All that glitters is not economic gold...

We had the budget last week. Many expected a more savage set of cuts and a more concerted attack on the deficit. Most commentators who traditionally support the Key Government have been muted at best about it. It's really business as usual with the Christchurch earthquake being the only place where the rubber is really hitting the road. It's so public there. So many peoples' lives and assets affected.

The budget predicts GDP growth to be 4% in 2014. Though where that growth will come from is not clear. Even IRD don't agree with Government tax revenue forecasts. Burble burble. Economics, economics. Not my forte. Just trying to get lined up for my main message here.

What I'm picking up is that more and more commentators are asking the question: what is New Zealand's economic development going to be based on in future? What is the long term plan for that development? What do we need to be doing now, so we can be in good shape to deliver on that longer term economic development plan?

Fool's Gold hurts national wellbeing...False Gold. This is my main message. The National Government has - more than any other Government that I can remember - acted as if New Zealand has just been colonised. It's slash and burn and extract the quick gold. Emphasis has been on extraction at all costs - at any cost. These last few weeks the media has been chocka with stories about what dairy farming is doing to New Zealand's environment.

White Gold....The Business pages are stacked with graphs and tables about butter fat prices. White Gold. So worth having that landscapes no self-respecting farmer would ever have turned into a dairy farm - are now stacked with cows - and irrigated from dawn till dusk. I talked to an accountant mate about this. He told me about his training, "what we first got told was unwritten Rule Number 1. Rule number 1 in New Zealand is farmers pay no tax." I asked him about this and he said, "simple. They're in debt. They've got loans from overseas investors to buy their land and farm plant. All the revenues get ploughed back into interest payments. New Zealand doesn't see any of that money - bugger all anyway. Revenues from dairy don't benefit the New Zealand economy. And the IRD hardly gets a cent...."

And this is where the real cost is. For New Zealand. I'd like to see an honest benefit/cost calculation done on NZ's white gold industry. It makes a grown trout-fisherman cry to see what's happened to the lakes around Rotorua due to dairy farming. And long term data suggests it's doing the same to Lake Taupo and to rivers in parts of Southland. Nitrates from cow piss and poo that are in the ground now will flow into our natural water courses for another 20 years. Even if dairy farming stopped now. And as technology has transformed dairy farming (think of all those automated milking factories funded by overseas investment) it's not as if there's lots of farm labourers being paid, taking that wage into local shops and feeding the local economy. Far from it. They're unemployed now - lots of them - can barely afford a block of cheese and a litre of milk. Any capital gains once debt is repaid are not subject to tax either. Untaxed extraction benefits subsidised by nitrated natural waters and an increasingly methaned atmosphere.

Black Gold.... Whether it's fantastic coking coal from places like Pikes River coalmine, or lignite from Southland, the Government is right behind it. We might not burn it here, and if we don't then there's always China after a bit of cheap fossil fuel energy. I haven't seen recent financial analyses of this "economic" activity. But you can bet your bottom dollar that apart from a little bit of royalty that the government might be able to extract, coal mining's a bit like white gold mining because the mining companies have had to invest so much in building the mine, the tunnelling, and all of the other stuff, that the revenue from the coal will again be paying the bank, the overseas investor.

And where does this cost get factored in? What would happen if the coal companies were required to pay the carbon charge as soon as the black gold was hauled out of the ground? This picture shows the painful truth of what happens to that coal - and sometimes to the lignite when it can be forced to burn clean by blowing in lots of air, and by having pollution cleaners in the stacks. The truth is that clean-burning coal doesn't look as if it's doing anything bad. A bit like cow piss and poos. That nice white steam is chocka with Carbon Dioxide. Yes we breathe it out - but not on this scale. Look at this post: Earth's air before coal. That's the subsidy cost we give to our children.

Gold Gold.... And here we have the real McCoy. Gold gold. Sure I know gold is used for other activities. Funny how gold (and silver) prices rocket in a recession. The Government got pretty keen on allowing gold mining on the Dept of Conservation Estates. Gold mining still happens in New Zealand - quite big scale in MacCraes Flat, Central Otago. Is this what New Zealand has to do, to keep up with Australia? Thing is - our geology is very recent compared with Australia. The easy gold has gone from here. There never was that much in the first place. Went in a big rush in a few years. That wealth probably did do something for NZ's economy back then. Some miners stayed here to spend it. But today's gold mining operations are big investments. Again, overseas investors heavily involved. Largely automated operations. Not much employment...

