Rudman's city: Cold shower for water hotheads

By BRIAN RUDMAN

Of all the various freedoms we, the people, have created for ourselves over the past 162 years of nation-building, the right to slag each other off via front-yard signs is not one of them. And that's official.

Judge Roderick Joyce, QC, says that despite the Bill of Rights Act, the Auckland City has every right to control by bylaw signs in residential front yards.

He has ruled that Water Pressure Group activist Ekenasio Finau must remove the forest of signs dominating his Warnock St, Grey Lynn, front yard within seven days of being notified of his decision. He rejects claims by the Water Pressure Group that the sign bylaw amounts to censorship.

Coming hard on the heels of Judge Fred McElrea's order that the Water Pressure Group pay $18,000 costs after its failed bid to overturn the election result in the Avondale Roskill ward, it makes one think that perhaps the court is not the best - or cheapest - place to advance political causes. Not for the WPG anyway; not when it is pushing far-fetched legal propositions more suited to a law school moot than a real-life courtroom.

Appearing before Judge McElrea, the group had tried to bring down a bunch of rival politicians on the grounds they had broken their election campaign promises.

The judge had rapidly cleared for touch on this, saying the courts were "not an appropriate guardian of the conscience of political candidates". He said the place to judge political promises was at the ballot box in the next election.

In the signs case, Auckland City sought a court order for removal of Mr Finau's signs abusing and defaming City Vision councillors Bruce Hucker and Penny Sefuiva. Dr Hucker and Mrs Sefuiva signed the WPG pledge against Metrowater before the 1998 election and fought the good WPG fight after the election to bring the water service under direct council control.

As a minority, they did not win the battle, and decided on a tactical withdrawal to fight other causes. The WPG saw this as a betrayal and, as so often happens on the left, turned its guns away from the real enemy and on to its old allies. That's when the vicious signs went up.

In June last year council officials told Mr Finau to remove the signs because they contravened the bylaw which says that only signs advertising a home-based business are permitted in housing areas. The WPG cried censorship and added to the sign forest. Council officials backed off. Dr Hucker and Mrs Sefuiva were re-elected.

The election over, the council sought a court order to have the signs removed. The hearing was adjourned so the WPG could delay things further by approaching the Human Rights Commission. The commission declined to get involved, saying it would keep a "watching brief".

Back the WPG went to Judge Joyce.

In his just-released decision, the judge says the city council has every right to have bylaws to protect the high amenity values of residential suburbs. He says it is not as though Mr Finau does not have other means of free expression available to him.

He "has the avenues of word of mouth, letter writing, attendance at council or council committee meetings, calling or speaking at public meetings, distribution of pamphlets or papers, web page publication and encouragement of media intervention. And that is only to mention some of the more obvious possibilities.

"Thus, if the bylaw is upheld, there are still numerous and various ways in which a citizen like him may express or impart information and opinions ... "

Judge Joyce says the "quite modest limitations that the bylaw imposes are demonstrably justified". He pointed the finger of blame directly at Mr Finau.

"Indeed, Mr Finau's very activities here are surely a perfect illustration of a mischief requiring, for the greater benefit of the greater number, to be addressed. The extensive signage here, rendering his residential site more like a multiple advertising hoarding than a dwelling-place, demonstrates the potential for chaos in the absence of controls."

He ruled that the "degree of control is plainly justified" and "the impact on personal freedom is really negligible when the many remaining avenues for expression are brought to mind. The amenities sought to be protected are valuable ones."

The council has a week to file for costs and it looks as though it will be seeking to dip into the WPG's war chest. After the $18,000 bill from the group's earlier defeat, one can only suspect it will find that pot rather empty.

On the whole, I sympathise with the plight of small interest groups who have to battle big establishment groups in the courts and risk all following a defeat. But it's hard to sympathise with the single-minded hotheads who run the WPG.

They've already burned off most of their sympathisers. Now they seem intent on self-immolation - and I can't think of any reason to dissuade them.