KEY POINTS:
Auckland City mayoral aspirant John Banks' view that councillors should not sit on resource consent hearings has, predictably enough, ruffled a few feathers. Opponents suggest that allotting such decision-making exclusively to independent commissioners will somehow neutralise the local voice. Perhaps what they really fear, however, is the loss of leverage that can be exerted under the present system, in which hearings are presided over by a mix of councillors and independent commissioners. Otherwise, why would they baulk at panels that would deliver verdicts of a far higher quality and of much greater consistency?
The idea, recommended by the Auckland City Council chief executive, David Rankin, has been embraced by the Citizens & Ratepayers ticket, as well as Mr Banks. Mr Rankin argues, quite logically, that the role of councillors in resource management issues should lie in the development of strategy or policy, as enunciated in bylaws and district plans. Implementation of that policy, through consent hearings dealing with specific developments, is the lot of other, independent bodies. There is nothing revolutionary in this; it is the bread and butter of central government, and should apply also to local administration.
Critics have tried to discredit the notion in various ways. Councillors, they say, are trained in resource management issues. Some may, indeed, gather a certain expertise as their experience of consent hearings multiplies. It is facile, however, to suggest they could ever match the knowledge and accumulated wisdom of independent commissioners.
Equally, the view that councillors bring local knowledge to a hearing bears little scrutiny. The granting of consents should depend, purely and simply, on whether applications conform to council policy. In cases that are controversial, ample local knowledge is provided by those opposing an application. Councillors could, if they wished, make submissions to the independent commissioners on behalf of local people. Either way, commissioners from outside Auckland are left in no doubt about local sentiment when the subject is the likes of McDonald's proposed 159-seat restaurant in Balmoral or the planned four-level apartment building on the water's edge at Orakei. The commissioners' job is to assess how that sentiment tallies with the strictures of council policy.
Perhaps the most pertinent comment was that of Warren Tuohey, of the Orakei Residents' Group, who said that having councillors sitting on resource consent panels made them "accountable for their decisions". That suggests councillors should have half an eye on the ballot box when making up their minds. And that those with slimline majorities, in particular, could be cajoled and perhaps even swayed in their verdict, no matter how much at odds with council policy it might be.
Opponents have also raised the corporate bogey, saying a switch to panels of independent commissioners would be of most benefit to larger businesses. But eliminating councillors would simply ensure the playing field was level. Decisions in such circumstances are invariably of superior quality.
The resource consent process is, inevitably, a setting for conflicting priorities and charged emotion. Confidence in it would surely improve, and transparency would be better served, if verdicts were reached on the basis of principles, not political bias. Decisions should be the preserve of independent commissioners, not skewed by men and women hindered, rather than helped, by the pounding of local drums.