Doesn't really matter which gold mine you look at in New Zealand, they're all pretty damaging. Just now the Government has agreed to spend millions cleaning up the Tui mine tailings at Te Aroha. This picture's at Waihi. The Martha Hill mine. Big deep pit in the heart of Waihi. In the background the tailings area. Heavy metal etc contaminated fines. Sure they're all contained behind tailings dams. But not very pretty. Risky. It's all so short term. That's the essence of a colonial approach to economic activity. Slash and burn. And for NZ it's death by a thousand cuts. None of this "gold rush" does New Zealand any real long term good. Because it's all going to come to a sticky end when the resource runs out. By definition.

Green Gold.... Which brings me to Green Gold. The last frontier outside most city metropolitan urban limits. So many hearts set on subdivision. The rhetoric is all about housing affordability and so on. But these arguments are fundamentally about freeing up rural land for another form of short-term wealth extraction. When it's over, it's over. Can't do it again. But that's not the plan. The plan is, now, we, want, to turn this paddock into money. Developers do it because they can. Serious quick profits can be made, and have been made. All it takes is to convince Government to change the laws around MULs, allow developers to take quick profits from subdivision, rather than requiring a true cost contribution to the real costs of the infrastructure that will network those new lots into the existing urban framework.

The true costs of the sort of unplanned sprawl that New Zealand developer larikans love and want and argue for, is hard to quantify and disputed. The apparent freedom that goes with living the lifestyle dream in the country is that somewhere else, someone has to dig up more of the black gold that is needed to power the cars that are needed to get you to the amenity most families rely on: schools, shops, cafes, entertainment. Let the new "happy" homeowners pay the true costs of their alienation from urban amenity, for decades. And don't forget: bail-out the development companies that took the biggest risks with this particular "gold mine".

As we know from going to the dentist, the thing about extractive economic activities is that they leave a great gaping hole. Tomorrow's children can't go to those places and do that thing again. It's gone.

Which brings us back to the start of this.

So when will we get some of that long term thinking that most are calling for from our Government? Some investment in economic development that is not so devastatingly extractive. And I haven't even talked about silver gold (fish), and pine gold (monoculture forestry).

Auckland and Wellington sit high in the Mercer Quality of Life Surveys - not because of our extractive approach to economic growth, but despite it. But boy oh boy, New Zealand's economic future is teetering on the brink of a black hole.

All that glitters is not economic gold...

We had the budget last week. Many expected a more savage set of cuts and a more concerted attack on the deficit. Most commentators who traditionally support the Key Government have been muted at best about it. It's really business as usual with the Christchurch earthquake being the only place where the rubber is really hitting the road. It's so public there. So many peoples' lives and assets affected.

The budget predicts GDP growth to be 4% in 2014. Though where that growth will come from is not clear. Even IRD don't agree with Government tax revenue forecasts. Burble burble. Economics, economics. Not my forte. Just trying to get lined up for my main message here.

What I'm picking up is that more and more commentators are asking the question: what is New Zealand's economic development going to be based on in future? What is the long term plan for that development? What do we need to be doing now, so we can be in good shape to deliver on that longer term economic development plan?

And this is my main message here. The National Government has - more than any other Government that I can remember - acted as if New Zealand has just been colonised, and it's slash and burn and extract all the quick gold. It's whole emphasis has been on extraction at all costs - at any costs really. These last few weeks the media has been chocka with stories about what dairy farming is doing to New Zealand's environment.

White Gold....The Business pages are stacked with graphs and tables about butter fat prices. White Gold. So worth having that landscapes no self-respecting farmer would ever have turned into a dairy farm - are now stacked with cows - and irrigated from dawn till dusk. I talked to an accountant mate about this. He told me, "what we first told was rule number 1. Rule number 1 in New Zealand is that farmers pay no tax." I asked him about this and he said, "simple. They're in debt. They've got loans from overseas investors to buy their land and farm plant. All the revenues get ploughed back into interest payments. New Zealand doesn't see any of that money - bugger all anyway. Revenues from diary don't benefit the New Zealand economy. And the IRD hardly gets a cent...."

