Speed bumps, cycleways and Wellington’s conference centre were singled out for criticism at the Local Government NZ conference last week.
A visiting keynote speaker extolled the virtues of “good growth” that enhances many social goals.
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
They’re an easy target, councils, even when the metaphors are as richly mixed as that. If you’re a ratepayer, your rates are probably your biggest bill, so for the PM it was like shooting fish in a barrel. But why do it?
Also, he said, the Government will abolish the “four wellbeings” framework. That’s the legal requirement that councils take due account of economic, environmental, cultural and social values.
Luxon’s example of “fantasy” spending was the “white elephant” of Wellington’s one-year-old conference centre, known as Tākina, where revenue has not met budget.
Instead, he had a go at “Auckland Light Fail” and said there was to be “no more siphoning off funds for unnecessary cycleways and speed bumps”.
I was at that conference and I witnessed some dismay. Right now, councils are reeling from the results of delayed infrastructure spending, especially in water and transport. Many are still struggling to overcome the last round of climate-related disasters and all are fearful of how they will cope with the next.
They have spent much of this year wrestling with new 10-year budgets, known as long-term plans. From the enormous Auckland Council to tiny district councils, they have cut services and staff while trying to plan ahead and maintain a reasonable degree of service.
They have sought to enhance the economic prospects of their cities, towns and regions and at the same time stop rates bills from exploding.
Many have failed: such is the gap between essential spending and income that their rates increases approach or top 20 per cent. It’s not sustainable.
But it’s not credible to suggest they have arrived at this point without going through their budgets line by line or asking tough questions about what the “basics” are.
It’s not their fault they’re not being listened to about this. Instead, the Government talks about road tolls and other ways to make the public pay more.
The near-new Tākina Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wellington. Image / Supplied
Luxon could have made a rousing speech to the councils’ conference. He could have promised the leadership they need to carry out their vital roles in our national endeavour: to strengthen urban and rural resilience while building prosperity in a low-emissions economy.
You know, the thing we have to do.
Instead, he and his ministers chose to get all finger-waggy about low-cost projects designed to make our streets safer: cycleways and speed bumps.
For the record, road safety measures are not what stops water pipes and roads being maintained properly.
Speed bumps and cycleways are the cheap end of transport spending. Despite some fevered commentary, speed bumps in Auckland cost on average only $19,000 - $31,000 and cycleways account for a mere 1% of the transport budgets.
And Brown’s crack about Auckland Light Fail? It was a fail by the last Government, sure, because it insisted on expensive tunnels. But it’s absurd to smear Auckland Council with the blame: Auckland Transport had a relatively cheap surface option on the books in 2015.
If that local initiative had been allowed to proceed, we would probably be riding the trams by now.
The mayor of Central Hawke’s Bay, Alex Walker, had another way to describe this approach. “There is,” she told the conference, “a narrative of pretty easy soundbites that talks to a lowest common denominator.”
Boom. Almost a laundry list of distractions, you might say.
Central Hawke’s Bay Mayor Alex Walker, who called out politics aimed at "the lowest common denominator" at the local government conference. Photo / Warren Buckland
The theme of the conference was localism: the idea that decisions and responsibilities in government should be made as close to the people they affect as possible.
But claiming to be keen on something isn’t the same as making it happen.
At the conference, the self-declared champion of localism was Oliver Hartwich, executive director of right-wing think-tank the New Zealand Initiative.
“I am the greatest fan of bringing power to the people,” he proclaimed. We need to “find a way to decentralise” because localism is all about “rescuing democracy”.
Astonishingly, he then parroted the Government: councils had to stop spending money on cycleways and speed bumps. “This kind of behaviour”, he said, is “tone deaf”.
Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union was there, loudly clapping Hartwich at every turn: the cheerleader’s cheerleader.
What a nerve. If candidates for council say they want to make streets safer with things like cycleways and speed bumps, and they get elected, then that is democracy.
If public consultation suggests majority support for those things, then that is also democracy. And if surveys reinforce that – in Auckland, for example, it’s consistently about two-thirds in favour – then that is democracy too.
And if councils then implement those plans, that is democratic localism in action.
But it’s not localism if it applies only to council policies the central government wants anyway. That’s called being a puppet.
And it’s not “tone deaf” to listen past the shouty people, so you hear from those who want the traffic on suburban streets to slow down and would like their kids and themselves to be able to walk and cycle safely.
And who keep saying these things, despite so many powerful people being tone deaf to their appeals.
Yay for localism, but only if you do what we want. Only if you stop voting for mayors and councillors we don’t like. This is the opposite of “rescuing democracy”.
This is also what Luxon means when he says councils are not going line by line through their spending. Not that they’re being sloppy or lazy, but that they disagree with him about what to spend their money on.
One of the keynote speeches to the conference was given by Richard de Cani, from the London-based firm of engineers, designers and “technical experts” called Arup.
De Cani talked about “regional deals”, in which central government helps councils with special economic tools to advance various large projects.
Luxon and Simeon Brown are keen although, as per their views on localism, councils will have to do what they’re told.
“We will only fund deals that focus on the basics and spend ratepayers’ money responsibly,” Brown told the conference.
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon speaking to media after Luxon's speech to the LGNZ conference. Photo / Mark Mitchell
De Cani has the unusual distinction of having worked for two very different London mayors: the Tory Boris Johnson and “Red Ken” Livingstone before him. He was, he said, in charge of Johnson’s cycleway programme.
Remember Johnson, for all his faults, is a conservative politician who is not terrified of bicycles. Sadly, no Cabinet minister was in the room to hear de Cani speak.
He framed his talk with a set of goals: economic prosperity with net zero greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation and resilience to climate change, and building the community ties that bind.
To be successful, de Cani said, cities need to be more inclusive for everyone, which includes ethnicity, age, mobility and more. Cities that can’t accommodate the demand for housing, he said, will lose talent. Cities designed for walking have many positive outcomes, not least in responding to obesity.
He said the arguments against cycleways in London were the same as everywhere. But the fears they would clog the narrow streets and undermine retailing “largely didn’t materialise”.
And, he added, the debate isn’t just about how people move about: “Cycling is also about how people feel.” It’s a nicer city when people can ride around safely and it’s definitely more appealing to visitors.
De Cani had a different understanding from Luxon of the “basics”. Not economic growth instead of “wellbeings”, but economic initiatives that enhance the other wellbeings.
He called it “good growth”. Upskilling for new ventures, strengthening the circular economy, sustainable use of resources, bringing in big events – for which, by the way, you might need venues like Tākina – and with them more customers for retailers.
This is the big picture. Is the Prime Minister too distracted by his own “laundry lists” to grasp its importance?
