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.

Before the last local body election the Manukau City Council promoted a local bill that would have made prostitution on its streets in nominated areas illegal.  The bill reflected the frustration felt by Papatoetoe residents.  Hunter’s Corner in particular was known as an area frequented by streetwalkers.

The bill attempts to reverse the reforms contained in the Prostitution Reform Act 2003.  That Act essentially recognised that prostitution is here to stay.  It has been a phenomenon for most if not all of the history of the human race and all attempts to curb it or prohibit it have failed.

Instead of prohibiting the activity the Act tried to regulate and normalise it, so the lives of prostitutes could improve.  Instead of being under the control of pimps they could control their involvement in the profession and have a say in their future.  It was a really hard message to sell but for those in the industry any improvement in control and protection was welcome.

A review of the effects of the Act published in 2008 concluded that the number of sex workers on the streets was approximately the same as before the Act came into force in 2003.  In some cases numbers had appeared to have slightly reduced, contrary to allegations that they had increased.  Sex Workers appeared to be more empowered, and their perceptions of control had improved.

Protection of prostitutes had the opportunity to upset others.  It is one thing if the activity is kept hidden in a discrete small suburban brothel, but as soon as the profession became visible then many in the community understandably become upset.

The Manukau Bylaw did not promise to sort all problems, it provided that if streetwalkers worked prohibited areas then they could be arrested and fined.  I have sympathy with the desire to do something.  But fining the offenders would do no more than add a further expense to their business’s bottom line.

It is not as if the local bill will add to police powers.  The complaints by Papatoetoe locals are about behaviour that is clearly offensive and disorderly or involves the use of illicit drugs.  Any police officer who witnesses such behaviour can arrest for any number of reasons.

So the desire to do something is understandable but the actual proposal is not going to help.

What is really strange is the insistence that a local bill designed to address one specific area in a South Auckland suburb should then be brought out to apply to all of the Super City.  The proposal has ruffled some Local Board feathers, prostitution is meant to be one of three areas that local boards are responsible for, the others being dogs and booze.  Yet Local Boards have been offered a briefing only on the changes.

Out west I do not believe that streetwalking is a problem.  I cannot recall ever seeing a street walker.  It may be that I am not looking in the right place, but I do not think that there is any evidence that the current law is not working.

The unfortunate thing is that the bylaw is seeking to recriminalize activity that the Prostitution Law Reform Act tried to deal with by other means.  The bill is well intentioned but reinstitutes a control mechanism previously used that clearly did not work.

By Greg Presland

The Herald reported recently about a rather violent argument within a recent Regional Development and Operational Committee meeting.  Well known peace activist Laurie Ross and a couple of young children came to the meeting urging the Council to become a city of peace.  Their request was met with bickering and petty point scoring which reflects poorly on those involved.

Recently elected Councillor Dick Quax was prominent.  His name is instantly recognisable, he was a well known middle distance runner back in the 1970s.  He obviously thinks that this converts into the ability to run the largest city in the country but the skill mix required is much greater than this.  In a rare display of complete insensitivity he described the proposal as a “boondoggle – doing useless and unnecessary work”.

But the proposal has exceptionally strong symbolic characteristics.  The anti nuclear movement started after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked at the end of the second world war.  On June 24, 1982, the Mayor of Hiroshima announced a ‘Programme to Promote Solidarity of Cities Toward the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’ at the 2nd Special Session on Disarmament held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.  The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki issued a joint call to cities everywhere to support the programme.

It is not as if it is a new proposal, Waitakere, North Shore and Auckland cities had already declared themselves to be cities for peace.

The implications are symbolic, some extra civic events, work on the website and an Auckland Heritage Peace Walk.  There could be assistance for cultural events, planting of trees and support for local anti violence groups.

To fund it there was an existing budget of $40,000 that could be used, 3c for every inhabitant in Auckland.

Admittedly the benefits are hard to measure.  But it means that if there is one less fight in ten years that causes one young person not to suffer injury requiring long term care then in financial terms the programme is successful.

And as a statement of what we want our city to be what is wrong with it?

By Greg Presland

The Government has now released its analysis of Auckland Council’s business plan for the Queen Street Rail Loop.

The response is somewhat pessimistic and the headline is that the anticipated economic benefits are not there.  The Government’s estimate of the transport benefits of the project are put at $387 million rather than the $1,319 million assessed in Auckland Council’s business case.

But how coherent is the Government analysis?  I have read it and it appears to be constructed on foundations of sand.

The analysis is premised on the belief that we are in business as usual mode and that the use of cars will continue to increase.  The greatest driver of growth is thought to be job creation in the CBD rather than the possibility that oil price increases will price most people off the road.  The report considers that there will be 32,000 extra car person and public transport passenger journeys into downtown in the 2041 morning peak and bases this conclusion on historical trends.  It then works out how these extra trips may be apportioned between the various modes.

It did not help Auckland Council’s business case that it also presumed business as usual and a gradual increase in road usage.  Essentially both the Council and the Government looked in the rear view mirror and based on past events estimated what will happen in the future.  They then measured the economic benefit by assessing “decongestion benefits”.  They both thought that in 2041 there would still be thousands of cars driving around and that an improved rail system will allow motorists to get to their destinations slightly quicker.  But in looking in the rear view mirror they did not see that peak oil had wiped out the bridge ahead of them and that they should have made dramatic alterations to their plans.

Oddly enough both reports make allowances for the effects of increased parking charges but do not make allowances for the effects of increased fuel costs.  This is an extraordinary oversight.

The reports ignore something that appears more and more likely, that we have reached peak oil and that the use of car will become more and more expensive.  The phrase “peak oil” does not appear in either report.

The inner city loop has one significant advantage over other transport projects that it relies on electricity and not fuel.  In 2041 there may be very little use of private cars and the rail system may be the mainstay of most of our transport requirements.

When someone as informed as Dr. Fatih Birol, Chief Economist and Head of the Economic Analysis Division of the International Energy Agency says peak oil has already occurred we should at the very least design our transport systems believing this is a possibility.