And this is where the real cost is. For New Zealand. I'd like to see an honest benefit/cost calculation done on NZ's white gold industry. It makes a grown trout-fisherman cry to see what's happened to the lakes around Rotorua due to dairy farming. And long term data suggests we are doing the same to Lake Taupo. And nitrates from cow piss and poo that are in the ground now, will flow into our natural water courses for another 20 years. Even if it stopped now. We know that as technology has transformed diary farming, think of all those automated milking factories, more overseas investment, it's not as if there's lots of farm labourers being paid, taking that wage into local shops, and extering an economic multiplier effect. Far from it. They're unemployed now - lots of them - can barely afford a block of cheese and a litre of milk.

Black Gold.... Whether it's fantastic coking coal from places like Pikes River coalmine, or lignite from Southland, the Government is right behind it. We might not burn it here, and if we don't then there's always China after a bit of cheap fossil fuel energy. I haven't seen recent financial analyses of this "economic" activity. But you can bet your bottom dollar that apart from a little bit of royalty that the government might be able to extract, coal mining's a bit like white gold mining because the mining companies have had to invest so much in building the mine, the tunnelling, and all of the other stuff, that the revenue from the coal will again be paying the bank, the overseas investor.

And where does this cost get factored in? What would happen if the coal companies were required to pay the carbon charge as soon as the black gold was hauled out of the ground? This picture shows the painful truth of what happens to that coal - and sometimes to the lignite when it can be forced to burn clean by blowing in lots of air, and by having pollution cleaners in the stacks. The truth is that clean-burning coal doesn't look as if it's doing anything bad. A bit like cow piss and poos. That nice white steam is chocka with Carbon Dioxide. Yes we breathe it out - but not on this scale. Look at this post: Earth's air before coal.

Gold Gold.... And here we have the real McCoy. Gold gold. Sure I know gold is used for other activities. Funny how gold (and silver) prices rocket in a recession. The Government got pretty keen on allowing gold mining on the Dept of Conservation Estates. Gold mining still happens in New Zealand - quite big scale in MacCraes Flat, Central Otago. Is this what New Zealand has to do, to keep up with Australia? Thing is - our geology is very recent compared with Australia. The easy gold has gone from here. There never was that much in the first place. Went in a big rush in a few years. That wealth probably did do something for NZ's economy back then. Some miners stayed here to spend it. But today's gold mining operations are big investments. Again, overseas investors heavily involved. Largely automated operations. Not much employment...

Doesn't really matter which gold mine you look at in New Zealand, they're all pretty damaging. This one's at Waihi. The Martha Hill mine. Big deep pit in the heart of Waihi. In the background the tailings area. Heavy metal etc contaminated fines. Sure they're all contained behind tailings dams. But not very pretty. Risky. It's all so short term. That's the essence of a colonial approach to economic activity. Slash and burn. And for NZ it's death by a thousand cuts. None of this "gold rush" does New Zealand any real long term good. Because it's all going to come to a sticky end when the resource runs out. By definition.

Green Gold.... Which brings me to Green Gold. The last frontier outside most city metropolitan urban limits. So many hearts set on subdivision. The rhetoric is all about housing affordability and so on. But these arguments are fundamentally about freeing up rural land for another form of short-term wealth extraction. When it's over, it's over. Can't do it again. But that's not the plan. The plan is, now, we, want, to turn this paddock into money. Developers do it because they can. Serious quick profits can be made, and have been made. All it takes is to convince Government to change the laws around MULs, allow developers to take all the profits from subdivision, rather than requiring a true cost contribution to the real costs of networking those new lots into the existing urban framework, and let the new "happy" homeowners pay the true costs of their alientation from urban amenity, for decades.

The true costs of the sort of unplanned sprawl that New Zealand developer larikans love and want and argue for, is hard to quantify and disputed. The apparent freedom that goes with living the lifestyle dream in the country is that somewhere else, someone has to dig up more of the black gold that is needed to power the cars that are needed to get you to the amenity most families rely on: schools, shops, cafes, entertainment.

As we know from going to the dentist, the thing about extractive economic activities is that they leave a great gaping hole. Tomorrow's children can't go to those places and do that thing again. It's gone.

Which brings us back to the start of this.

So when will we get some of that long term thinking that most are calling for from our Government? Some investment in economic development that is not so devastatingly extractive. And I haven't even talked about silver gold (fish), and pine gold (monoculture forestry).

