ways. Contact your councillor or local board member, file a submission online, or send a good old fashioned letter in.

Some personal thoughts by Greg Presland

The Local Board recently made a decision that has caused some concern amongst local groups and individuals.  I thought that I should set out the decision, the reason for the decision, the implications and what I think will happen in the future.

Firstly the decision.  On October  26, 2011 the board resolved that “[d]ecision making and oversight of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park should be allocated to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board as this would better promote the well being of the communities that live within the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, noting that the Regional Park is a large and significant part of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board land area.”

It was not intended by me that the park be annexed from the Regional Parks Network, just that the board had a significant role in their management.

The resolution was part of a larger resolution that considered the division of responsibilities between Council and the Local Boards.  There has been some tension in resolving this issue.  My clear impression is that Council is struggling with its workload and to be frank the local boards could be delegated more to do.  The process of forming super city has been that rushed that the division of responsibilities is a mess.

The principle that is talked about is that of “co governance”.  Local Boards are meant to make decisions with local effect and provide local representation on issues.  Auckland Council is meant to provide regional governance and deal with regional issues.

The provision of the Act that applies is section 17 of the Local Government Auckland Council Act 2009.

The provision is complex but the default position is that decision making should be exercised by a local board unless the nature of the activity is such that decision making on an Auckland-wide basis will better promote the well-being of the communities across Auckland because the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area, or effective decision making will require alignment or integration with other decisions that are the responsibility of the governing body, or the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.

In deciding on this particular issue we were responding to the test set out by concluding that we did not think that the circumstances justified a change from the default position.  It was not a desire to annex the parkland, rather the recognition that the parkland is an integral feature of the local board area and that local residents should have a significant say in what happens with the parkland.

The problem with section 17 is that it is an “either or”.  I have always thought that some sort of shared responsibility would be best but in addressing the section the board does not have this option.

It should also be emphasised that the section talks about “decision making” and this is why that particular phrase was used in the resolution.  That phrase is not defined in the Act.

The benefits of the board having decision-making power include:

• Local communities will have a greater ability to know what and be involved in what is happening.
• Decisions will be made locally and reflect local feelings rather than those of Aucklanders who may have no interest in the park.
• Local aspirations can be represented.

However I agree that there are also benefits with the Council continuing to exercise decision-making power.  These benefits include:

• A regionally strategic overview of the network can be continued.
• Resources and personnel can be more efficiently used throughout the region.  I do not believe that the local board needs to employ its own group of rangers.

So where to from here?

My preference is that there be significant local input but for strategic reasons I agree that central control is preferred.  The budget sits with the Auckland Council and there is a real benefit and strength in treating the parks as a regional asset.  Rather than an “either or” I prefer that some sort of hybrid is developed.

Local input can occur by having any agenda items dealing with the Waitakere park included on our agenda and by us providing feedback on issues.  Regular briefings can occur.  Sandra Coney has suggested this and I believe that this is a good suggestion.  And this would have the benefit of keeping local communities involved in what is happening.

Comments welcome.  I can assure everyone that Denise, Neil and I are passionate supporters of protection of the Ranges and would not do anything to lessen current protection.

By Greg Presland

Economic strategies are unusual beasts.  They are always optimistic, full of platitudes and express the expectation that Nirvana is just around the corner.  They offer generalised conclusions and if followed the promise that we will be rich, rich, rich.

The Auckland Council’s draft economic strategy is a bit like this.  The goals are to achieve an average annual increase of regional exports greater than 6 %, an average real GDP greater than 5% and an annual productivity growth rate of greater than 2%.  At the same time there is the desire that we have a sustainable eco economy.

I hate to be critical but I do not see that these things are complimentary.  Continuous growth and environmental sustainability are essentially mutually exclusive.

We are already in a situation where depletion of resources is occurring at a greater rate than our earth can sustain.  The World Wildlife Fund estimates that by 2030 two worlds will be needed to sustain current rates of consumption.

It seems clear that the production of oil has peaked.  When a conservative and august organization such as the International Energy Agency says so then we should be worried.  Our reliance on petroleum to drive our industries and transport our goods is in for a shock.  Recent events such as the spiking of petroleum prices, the world wide recession, a tepid recovery and the respiking of prices conform with the predictions of what would happen.

