NEW ZEALAND-MORE RURAL TURMOIL.
The recent Royal Commission Report into the governance of Auckland should be ringing clear alarm bells in the rural sector. What it’s saying is that in future Auckland is where it’s at, end of story.
I have absolutely no issue with local government reform, it is badly needed. I do have a major issue with the so-called reform of Auckland that will create a Kingdom that will not, in my opinion save money, but has the ability to lead the productive sector by the nose.

What is recommended for Auckland is one big council, Kingdom, to be run by one directly elected mayor or King. So great will his or her powers be that they will have greater executive powers than currently available under the current Local Government Act. Call that reform?
It gets worse. It is suggested this super city should have its own Minister and, believe it or not, Cabinet committee. So we’ve abolished the Mnister of Rural Affairs and plan on reinstating the Minister for Auckland complete with a Cabinet committee. Cabinet committees are by their nature far more powerful, less transparent and more partisan than select committees.
There is no Cabinet committee for the productive sector; we’re part of the economic growth and infrastructure committee that deals with "policy issues relating to economic growth, infrastructure, environment, energy and resources".
People seem to forget that agriculture produces two dollars out of every three we export yet we see headlines, such as appeared in NBR saying "when Auckland thrives New Zealand thrives". Reading further is the statistic that 34% of GDP is generated in Auckland and that we need to work hard to "unlock Auckland’s huge and exciting wealth creation potential".
Reforming local government is going to do that? Further as I’ve said before, farmers produce, Auckland consumes.
The Royal Commission claims the so-called reform will save the Auckland ratepayer between $76 and $113 million a year with many questioning those figures. When a similar exercise was completed in Toronto it didn’t generate savings at all.
The commission estimates the cost of establishing the super-council could be up to $240 million. With a super-council of that size they won’t be able to resist interfering in every part of Aucklanders’ lives with the associated costs.
Further, that amount is a pittance compared with the money Auckland currently sucks from the rest of the economy. As a taxpayer I’m highly aware that of the seven highways earmarked by the Government as a priority, four are in Auckland. What I found interesting was that in the Sunday Star Times there was an excellent article by a panel of international experts saying that Auckland should stop building roads. Question is why are we taxing the rest of the country to help them build more?
There is also going to be a national surcharge of six cents a litre on petrol which I’m unlikely to see in coastal Wairarapa but Auckland will enjoy.
In addition Auckland is sitting on several pots of gold so why is it sucking the life out of the rest of the economy?
Auckland Regional Holdings who own the Ports of Auckland have a $1.23 billion investment portfolio plus the assets of the port. Why are we subsidising them when they’re sitting on that nest egg? Also in the year to June 2008 almost $100 million was paid in dividends by Vector to the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust. Why don’t they sell their shares in Vector and invest the money in their own infrastructure?
Why are we subsidising Auckland when they won’t help themselves?
Rodney Mayor and ex Feds representative, Penny Webster, hit the headlines telling Newstalk ZB listeners that the super city proposal would discriminate against rural councils and she’s part of Auckland. She added that she was being "treated like a peasant" under the proposal.
She told Farmers Weekly that the proposal will give the two rural councils one vote each out of a total of 23 so there won’t be a rural voice. She said central Auckland was where the population centre is, it was not the powerhouse.
"It always amazes me when they say they’re the powerhouse of the economy but it is the rural sector that will get us out of this mess," Webster said. I agree.
Ridiculously in my view Feds came out "broadly supportive of local government in Auckland". Surprisingly they didn’t issue even a squeak when we were hit with a six cents a litre fuel tax. Mind you, neither did the rest of rural NZ.
I find it even more ridiculous that the Cabinet are going to consider a 700 page report that took months to write in just 12 days and, inevitably, make telling decisions that, equally inevitably, will cost the rest of us. Quick decisions I’ve found are invariably bad decisions.
The New Zealand Herald editorial on March 28 discussed the report under the heading, "a recipe for power not unity". That power is a direct threat to the needs and wishes of the rural sector. The recommended electoral format gave Maori 50% more representation by right than the two substantial rural councils with the Asian or Pacifika communities getting no acknowledgement at all.
The Herald editorial did say that having a mayor elected directly would mean that only "celebrity dilettantes would be likely to win such a race". The question is could that be John Banks, Mike Lee, Paul Holmes or the winner of Dancing with the Stars 2010?