Auckland and Wellington sit high in the Mercer Quality of Life Surveys - not because of our extractive approach to economic growth, but despite it. But boy oh boy, New Zealand's economic future is tettering on the brink of a black hole.

Queens Wharf - Has it come to this?

So here we have Queens Wharf, as ARC and the Government - according to its joint media release - would like it to be. The glowing thing is the plastic structure - aka the tent. Though we are told it is not a tent. It is a temporary structure that is not a tent. Apparently it can be slapped up and together for under $10 million. Cheap and reasonably tacky. There's a big screen outside on the end of Queens Wharf, and a possible Rugby Ball. September...

This is their conception of how it might look on the inside. A fairly transparent structure. One that can be taken down and relocated after the event. I was advised that the reason the cargo sheds needed to go to make room for it, is because they want the tent also to be used as a cruise ship terminal. Can't get away from that Cruise Ship terminal on Queens Wharf imperative...

I think Auckland will love hosting a Party Central. We did it during the America's Cup. Here's a picture of how they hosted America's Cup Party Central in Valencia: The Woolshed. A real kiwi idea. People could shelter from direct sunshine, or rain, or wind - but there was plenty of air blowing through...

This facility worked really well in Valencia. People loved it. It would work well on Queens Wharf too. In the old sheds. Big screens strategically placed. Some areas had seating, others a bit more casual. Needs to be good for families, for young people wanting a good time, for older people too. A people's place...

Lots of people will actually go to rugby matches (unlike the yachting where it's hard for people to get out there and watch a race - TV is better for most). But with seat tickets going for a King's Ransom for NZ's Rugby World Cup, and with matches happening all over the country, a lot of Aucklanders will be watching TV screens, just as they watched yachting in Valencia....

And it's quite fun to do that in a big group, especially when there are fans around from other countries doing the same - in the same space. So far, it is planned that surplus Rugby fan accommodation will be provided by a Cruise Ship moored at Queens Wharf. This will provide a critical mass of rugby fans, rights on the spot - could a be a few thousand - the Queens Wharf shed(s) could become their TV viewing room. Places where they can invite NZ guests, places where Aucklanders can go to enjoy the fun too. Because Queens Wharf will be very busy place with the comings and goings of fans and their friends and guests.

Have you been on Queens Wharf yet? Have you been inside the Sheds? Have you experienced the views? Hardly anybody has. So go donw there this Sunday. Anzac Day. And have a good look. Would you renovate the house you just bought before you've lived in it for a while. Not likely! Same goes for Queens Wharf. Auckland needs to live on it for a while. Auckland needs to feel what it's like to have Queens Wharf for public uses. We need to experiment. Before we do anything permament down there.

I've been lucky enough to have a walk-over. Before I did I thought we should bowl the sheds. But then I went into them.... This is the cast iron footing for one of the ceiling/1st floor supports....

And this gives an idea of the underside of the 1st floor. This picture gives no idea of size, but I reckon the joist timbers are around 50x20 cms. That's a very hefty joist.

And this picture shows a close up of the floor timbers. They look about the cross section of railway sleepers, and are coach-nailed into the joists. It was like walking on concrete. You had no idea it was a floor with a big open space below...

This long character-filled space was evocative of all the work that has gone on in there for almost a century. Apparently a lot of the work was about wool bales. Our own wool shed. Even with just a few sky-lights on a grey day the light was great...

Apparently the roof trusses, and probably quite a lot more of the original stucture, was floated out here from Britain complete. Just needed bolting together...

Party Central on Queens Wharf is a good idea. Kills lots of birds with one stone. Has many, many benefits for Auckland and for Aucklanders. Let alone the Rugby World Cup event.

Queens Wharf: ARC and Government JV Meeting on Thursday

A little bit of pre-amble first, to get to the point of this blog....

Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.

The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:

In terms of Queens Wharf, work will progress on the agreed option for the redevelopment of wharf for the Rugby World Cup.

One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.

The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."

This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.

The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).

In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).

The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.

Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"

The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.

The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.

This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.

A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.

There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.

I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.

At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.

In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:

In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the Chief Executive investigate an exclusive partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and Government and report back to Council in January 2010.

