Editorial: Water bill voters will remember

Continuity is commonly one of the foundations of success. So it is hardly in Aucklanders' best interests if control of the city council is subject to triennial upheaval. Yet just as the John Banks-led council seemed bent on alienating large slabs of the populace during its three years in power, so the current City Vision-Labour council appears to have a death wish. It has confirmed as much with the outrageous decision that will lead to a 9.6 per cent rise in Aucklanders' water bills.

This comes on top of a 13.4 per cent lift in household rates. Put the two together and the average family will have to pay a further $260 this year before even contemplating rising petrol and power prices. Quite properly, the rates lift - and the prospect of increases of 8 to 10 per cent a year for the next decade - has been the catalyst for dark mutterings about the council. So great a disconnection with the inflation rate smacks of fiscal ineptitude, and highlights the lack of accountability outside the electoral cycle.

The increased water charge gives further evidence of these ailments. The Auckland City Council has demanded $280 million in dividends from its water company, Metrowater, over the next 10 years to pay for a variety of projects.

Not that, in its sophistry, it has said so much. Its media release talked of "charitable payments" and alluded only to the funding of tenuously related stormwater work.

In effect, the council has decided to use Metrowater as a cash cow, thereby avoiding the need for a bigger rates rise. But for Aucklanders, the outcome will be the same. Metrowater, which forecast a gross profit of only $11 million for the latest June 30 year, must lift its tariffs.

The council, meanwhile, will plough money that should be reserved for water and wastewater services into unrelated areas such as the Eden Park and Aotea carpark redevelopments. The parallel with successive governments' much-vilified approach to petrol tax is obvious.

Neil Abel, the chairman of the council's works and services committee, said the water-charge tactic was "dishonest, unfair and needs to be stopped now". Mr Abel has his own agenda; he wants Metrowater returned to full council control. But that does not alter the validity of his comments.

Mr Abel might, however, be encouraged to ponder the record of Metrowater over the past few years. It has been able to hold prices in that time, and offered a 10 per cent prompt payment discount. It has helped that water and wastewater charges from Watercare, the region's bulk water company, have fallen. Nonetheless, part of the price stability must be attributable to the company's success in cutting costs and implementing efficiencies. Contrast that with the city council's fiscal delinquency.

Astute councillors would sense ahead of time the point at which ratepayers would gauge their local authority to be rapacious. If they coveted a further term in power, they would then tailor their approach accordingly. A middle course, which did not involve an unreasonable imposition on ratepayers, would be steered.

Most importantly, the council would ensure its existing resources were used far more efficiently. At central govern-ment level, Helen Clark's various governments have found the centrist territory critical to survival and support.

The present council seems devoid of that sense.

Its members appear to believe that imperviousness can be found through the use of what Mr Abel characterises as smoke and mirrors.

Aucklanders will not be deceived; they will recognise their increased water bill as a rates rise in disguise.

And the benefits inherent in maintaining continuity are unlikely to be uppermost in their minds when they vote next year.