Safe back in his cave he penned an anguished epistle to his one-time National cabinet colleague, Mayor John al Talebanks, warning that ruin would fast descend unless the city cleaned up its act.
Attached to this message of impending doom was an invoice for $56,250. And that's what really gets up my nose.
If the Business Roundtable and its ragbag remnant of true believers want to put out one more tract in support of their discredited faith, good luck to them. But why should I and my fellow ratepayers be dunned for the cost of putting this blatant piece of political propaganda together?
The Birch team was commissioned "to conduct a critical review of the city's finances". It was done by means of seldom-used urgency procedures on the pretext of a financial crisis that did not exist. You might recall the background. How the Auckland Citizens and Ratepayers Now majority had campaigned on a pledge to cut $25 million from the city's budget. The pledge had been based on a report commissioned from Mr Dwyer by Act Party activists within the Citrats. The report argued that cuts totalling $45.99 million were possible.
The less extreme Citrats regarded the upper figure as possible but politically suicidal, so pulled the figure of $25 million out of the hat instead. Mayor Banks was to borrow this figure from his ideological bedmates on gaining office.
To justify it he called his old mate Sir William Birch to produce the paperwork to back up the $25 million. Along for this ride came the one and only Greg Dwyer, who had already done all the work, and Colin Lynch, of Anderson Corporate Finance.
Far from a critical review, this exercise has more in common with the sole trader who plans to claim 50,000km mileage in his tax return and has busily to create a log book of past journeys to justify the figure claimed.
Details of the the Birch team's proposed cuts have been well-publicised, so I won't revisit them. What is more illuminating is the tired old jargon the economic fundamentalists employ to try to flossy up their nit-picking cost accounting.
They are as obsessed with the theology of public versus private good as were the old monks with their musing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
They ordain that roading and the courts are public goods, so public funding can be justified, while water supply and hospitals are "private good activities" and, presumably, only for those who can pay.
"Strictly speaking," we're told, "the provision of arts, culture and recreation is not a public good." Calling for cuts in the subsidy, the report, with no supporting reasoning, ordains that "the level of subsidy is particularly high for the Art Galley".
It warns that the "council should ensure that its expenditure does not crowd out private sponsorship or the work of non-profit bodies". One can only presume that these guys have been closeted off in their Bombay caves too long. Who are these non-existent arts sponsors?
At times Sir William's early life as a quantity surveyor shines through in all its pettiness. For instance, he wants our household rubbish weighed each pick-up day so we can be charged accordingly.
Some of the wackiest - and most blatantly political - stuff is reserved for their musings on roads and public transport. There is "excessive emphasis", we are told, "on mass passenger transport" as a cure for Auckland's congestion problem. "Congestion pricing" is the market's solution. Thin the queues by charging tolls and taxes on cars, buses and trucks alike during the busy times.
And on it goes for 68 pages of politically slanted musings. At one stage Sir William castigates the council for spending $17 million a year on outside consultants.
I can't think of a better time for councillors to heed this message and bin the Birch bill.
The Birch report