This motion refers to the development of Queens Wharf including the $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. Auckland City Council has clearly not supported that project. Now it appears the ARC and Government have set up an Unincorporated Joint Venture. However there was no report to Council in January - as decided in the resolution. Nor one in February. Now we hear informally about a meeting of this JV happening this week. Without the ARC receiving a formal report as agreed. Not good process.

Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.

ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....

So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.

So where are we now?

So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.

And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.

Not good process.

Rogernomes make their grab for Auckland’s planning tiller…

I don’t say this lightly, and I don’t have concrete evidence, but you have to admire the clinical purity of the Government’s deconstruction of Auckland planning institutions. First there was RMA stream-lining, now it’s Local Government stream-lining, state imposed infrastructure (SH20 at Waterview), and who knows what’s next….

The context couldn’t be more perfect, just as it couldn’t have been more perfect in the 1980’s where New Zealand’s financial crisis helped push aside opposition to a draconian cluster of reforms.

The context today includes: General Election, Royal Commission, Global Recession. That’s quite a triumvirate. Hard enough for Aucklanders to deal with one at a time, let alone all together. The uncertainty caused by these factors creates the perfect climate for an organised Government to make transforming changes.

And Auckland is like a possum in the headlights. Most Aucklanders get on with their business and lives vaguely disquieted or excited by talk of a super-city. Be great to live in a Super City – but what is it – really? Many citizens are sharply aware of what’s coming to them, what’s going to be changed or abolished, and are revolting in their own individual ways. Meanwhile Auckland’s Councillors sit at their meetings across Auckland trying to get on with their busy agendas, but there’s an enormous distraction, an enormous elephant in the room.

Some rather like it, and are cuddling up to it, hoping perhaps to influence its manners, tendencies and toilet habits. They don’t want to be shat on from a great height. Others are highly sceptical and worried, and would like to kick it out, but haven’t the collective strength and are not sure which end has the tusks. These councillors and mayors are easily criticised of course: “just protecting their jobs, out for themselves, don’t trust what they say…”

And then there’s the by-election. Top list MPs fight it out at Mt Albert where Government is testing its mettle by dabbling with the SH20 Waterview Connection. Stephen Joyce made a good impression on TV last night, debating with a local Community Board Chair and the redoubtable Michael Tritt. Good on you Michael, for being there, we liked your work making that DVD: “Auckland - City of Cars”. How did you manage to get in there on TVNZ as a local homeowner and citizen? Well done, boy. Well said.

But it was Stephen’s show. He sat there on the screen in the background smiling benignly, telling Auckland why that road has to happen and how it has to happen. I find politicians are at their most certain and convincing when they are actually at their most ignorant. Mr Joyce has been an MP and Minister of Transport for about 6 months now. He’ll have learned a few things in that time, but I know how little I knew about transport when I got elected as Chair of Infrastructure at North Shore City Council in 2001. And I’d been deputy chair 3 years before that.

Transport and Land Use and Community Development and Land Economics are all entwined. It’s hard to get your head around. It takes time and experience. When you’re a newby to Auckland transport and land use, you don’t know what you don’t know. And that makes it easy to appear convincing on TV. As he was.

Completing the SH network has always been a reasonable policy objective. Most cities have incomplete state highway networks. Like Auckland’s most were planned in the 1960’s. Just because something is incomplete doesn’t mean the world falls apart. When I chaired Auckland’s Land Trsnsport Strategy in 2005 I was advised the waterciew connection of SH20 didn’t even have a Benefit Cost ratio of 1. But it needed to hit “3” to cross the funding threshold. It has never been a high priority.

Of course it will deliver benefits and reduce congestion. Every road does. But that logic alone would suggest roads everywhere. So now Auckland faces a Government determined to build this bit of motorway. A Government that has stream-lined RMA processes, and yesterday passed an Act establishing a Transition Agency for Auckland with statutory powers to by-pass Council decision-making.

Guess what it’s first job will be. To get Waterview motorway planning decisions done. To cut throught the red tape. Get that project underway.

I wonder whether every Cabinet Minister is in the know. Probably not. But there’s a strategy of steel behind what is happening. In a calculated and clinical way, Government is rolling back the soft, delicate and inclusive fabric of Auckland civil society, environmental care and public participation. It’s rolling back the thin layers of civilisation that have tentatively developed across Auckland since 1989.

Reacting then against the social destruction of 1980’s Rogernomics, Auckland knew it could do better for itself, its people and its communities.

