KEY POINTS:
Auckland local politicians blather on about "vision" so much, outsiders could fall into the trap of believing they actually had some. Hopefully the parliamentarians on the local government and environment select committee last Thursday were smarter than that.
The MPs were in Auckland to hear submissions on the
Regional Amenities Funding Bill, and what a litany of small-town penny-pinching they had to endure from the procession of parochial politicians that passed before them. Even the Auckland Regional Council and its chairman, Mike Lee, refused to look beyond its nose.
Only the team from Auckland City showed any regional leadership and far-sightedness. Not surprising, given they were trying to persuade other councils to share the load the old city has borne for so long.
Under consideration was a financial lifeline which, if enacted, will provide equitable regional funding for 10 key cultural and rescue and safety organisations. Instead of their previous outright opposition to the bill, the critics have adopted a new stalling tactic. They are now advocating the bill be shelved until the Royal Commission into Auckland governance delivers its report.
Superficially, this makes a certain sense. But it ignores the real-life funding crisis that several of these organisations face, and the reality that waiting for governance reform could delay the introduction of fair funding for several years.
For starters, the commission does not have to report back until the end of this year.
We don't even know if it will address this issue, and if it does, Parliament has to decide whether or not to follow the commission's recommendations.
If, by luck, a new Greater Auckland Council with regional responsibility for the amenities listed in the proposal bill is agreed upon, it still has to be set up and spurred into life. It could take three or four years before this lifeline is in place. By then, who knows how many of the amenities will have drowned waiting.
If the parliamentarians want to know what ordinary Aucklanders think, they should skip the speechifying and examine the various surveys done over recent years, and the audience statistics for groups such as the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra.
They reveal that North Shore politicians are the biggest bludgers by far. North Shore residents make up 23 per cent of the APO's audience, yet their city council gives the orchestra an annual grant of just $25,000, or 3.1 per cent of the orchestra's local government funding.
Auckland City, the home of 52 per cent of the audience, gives $500,000 - 92 per cent of regional funding.
The other cities and district councils give even less - Papakura and Franklin, not a penny.
The refusenik politicians fret that their ratepayers won't stand for funding these organisations, and worry, though they don't say this out loud, that if they do spread the funding load equitably, their voters will toss them out of office.
But even a survey done for North Shore City last year, presumably to bolster the council's parsimonious attitude, showed that most North Shoreites agree to sharing the costs.
Opera New Zealand got the lowest majority, with 56 per cent of North Shore voters supporting regional funding, while at the other end of the scale, the Coastguard scored 93 per cent, just ahead of Auckland City Council's Auckland Zoo at 91 per cent.
The APO and Auckland Theatre Company got 61 per cent and Auckland Festival, also an Auckland City project, scored 76 per cent.
The reality is, most Aucklanders are fair minded, and think regionally. It's only the politicians who hold us back, obsessing about their little patches of influence.
A spokesman for the promoters of the bill, Surf Life Saving Northern Region chief executive Steve Johns, told the committee: "Auckland region loves the international image and uses it to attract tourists, but most of the councils seem a bit reluctant to put their hands in their pockets to help essential volunteer services survive." He also noted "the performing arts are desperately short of money ... "
If the bill is passed into law this year, regional funding could be in place by the 2009 financial year. This is long before any governance reform will take effect. And if reform does occur, why should there be difficulties incorporating regional funding of culture and rescue amenities into the new system?
Regional funding of the Auckland Museum survived the 1989 governance revolution, why should this time round be any different?