So what sort of economy should we aim for?

Certainly full employment is a priority.  There is nothing better for the community than for everyone to have a decent job.

But the trouble is that reliance on traditional manufacturing and export led growth is dangerous in the extreme.  As the cost of transport goes up exporting will become more and more fraught and unprofitable.

Low environment effect jobs need to be preferred.  Website development and other IT jobs, education, counselling, creative industries are ideal.  To ensure that we can live in a sustainable way we will need to concentrate less on gadgets and chattels and more on spiritual and mental improvement.

Import substitution will become more and more important.  For instance out west the former orchards of Oratia could again fulfil a role of being a food basket for Auckland.  Why import food when we can grow it locally?  There is a benefit, freshly grown fruit is far preferable to the refrigerated to hell stuff we are currently sold.

The economic development strategy is at the same time conventional, asperational but unrealistic.  We need a braver more futuristic strategy if we are going to leave a world fit for our kids.

By Greg Presland

This week the combined Westie boards heard submissions from local residents and groups that wanted to make a submission to all of the boards.  Amongst them was National List MP Tau Henare.  Essentially he wanted rates reduced for local businesses.

He has an argument.  Waitakere Council had the highest business rates of the region.  The reasons are historic, Waitakere did not have much industrial land, and when an assessment of business use of the local infrastructure was made it came out quite high.  When I was on Council the figure was approximately 20%.  Business activity used about a fifth of the infrastructure and it was thought appropriate that businesses should pay that share.

In other parts of the city the figure was lower.  But this was because they had so much more industrial land and the expense could be shared around.

Now that we have the super city I am sure that the opportunity for change is immense and Tau is right to ask that we change things.  There is however one problem with his advocacy, his Government has passed laws that will mean that it will not happen, at in least this financial year.

Section 33 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires that the rates on each unchanged rating unit must be a uniform percentage variation from the total liability of that rating unit for rates for the 2010/2011 financial year.  If a unit changes, then there is a formula to work out the amount of rates to be paid.

So for the next 12 months all that happen is that rates are increased (or decreased) by a uniform percentage amount.  Making localised variations is not possible.

I asked Tau about this.  I said that I agreed with him that this was a problem this year and asked him if he had thought about complaining to the parties who were really to blame for this situation, that is the Minister of Local Government and the Government because they were the persons responsible.  By the law they had enacted they have prevented Auckland Council from doing so.

Tau did not really answer the question.  He kept talking about the need to reduce rates and how many jobs could be created by doing so.  He also said in general terms that the Council had an obligation to set a rate that was fair.

I then suggested that he was asking Council to do something that legally his Government had said that it cannot do.

This time he answered, sort of.  He mentioned section 46 of the Local Government Act and said the Council inherited the Rates Remissions policies of the former Councils.  Unfortunately section 46 refers to circumstances where members of a local authority could be liable for loss, not rates remission.  He may have been referring to section 46 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 that essentially includes existing Waitakere Rates remissions policies into the new budgetary documents.  But as far as I can ascertain there is no policy that allows business rates to be reduced in the way he wants Council to do so.

Vanessa Neeson accused me of asking a political question!  Funny that.  A former National MP’s wife elected to public office with a conservative agenda accuses moi of being political?  And a National MP appears to lecture Auckland Council on what it should do in election year when he knows or should know that his Government’s laws mean it cannot and this is not political?

Tau was asked by my friend Catherine Farmer who he thought he was representing.  This question caused some indignation amongst others but I thought it was perfectly appropriate.

My final question to Tau was that Auckland’s Local Government Review was complex and there had been many unintended consequences and did he think that the process was rushed.  Perhaps unsurprisingly he said “no” although he did agree that it was all political.

I am pleased to see that Waitakere Film Studios is now again under full Council ownership.

I was one of the Waitakere City Councillors who in 2002 decided to buy the original studio.  It had been the site of a nascent film industry in West Auckland.  The owner went broke and the possibility was that the film industry would be compromised.  The studio could have been sold and closed down.  The land itself was worth the purchase price so I thought that it made a great deal of sense to buy it.  If it did not work out the land could be sold or used for another purpose and the ratepayer would not have missed out.