Reforms since then included the RMA in 1991, which provides for environmental damage fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for seriously bad behaviour against the environment. But it also provided for much greater involvement by people and community groups in shaping their towns, places and cities. Through District Plans, through public plan change hearings and resource consent hearings. And all of these at local level.

In addition, after local government amalgamation in 1989, Auckland’s city councils embarked on a program of social and recreational infrastructure building and investment that Auckland had never seen before.

Community activities like: bowling clubs; swimming pools; ethnic support units; youth centres; meals on wheel support; environmental enhancement and protection groups; RSA Anzac Day Service funding; heritage building protection; life saving training; and Enviro-Schools were supported and funded. (You might now understand what the pictures are about. I was invited to Takapuna Normal Intermediate School to present their Silver Award. NSCC's Monique Zwaan and Cllr Ken McKay also attended.) And there are many, many more, such organisations and community partnerships with social infrastructure to match. All supported by ratepayers and regularly consulted over. And relied on by many.

This social and community fabric is thin in Auckland. It’s a thin veneer that links people, and is the safety net for many and also for an increasingly beleagured environment. It’s very much thinner in Auckland than it is in older, mopre civilised and exemplary European cities like Stockholm. It’s thinner than in Sydney and Vancouver. It doesn’t really get measured in those surveys that put Auckland right up there as a place to live. Statistics New Zealand is still figuring out how to measure social capital, even though other cities do it regularly. But whether we measure it or not - it’s an important part of a modern city.

And all of it is put at risk by Government’s planned and clinical approach to the de-construction of Auckland’s institutional arrangements for its environmental, social and infrastructural planning. These institutions – Acts of previous Parliaments and long established councils and community groups - are what underpin Auckland civil society and civilisation.

You can hear behind closed Government doors the calls to: “get rid of that red tape”… and …. “we’ve got to make it easier to get things done in Auckland…”. I sat beside a new Cabinet Minister on a plane to Auckland. He knew who I was. This was before the election. Before he was a Minister. He was convinced it was the right thing to get rid of the ARC and the MUL and “all that red tape…”.

As an aside here, I note in the Herald this morning that Government is looking at changing the way Councils can control the MUL. Something to do with low cost housing, the Minister said. Dr Nick Smith. Now that would be consistent with building more motorways. Let’s have some more sprawl. Get that land development engine going again….

You could never build a Waterview SH20 connection in Stockholm. Or London. Or Vancouver. But it wouldn’t be “red tape” that would be blamed. It would simply be the local community having the power to control its local destiny, and everyone appreciating that was the right way of doing things. Part of living in a civil society where continuity, social fabric, local environment was of greater importance than a motorway.

Public participation and engagement in community planning and local infrastructure planning is a pre-requisite for civil society. Its existence is a key sign of a healthy democracy. Public participation is actually measured in modern cities. But here in Auckland, the fact that public interest groups are partially funded – in some cases – by local councils, the fact their access to process is enshrined in the RMA, is seen as a bad thing. Again, you can hear some say: “..surely they’ve got better things to do with their time… they should be more productive… they’re just holding up progress… just a bunch of nimbys… time we cut off their water…”.

I don’t think all Government Ministers are bad people. But I do think there is a blissful ignorance about what this Government plans doing to Auckland. And it’s extremely destructive and risky. And it will roll back Auckland’s potential for a decade or more. And that is why it must be resisted strenuously.

Those of us who can do something – write, speak, oppose, support - will have failed Auckland if we don’t act now. This is not the 1980’s. It is 2009. Yes there’s a recession and it’s all a bit hard, but it is essential that we open our eyes and our minds to what can happen to Auckland and its communities through a combination of draconian changes to the RMA, Auckland Governance, and infrastructure planning.

Enviroschools have been growing in significance and importance across Auckland for the past 10 years. They would not happen without the support of City Councils and absolutely dedicated City Council staff. Students learn about the simple things: recycling, worm-bins, picking up rubbish. They do things: plant herb gardens and vegetable gardens and native bush areas for native birds. They extend their thinking into the community: travel plans to school safe safe-cycling routes and wys to improve local roads and footpaths. They bring their ideas home to the family: electricity conservation and recycling and composting. Some of this education is linked to National curriculum requirements.

Enviroschools are likely to fall through the cracks as Government changes Auckland.

In some countries Enviroschool stuff is called civics. It’s a big part of the curriculum. It’s valued. Students are taught skills to help them work together, and develop a sense of community spirit. Other countries have a constitution. We could do with something like that here in New Zealand. A consitution that would enshrine certain public participation rights and certain pieces of legislation. Like the principles of local government. Like the bottom line for public participation.

Until then. Revolt and resist.

Auckland Restructure - where's the "thought leadership"...?

I am struggling to find any “thought-leadership” that supports Government restructuring proposals for Auckland local governance. That makes it very hard to accept, and difficult to engage with.

The “Making Auckland Greater” document which accompanied Cabinet decisions two or three weeks ago, had been worked on for a good while longer than appearances suggested. It looked as if Cabinet had cooked up its “response” to the Royal Commission’s reports in a week. But now I hear through the grapevine that senior officials in the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) had working on a Government response for much longer.

So. The Government’s response is not a reaction to the Royal Commission at all. It is its own decision. There have been enough statements from enough politicians to the effect that restructuring will not produce savings of any consequence. Some may still be arguing that there will be savings, but the consensus is that savings will be minimal. The consensus is also that Auckland governance restructuring will cost money. So the question has to be asked: what are we doing, and why.

Summer sunset at Timaru. I liked the triangle. And I'm fascinated how mature gum trees in silhouette can look exactly like a handful of dry weeds held closeup.

I have to assume that what is being proposed is based on Government’s strategy for Auckland. It is intended to give effect to an incoming Government’s principles.

But what are they? What is Government’s plan for Auckland?

It is always difficult to second guess this stuff, but if – as seems likely – there I serious policy work being done in the DIA – then they will have considered what is happening around the world on this. How cities need to be governed, or self-governed, to best engage with and respond to global forces.

So I had a bit of hunt through Google on this.

From this we can glean that for centuries the world economy has shaped the life and development of cities. Now we seem to be in an age where this effect is more profound than it has been. Or at least that is the case in the age of globalisation. This was the age of global flows: flows of money, flows of information, flows of technology. We can see case studies of cities that have very deliberately positioned themselves to benefit from these flows.

Dubai is an extreme example.

On the other hand, every country, and every city has its own history and its own geo-political position. Google wisdom suggests that there is a very clear need to manage these two realities. Also there is a need to recognise that local realities, or local differences, have a strategic value and add edge to what a city has to offer. The converse of this is that the city that sells its soul as it strives to be all things to all global investors, can profoundly damage that city’s future.

A couple of approaches to local government organisation:

Community Choice Political fragmentation is not an especially positive word for what others would describe as local decision-making, local accountability, democracy. Theorists describe it is as public choice. They argue that a modern metropolitan area should contain multiple political jurisdictions, and that these will enhance choice (people choosing where they live in a city based on the character and the cost of an area), and they will enhance efficiency in service delivery (because not everybody wants the same services delivered to the same quality in all areas.) There is a market of local governments where mobile ‘citizens’ shop around for ‘communities’ that best fit their preferences.

Regionalism The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to regionalism. Political theorists argue that political fragmentation of a metropolitan area makes it difficult to streamline economic development, to provide regional services, or to enable the expression of a regional voice. These theorists advocate for one single voice. Consolidationists therefore argue that regional government is the solution. That is what Government is arguing, without being clear what it’s doing and why. Getting a city on board globalisation - and the global investment trail - is often associated with moves to regionalise local government.

This is also a conversation about centralisation vs de-centralisation. Some thinkers argue that decentralisation can work as long as there is a constant dialogue across jurisdictions regarding the urban problems that affect everyone in a metropolitan area. The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to extreme decentralisation – in the form of an all powerful Auckland Council, with a fig-leaf of local government - in the form of community boards which are actually a functional part of Auckland Council. A very big and muscular right arm, and a small and weak left arm, but both driven by one body corporate. It’s all about regionalism. It is not about local government.

The economic thinking that underpins the drive to regionalism is interesting. According to the writings of Bob Jessop – one of the thinkers about all this (my comments are in brackets) writes: “Post-war macroeconomic and microeconomic policies designed to facilitate full employment, price stability, economic growth, and the distribution of social welfare are no longer feasible through the national-state. (This fact has been intensified by the financial recession and the collapse of cheap fossil fuelled land speculation.) So, cities must increasingly use new, entrepreneurial modes of production and governance to secure competitiveness (and attract global investment). Likewise, the state must exploit the competitive advantages created by successful entrepreneurial cities, to secure an advantage internationally. This strategy can only be carried out through long-term organizational coordination coupled with effective performance assessment and accountability standards….”

He goes on to lay out the policy groundwork: “Several general trends are pivotal to the contextualization of the entrepreneurial city: 1) the de-nationalization of statehood, including the abdication of de jure sovereignty to supranational institutions and the devolution of authority to the city/regional level; 2) the transformation from government to governance in the form of partnerships between state agencies and non-governmental organizations; 3) the internationalization of the national state and a subsequent magnification of the transnational implications of domestic behaviour; …all of these processes contribute to the rise of the entrepreneurial city. The transformation of urban economics toward entrepreneurialism is driven by globalization, resulting in local activities such as new governance methods of public/private networking….”

This is all a bit disturbing. Suggesting that Government's plan for Auckland governance is driven by Auckland becoming much more entrepreneur/developer friendly. Of course we still don’t know who has actaually provided the basic policy thinking behind what Government is doing. I don’t know anyway.

But the above does give a flavour. Rings true. It is the sort of thing that might appeal to Rodney.

The problem with it all though, is that the collapse of the global property and real estate development finance industry, has destroyed much of the drive for globalisation. It was a house of cards. Look at Dubai. Fast sinking below the desert sands. And there are many other such projects. Look at the IMF - wondering where its future might best lie now.

So why should Auckland’s governance be re-shaped for a future that is no longer credible, by thinking that has passed its sell-by date?

And if there are other economic theories that underpin Governments’ project for Auckland, let us all share in their wisdom. C'mon Rodney, open that kimono, show us what you've got!

Electrification: ARC needs to work with Government

Under present funding arrangements, it was never going to be possible for ARC to fund Auckland Region's share of modernising and electrifying Auckland's rail network. Even if all we talk about is the existing network. And we ignore how rail to the airport and the Britomart rail tunnel might be funded.

It is critical also, that integrated ticketing is implemented as a matter of priority - probably higher priority than electrification itself. The transport and economic benefits that acrue from rational integrated ticketing and fares would be vast even for the present network and rail, bus and ferry services.

The ARC has got itself up a bit of gum tree on this issue. There is a combination of "Little Red Hen" and "Little Engine that Could" about its behaviour. Which is unfortunate, and does not help the region go forward. In my view, effective implementation and modernisation of Auckland's rail will require the concerted effort of central, regional and local government.

As its funding power has dropped there is a growing desperation among some at the ARC, and a sort of vainglorious hope that it alone can still lift Auckland from its bed of motorways (Little Red Hen meets Little Engine that Could - aka Tweedledee in this blog). This is reflected in the desire to concentrate only on buying trains - as if shiney new trains are the be-all and end-all of a modern urban rail system.

I have been advised by Aussie rail experts that while there are similarities between Perth's rail project and Auckland's, is that Perth's rail was already largely separated from the roading network - before electrification, and that few intersections (where roads physically cross railway lines) needed to be grade separated (through viaducts, bridges, tunnels, road closures etc). This is not the case in Auckland. Locals living in Onehunga, West Auckland, and around Pukekohe will atest to the huge number of rail crossings - which would be almost permanently closed to roading traffic when electric trains run at 5 to 10 minute frequencies.

The ARC has notionally allocated about $20 million to this. Kick start funding in the hope that City and District councils would pick up this issue and deal with it. Fat chance. The New Lynn rail station project is a good example of what is in store. It's a good project. I like it. All sorts of objectives met: urban development, urban intensification, Transit Oriented Development, bus/rail interchange, economic development incentive, AND several road crossings separated from rail tracks. But at a cost of more than $100 million.

That's what it costs.... and that's the tip of the iceberg.

Trains need maintaining and garaging amd washing and cleaning. Those buildings and facilities need to be built and paid for. Modern stations need to be built which optimise local development opportunities - and encourage private development. At least. Each station is a major opportunity for urban renewal and economic transformation.

Buying a shiney set of trains - alone - does not cut it. It is no way to run an urban railroad.

The ARC needs to lift itself from its bunker on the hill, and build trusting and robust and enduring relationships with central government and city and district government, and walk the talk of building networks for tomorrow.