Since then the studio has been an outstanding success.  The West has been the centre for filming of some outstanding films such as the Chronicles of Narnia, In My Father’s Den and the Vintner’s Luck amongst many others.  The filmography is really impressive.

There are many local businesses that have grown and thrived because of the studio.  The growth in demand since 2002 has meant that brand new built for purpose studios needed to been constructed.  This has happened because of and was funded by Tony Tay’s interests’ contribution to the public private partnership.

Following the failure of Tony Tay’s company I believe the decision to buy its shares in the studio to be a correct one.  There have been reports that Tay’s company shares have been bought for $1.5 million dollars.  If this is correct the price was cheap.  Tay’s interests held 56% of the shares in a studio complex worth $7 million or more.  The price appears to be less than half that which should have been paid.

Some suggest that Council should divest itself of the studio but I wonder why.  It is like other pieces of infrastructure that are publicly owned but which private enterprise rely on.  Should we sell our roads or railway stations or universities or schools in the hope that private owners can make some money out of it?

And besides the essential cost is the price of holding onto the land.  For that investment we have a local quality industry that creates tens of millions of dollars of economic activity each year.

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse deserves praise for this decision.  She was part of the Waitakere Council many years ago that decided on the initial investment.  The decision was unanimous back then and if this Council had any sense it should have been unanimous now.

Public ownership will ensure that the Studio continues to be available and that an important local creative industry’s future is assured.

By Greg Presland

Palmerston North City Council is contemplating enacting a by law that would allow it to fine people begging on its streets.  The proposal reminds me of the the famous saying by Anatole France that “[t]he law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread”.  Because begging is a sure sign of poverty and to fine the poor for begging will only add further financial stress to already strained circumstances.

The report to be considered at the Council’s Community Well Being Committee on August 1 has some chilling content.  It notes that there has been a recent rise in the number of beggars being seen on Palmerston North’s streets.  This is not surprising, unemployment has doubled over the past three years from 3.5 % of the work force to just under 7 %.  There are currently 155,000 unemployed nation wide.  Of course poverty is going to be that much more prominent.

The officer preparing the report properly consulted with the beggars themselves.  Some were homeless.  Most were on benefits.  All but one had mental health problems.

Business owners were also consulted.  They believe they are losing significant revenue because of the presence of the beggars.  They also thought the sight of beggars was a poor look for the community especially in World Cup year.  Obviously as far as they were concerned it would be better for the beggars to be out of sight if not out of mind.

The report notes that prosecutions are expensive and high handed and require considerable resources.  When canvassing options it suggests that the “problem” may be capable of social resolution.  This suggestion is rational and humane but I fear will not carry the day against obvious prejudice.  It will be interesting to see what the Council decides to do.

It will hopefully not follow the lead of the former Auckland City Council.  The John Banks Council enacted Bylaw No 20 – Public Places 2008 which included in the definition of “street trading” the “soliciting or collection of any subscription or donation”.  In John Banks’ Auckland beggars needed to apply for a licence before they were permitted to beg.  Someone found begging without a permit could be required to leave the area.  Failure to do so would constitute an offence punishable a fine of up to $20,000.

That particular piece of madness was the brainchild of Paul Goldsmith, National’s current candidate for the Epsom electorate.  It is hoped that if Paul is elected to Parliament then he shows more compassion than he did to Auckland’s homeless.   He seemed to be particularly upset that the homeless were making Auckland look messy, and he proposed changes to the New Zealand Bill of Rights so that police officers could pick people up and move them on.

That Council budgeted $220,000 for security guards to move the homeless on, that sum could have been used to provide many homeless with shelter.  It is not as if there had been an explosion in the numbers of homeless living on the streets.  As noted at the time by current Councillor Cathy Casey

For as long as there has been a city here there have been rough sleepers. The problem is not huge. The latest count found 91 people sleeping rough within 3km of the Sky Tower – down from the 120 the year before.

I hope Palmerston North do not do it.  And as I am involved in the Auckland review of its by laws I will be raising the issue of whether it is right that the poor and unwell should be open to significant fines for sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets.