by Virginie Ribadeau Dumas

Auckland’s local body elections this month will mark a turning point in the administration of New Zealand’s major city. This Spring, just as Auckland’s status is changing, another international city – Paris – will experience a lesser but similar evolution.

Despite the disparities in size, culture and age between these two cities, the issues raised by their respective reforms seem remarkably similar. Even the names – “Supercity” in Auckland, the “Greater City” in Paris – are much the same. While the administrative changes are being promoted as favorable to economic development, they are less auspicious for local democracy. Is the reform of local governance in these instances creating corporate cities, rather than democratic ones?

Until this month’s local body elections ring in the changes, the Auckland region has had seven city or district authorities, plus one regional authority. From November 1, those eight councils will be melded into a single entity called the Auckland Council – aka Supercity – and below it, 21 elected local boards. This “super council” will be governed by a mayor and 20 councilors elected from 13 wards from Franklin in the south to Rodney in the north. It will be the largest council in Australasia, with a $3 billion annual budget, $29 billion of assets and about 6,000 staff.

The motto for this highly controversial reform is “Make Auckland Greater”. On the other side of the world, Paris has pursued a similar objective. On June 9 this year, and after years of controversies and debate, the reform of the French metropolis was finally adopted, under the name “Grand Paris” – or “Greater Paris” in English.

The reforms proposed will involve a major change for a city that stands apart from other international metropolis, or even from other French cities. Unlike the situation in most of France’s major urban areas, there is no inter-communal entity in the Paris urban area, no inter-communal council able to address the problems of the region’s dense urban core as a whole.

Paris’ alienation of its own suburbs is a major problem today. Hence this reform project, proceeding under the supervision of the French state, the City of Paris, the Regional Authority of the Île-de-France and the Île de France Mayoral Association, working together to build a more efficient metropolitan structure to cover the city of Paris and some of the suburbs.

In the case of Paris – in addition to the absence of a regional perspective – the city suffers from an accumulation of intricate administrative layers. The administrative limits of Paris haven’t really changed since 1860. It has not evolved politically at a pace to match its real demographic growth. As a consequence, administrative layers have tended to pile up. Paris is both a ‘commune’, -the French city administrative level – and a ‘département’, the higher administrative level. Above these layers, the ‘région’ administration which encompasses Paris and 6 other ‘départements’ gathers both urban and rural areas around Paris.

Despite its dual existence as ‘commune’ and as ‘département’, Paris has a single council to govern both. The Council of Paris – with 165 members – presided over by the Mayor of Paris ( currently, Bertrand Delanoë) meets either as a ‘communes’ council (conseil municipal) or as a ‘département’ council (conseil général) depending on the issue to be debated.

Paris is then further divided in 20 ‘arrondissements’, under the authority of the Council of Paris, Each of ‘arrondissements’ has a directly elected council (conseil d’arrondissement), which, in turn, elects an ‘arrondissement’ mayor. A selection of members from each ‘arrondissement’ council forms the Council of Paris, which, in turn, elects the mayor of Paris.

However, the issue of this multiplication of administrative ramifications will not be addressed by the Greater Paris reform – mainly because the idea of a wholesale change of institutions proved to be somewhat taboo to the major authorities within the urban area.

The resistance of the local administrators at each level has been enhanced by political rivalry, since the left-wing opposition party holds a majority position in most of Paris’ elected boards while the reform is being promoted by the right-wing government. This rivalry got the better of the institutional reform, and the wider issue ( ie of changing the administrative structure) was more or less removed from the discussions around Greater Paris.

The consequences of this timidity – one grounded in decades of mutual suspicion – are likely to be unfortunate for the development of Paris. Since each town surrounding Paris is administratively and fiscally independent, there is no council treating the problems on a broader scale. The “région” administrative layer is simply too large, since more than 80% of the area ruled by the regional council is rural.

In that sense, the Paris reforms are less ambitious than the ones being enacted in Auckland.

Putting these local variations to one side, there is a common theme to these two versions of metropolis reform -: namely, the claimed need for both cities to modify their governance in order to adapt to their globalised environment.

Over the course of the last century and a half, urbanization and globalisation have disrupted traditional patterns of urban – and more recently regional – growth. This had had major consequences for the core city at the magnetic centre of these shifts in population, and resources. In his article ‘The new social morphology of cities’, written for the UNESCO’s Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme, Pr. Guido Martinotti analyses this phenomena:. “We have the growth and diffusion of large urban entities competing with each other across national borders, and increasingly playing independent roles in the globalisation processes”,

This process of global competition transcends local, regional and even national boundaries. “This is the level at which we find most of the dynamics due to the globalisation of economies which amplifies considerably the indifference of localisation choices by organisations and individuals, and forces cities to compete directly across national borders.” Concluding his article, Martinotti remarks : “New urbanisms will require new forms of governance. The problem will be to design urban democratic governance in these new urban spaces. New forms of local democratic governance must now be considered with new perspectives and transnational issues”, he insists.

The need for a new administrative structure – especially designed for the globalised metropolis – and the concern for a more efficient metropolitan structure, lie at the core of the reforms that Auckland and Paris are currently implementing. In Auckland, the process has been promoted via the language of ‘efficiency’ with the large number of existing councils – and the lack of strong regional government – being blamed for hindering the city’s progress. Supercity advocates have called for a form of stronger regional government, and for amalgamation under one local authority.

As in Paris, there has been a stark polarization in public attitudes towards the process of reform. For every voter in Auckland who supports a reform process geared to the alleged needs of globalization, as many or more people regard the globalization process with suspicion, as one where the benefits are likely to be captured by private sector companies seeking profit opportunities. Such voters tend to want to retain the current local government structures – warts and all – as a shield against a globalization process that they regard as likely to entail higher ‘user pays’ charges for the delivery of a reduced range of services.

The Auckland City Council submission to the Royal Commission mapping out the future governance of the metropolitan region began by acknowledging the need for change :

The region’s governance system [...] is increasingly failing to deliver what the people of the region want and need. At times, the governance structures and decision-making processes are cumbersome, unnecessarily fragmented and contribute to public dissatisfaction.

The same concerns exist in the French capital. The metropolitan area of Paris is predicted to gain 1,250,000 inhabitants within the next thirty years. The city is aware of the need to improve the efficiency of its organisation. Regardless, governance reform has proved to be a taboo subject in a Parisian urban area in which administrative layers have been allowed to simply pile up for decades. Consequently, the reforms focus instead merely on urban planning, and have abandoned the project to unify the region under a single administration. Instead, the reforms set out – according to the description provided by the government on its website – towards “Organising the area in order to encourage innovation, creation, research, all vectors for growth and employment in today’s economy.”

An efficient administration allegedly serves a higher purpose – such as economic development, for example. In addition, it serves to promote the city’s ranking in the global competition between major cities for employment, and for investment. Increasingly, cities and urban regions are competing across national borders with other similar urban centres for attention, investment, visitors, shoppers, talent, events, and the like. The result is that the drive for reform has ended up being promoted via a new ideology of global competition between cities, best illustrated by the multiplication of ranking indices such as Mercer’s Best Cities in the World. Simon Anholt, the guru of nation branding, calls the competition “city branding.”

And so, beyond the quest for efficiency at local or national level – or perhaps in tandem with it – reform in both Auckland and Paris has been touted as a means to promote their ranking among other international cities. Auckland Council’s submission says as much; “The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is a fantastic opportunity to help make the Auckland region a successful world-class city- region”. That’s also how Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has summarised Auckland’s new administration : as being more effective, as more accountable and as providing “world class services”.

On the other side of the globe, French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, said much the same thing when officially opening debate on the Greater Paris reform in 2009 :

“Paris is a world-city and a world-economy. It is not only the capital of France. It is also the rival of London, New York, Tokyo of Shanghai. It belongs to the world network of trade and communication. It is entitled to a first rank role within the world civilization and economy. But it can loose its rank if we are not cautious enough…To preserve its rank, we need to plan on a more prospective and a more ambitious way.”

In this rush to embrace business oriented development, policy makers in both countries appear to have lost sight of a local democracy that is of far more concern to the bulk of their citizens. In Auckland’s Super City as well as in Greater Paris, arbitrary reform decisions were made by the central state, supposedly in the national interest. As a consequence, the people directly affected by such decisions – the inhabitants of Auckland and Paris – didn’t really have a say in either of the reforms.

In Paris, the situation was even worse since the question of the new institutions – which were highly controversial in the French metropolitan area – had not yet been discussed, and the proposals made by the central state had not been fully unveiled. The arbitrary manner in which the reforms have been promoted – and the language employed – have done nothing to dispel public anxiety and suspicion. In that respect, it may suffice to consider only the comment made by Rodney Hide as the Supercity Bill passed in Parliament on June 4: “One council, one mayor, one vision for Auckland by November 1st 2010 – a single vision under a single leader.” Such a vision seems remote from any definition of democracy in which debate and negotiation is held to play an important role.

From the outset, this issue of democracy has been central in the criticisms levelled at the Auckland reforms. Critics have argued that there was little space for “local” democracy in the new setup for Auckland. The proposed “local boards” advertised by the government as being the “face” of local government – in the sense of them being responsible for issues relevant to their communities – will actually have little power, and no funding or staff of their own. Moreover, their role and functions have not yet been clearly defined. Ultimately, these will be identified in the Council’s long-term and annual plans – but such plans as well, will vary in scope depending on the revenue available at the time, to fund them.

When considering localised democracy in Auckland – ie, the community boards – it may be useful to draw a comparison with Paris’ ‘arrondissements’. Even though the ‘arrondissements’ are not entrusted with many powers by the Council of Paris, they do have 35 years of operation as component parts of a super-city entrusted with the role of maintaining community identity within parts of the whole.

Like Auckland’s Local Boards the ‘arrondissements’ do not have many powers, being mostly restricted to an advisory role. Nevertheless, they are still indispensable for Paris administration as they manage several of the basic civic functions. ‘Arrondissement’ boards maintain vital records (such as birth, death and wedding records, as well as ID issuance). They also manage the local community facilities (child care centres and public nurseries, sport centres and stadiums, local parks, etc.) and secure the authorisations from the municipal council before the building of new facilities. In sum, they represent an intermediary link between the central administration of Paris, and its citizens.

The ‘arrondissement’ council can submit written questions to the mayor of the commune on any matter regarding the ‘arrondissement’. It can also ask the municipal council to debate any matter regarding the ‘arrondissement’.

The ‘arrondissement’ council also stands as an intermediary in its advisory role. It is asked for advice by the city council in any project whose completion will take place on the territory of the ‘arrondissement’ – even though the Council of Paris has no obligation to take the advice that it receives.

In particular, the ‘arrondissement’ council gives an opinion on matters regarding local non-profit associations and on modifications of local zoning. ‘Arrondissements’ also have a say in social housing: dwellings part of social housing (council flats) which are located on the territory of the ‘arrondissement’ are partly allocated by the ‘arrondissement’ mayor (half of the social dwellings), while the other half is allocated by the mayor of the commune. Finally, and as with Auckland’s legislation, the city council and the Mayor can delegate certain powers to the ‘arrondissement’ councils and mayors.

Overall, the key difference between the Parisian ‘Arondissements’ and Auckland’s ‘Local Boards’ is the absence oof a formal link in Auckland between the boards and the Supercity administration. In Paris, each of the ‘arrondissement’ councils is directly elected by the inhabitants, and they send a selection of members – depending of the size of the arrondissement – to sit at the council for the Council of Paris . The number of councillors elected to the Council of Paris ranges from 3 for the smallest ‘arrondissement’, to 17 for the biggest and the total Council of Paris amounts to 163. Those members then elect the mayor of Paris, among themselves.

The local boards in Auckland however will not function on such a representative basis. They have no representative link with the Council. In the end, local boards will have no say in the services that are delivered by the Council, or by the CCOs – according to Auckland MP Phil Twyford, the Labour Party representative at the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee.

As Twyford puts it, this model of local government is a “very weak form of subsidiarity”. Indeed, there is little left for the local boards to manage, he explains, given that 75% of the city’s assets will be corporatised. Moreover the City Council – while nominally asked to delegate power – can bypass this arrangement by arguing that the decision would be better made on a regional basis. Unlike Paris, there is not even an obligation to consult with local boards on matters concerning them – although you might expect it would be politically advisable for the council to do so.

This weak form of subsidiarity – along with a low level of representation, whereby Aucklanders will have at a council level only one councillor per 70,000 people – poses obvious challenges for the people who will be expected to serve on the local community boards. Essentially, the forces of globalisation may well be seeking to impose a mono-centric model of urban development for Auckland, one which the city’s various communities are trying to push back hard against. Like most cities around the world, Auckland is actually becoming more multi-nodal, while its civic leaders seek to make it mono-centric. One size, and one structure however, does not necessarily fit all.

In sum, the corporate evasion of democracy has been a common theme in Auckland and in Paris. While Auckland’s local boards (once constituted) will doubtless become the foci of democratic activism, at present the front line in the debate over democracy has become the issue of Council-controlled organizations (CCOs).

As set out in the Bill establishing the future Auckland Council, major functions (such as transport, water services and Auckland waterfront development) are to be devolved into CCOs ruled by unelected boards, operating at arm’s length from Council. This separation – as argued by backers of the move – had become necessary due to “local politicians [having] failed to deliver the results expected of them.”

The Government’s plans to outsource the majority of Council’s functions has been widely decried, given that the seven Government appointed CCOs will control some 75 per cent of Auckland’s assets. One submitter to the Government’s third and final piece of Super City legislation, lawyer Douglas Allan, remarked that the bill: “creates a corporate city, rather than a democratic city”.

Again, this criticism does not apply only to Auckland. Despite its deeply-rooted culture of public services, France too has chosen to outsource some of its urban services, and not others. In one key respect, the two cities are completely diverging in the way they have chosen to provide at least one key resource – namely, water. While Auckland has just chosen to outsource the management and delivery of water services for the next 35 years to the private sector, Paris has just done the exact opposite this year. It has chosen to take control of water services from the private sector and put it back under public control – on the grounds that public provision is more efficient, less costly and will ensure a higher level of water quality than the private sector has proved itself capable of delivering.

Much else is very similar. Not only is Greater Paris equipped by its own form of CCOs – the SEMs (dual economy organization, in between public and private sector, New Zealand would call them PPPs) – but the agency in charge of the implementation of the reform in the transport domain, the Greater Paris Society, will be controlled by an unelected board. This organisation (to which members are appointed by the government) has exorbitant powers.

By their nature, those organizations – Auckland’s CCOs or Paris’ SEMs – are designed to take control away from meddling politicians and the prying public alike, to get things done. And so according to the theory of these urban reforms, transport – the number one issue facing both cities – should be left to the unelected boards.

The demolition of the popular Kingdon St railway station in Newmarket over the Christmas holidays exemplified the lack of local democracy here in Auckland. Mike Lee, who theoretically is in charge of public transport services as chairman of the Auckland Regional Council, found himself powerless to intervene in the CCOs decision and to prevent demolition of the station. Together, the ARC’s “council-controlled organisation” – ie, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority(ARTA) – and Kiwi Rail decided to demolish the temporary railway station before the opening of Newmarket’s grand new $35 million station, without political input.

Meanwhile in Paris, two high-speed transport service projects are under discussion. The so-called “Roller Coaster” – a project that the government favors – is intended to link together the most important financial/economic spots of Paris, but it controversially overlooks the most populated areas. A competing project championed by the opposition – and called the Arc Express – intends to improve the transport service offered to the metropolis inhabitants, linking together Paris’ various suburbs that have been so far been disregarded in Parisian transport planning. (Due to the star-shape of its transport network, one still has to pass through central Paris to go from one suburb to another.) Yet this project, considered not sufficiently business-oriented, has been swept aside by the government.

The Parisian approach to reforming or redesigning public transport is not all that different from the way Auckland is reconsidering its own public transport. For example, one of the most important projects under debate, the CBD Loop rail tunnel below the central business district, is being led by the ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority), the Auckland transport CCO. Just like in the case of Paris, a non-elected board is designing the route of a project that could cost up to $1.5 billion. The route of this new railway was chosen out of three short-listed options identified by consultants acting on behalf of ARTA and KiwiRail.

Even mayoral candidate Len Brown, who strongly supports the project (click image left for map), disagrees with the way the decisions are being made. A CCO for transport is “inappropriate”, he says. According to him, this is “ a job that the new Auckland Council should do…considering the challenge that transport represents in Auckland.”

This coming Spring, Auckland Supercity and Greater Paris will both come into force. With these new institutions in place, it will finally be possible to judge on the basis of concrete evidence whether the reforms really are of benefit not only to growth and development, but also to the citizens of Auckland and Paris.

In the case of Paris, the far greater level of democracy may take the sting out of some of the corporate efficiency gains achieved through the use of unelected SEMs – at least, at a local level. If not, the failure to address the political institutions will create a platform for the decisions of the state controlled boards to be challenged. In Auckland, the local boards and the new council will need to devise clear ground rules on how the bodies are going to interact. The absence of formalised rules in this area at least allows for some flexibility to figure out problems as they go along – but the vast power imbalance would suggest that unless the new Supercity Council treads carefully, they may soon find themselves besieged by 20 angry activist organisations seeking direct access to responsibility and power.

Footnotes

1. Democracy by numbers
Auckland. 20 councillors at the Auckland Council in total = 1 councillor for 71,925 inhabitants i.e. 1 for 5% of the population
143 board members in total = 1 board member for 6 000 inhabitants i.e. approx. 1 for 0.4% of the population

Paris 163 councillors at the Council of Paris in total = 1 councillor (conseiller de Paris) to 12,811 inhabitants, i.e. 1 for 0.6% of the population
354 members of the ‘mairie d’arrondissements’ (Paris’ equivalent of local boards) in total = 1 board member (conseiller d’arrondissement) to 5,631 inhabitants, i.e. 1 for 0.25% of the population.

2. References and further reading :
- The new social morphology of cities – Guido MARTINOTTI, University of Milano for UNESCO
available on http://www.unesco.org/most/wien/guido.htm
Auckland Super city
- People and Place Building – Mapping out the future governance of the Auckland region, Submission from Auckland City Council to Royal Commission on Auckland Governance (22 April 2008)
available on http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/supercity/pdf/submission.pdf
- Council-controlled organisations of Auckland Council, Auckland Transition Agency, Discussion Document
available on http://www.discussiondocuments.co.nz/
- Local Boards of Auckland, Auckland Transition Agency, Discussion Document
available on http://www.discussiondocuments.co.nz/
- Idiot’s guide to the Super City on New Zealand Herald
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644838)
main press articles
- http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3434406/Auckland-super-city-boundaries-unveiled
- http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-coy-cost-aucklands-super-city-126823
- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10649500
- http://www.nzcpr.com/guest140.htm
Greater Paris
- review of the Grand Paris reform on the Government official website
http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement/grand-paris-coup-d-envoi-des-premieres-rencontres-territoriales-0
press articles:
- http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101636737-du-grand-paris-au-grand-gachis
- http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101648097-le-grand-paris-plonge
- http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2010/05/20/01002-20100520ARTFIG00793-grand-paris-l-etat-et-la-region-se-rapprochent.php
http://www.lefigaro.fr/le-talk/2010/03/04/01021-20100304ARTFIG00491-cecile-duflot-invitee-du-talk-orange-le-figaro-.php

3. Diagrams of French And NZ Local Government

French Local Government Structure

NZ Local Government Structure

Auckland Supercity Structure

Grande Paris Structure

ENDS

by Gordon Campbell.

In Kaitaia and Kaikohe, residents must pay $15 in a “membership fee” to be able to use their public library. In Matamata, borrowers have to pay $1 a week to rent ordinary non-bestseller books. In Dannevirke and Pahiatua, library users over 18 have to pay $10 a year as a ‘borrowing card fee’ to rent books. In the Wairarapa, Tasman, Buller Westland/Hokitika. Selwyn and Gore regions, various charges apply for ordinary stock on the shelves. In Tauranga, the local council is reportedly aiming to recoup up to $430,000 via library charges over the next three years, by introducing a user-pays regime for free adult fiction and non-fiction – initially at the rate of 50 cents a book, rising to 80 cents and then one dollar in a year’s time. It also proposes to cut seven equivalent full time library staff positions and reduce library stocks by 30,000 items.

This crackdown on libraries is becoming a familiar theme, around the country. Membership fees, rental charges, access fees, overdue fines and other cost barriers are going up. Simultaneously, the funds for new stock, for library staff numbers and opening hours, and for digital access are being squeezed – except on items or services where there is a robust regime of cost recovery. What the plight of libraries signals is the erosion of free access to even the basic forms of knowledge that they hold. Ironically, libraries are coming under siege in the wake of the economic recession – just as citizens are using them more and more for knowledge access, for entertainment and as a community meeting ground.

The crisis in library funding does not seem to be a reflection of an absolute scarcity in the ratepayer funds available to councils. All around New Zealand, councils are still readily finding funds for Rugby World Cup promotions – or to underwrite sporting and entertainment events whose main rewards are captured by a narrow stream of corporate interests in the bar, restaurant and accommodation sector. In the process, public libraries used annually by hundreds of thousands more users than a rugby stadium or a sporting arena, are being starved for funds to replenish their stock – not to mention keeping their services up to date, and affordable to all.

In Wellington, the crunch facing library branches and library services is looking particularly severe. As library researcher Marie Russell has pointed out from council documents, the Long Term Council Community Plan ( LTCCP) for 2009/2019 had forecast (p 125) a library operational budget for the current financial year of $23, 356,000. However, the Draft Annual Plan (DAP) for 2011/11 now forecasts ( p 119) the operational expenditure for libraries will be only $21,551,000.

Not only is this new DAP figure barely $8,000 above the 2008/09 libraries operational figure – it is, obviously far, far below the LTCCP figure and constitutes a projected cut in funding for the Wellington library service of $1,805,000. As Russell says, a shortfall of that magnitude can only imply that the Council is either contemplating the closure of some branch libraries in the near future, or a significant reduction in library services.

Since Russell made her figures known, a number of Wellington city councillors and council bureaucrats have denied that library branches in Wellington will be closed, or library services downgraded. At a public meeting on April 22, councillors and officials assured the audience that all parts of council were being asked to cut back because of the recession, and that this partially explained the discrepancy between the projected budget in the LTCCP, and the figures in the Draft Annual Plan.

In fact, this is not the case. Even at the same meeting, when asked if all sectors of council spending were being cut back to the same extent as libraries, council officials conceded that some sectors – they cited the cleaning of public toilets – would not be cut back, or as much. You bet. As Russell has since been able to demonstrate by comparing the LTCCP with the Draft Annual Plan, the Tourism Promotion budget is actually up by 10.8% and the Events Attraction and Support budget is up by 6.8%. Interestingly, for all the talk about tightening belts, the budget for City governance and Engagement is up by 7.11 %. On the other hand, the funding for city galleries and museums is down by 1.64%.

More to the point though, the funding for libraries is down by a whopping 7.73%. The pattern seems obvious. Those activities that entail delivery of benefits for the private sector are being supported by council, while those facilities used by the general public face funding cuts. Nor are the cuts to library services really the product of prudent management, as the councillors also tried to tell the April 22 meeting.

One can reasonably gauge for instance, the claimed savings in the library area that are being made. According to the council, this consists of savings on community computing ($100,000 at most, to be generous) a $400,000 saving over the last two years from self service options, and unspecified amounts from depreciation and new technology systems and computers. Even the most optimistic estimates of such items then, would still leave Wellington a long way short of bridging a $1.8 million library funding shortfall.

Down at Parliament, the fate of public libraries rarely gets onto the Beltway radar, aside from the recent cutbacks in the renovation plans for the National Library. Gareth Hughes, the new Greens MP and party spokesman on libraries is an exception to the rule. Within weeks of being in the House, he waded into the Tauranga council’s plans to impose a rental fee for general books, and to lay off staff.

Is this merely a local concern in Tauranga, or is it a reflection of what is happening nationwide? Hughes estimates about a quarter of the country’s library districts now have a system of charging for basic stock. “It is mostly in the smaller centres at the moment. But I think when you get it into bigger centres like Tauranga, this could be taken as having set a precedent, and it will happen more widely.”

Shouldn’t all sectors though, be taking their share of the cost cutting burden at the moment? “Some sectors are obviously not facing the same cost-cutting as libraries,” Hughes replies. “The fact is, libraries are a core public benefit. They should be funded from core council budgets. They are vital to communities as community hubs, and as places for people to meet – as well as in terms of their direct service to the community, which is as a provider of books, internet access and information.”

This is after all, he continues, Unesco’s Literacy Decade. “We have a growing literacy problem in New Zealand, and this is the wrong time to decrease access to libraries. The people that are going to be hit are the low paid, the elderly and young mums. It is also going to hit new migrants. This is just another barrier to getting access to information.”

Most libraries of course, already charge a nominal access fee for the library card, and there seems to be reasonably wide public acceptance for charging for CD.s DVDs and best sellers. Plainly, some forms of cost recovery are fair, and some aren’t – so, on what basis would Hughes draw the line? “ I think there’s a common public expectation that with DVDs best seller books, magazines – these are high demand items that date quite fast and entail a high capital cost for the library – that its reasonable to pay a small fee. But general items make up the bulk of the library’s stocks, and these should be free. For everyone.”

Logically, the emphasis on cost recovery could well be inducing libraries to buy more CDs, DVDs, magazines etc and to spend proportionately less on their core stock. “I don’t have any figures on that, but it seems a reasonable assumption. In Tauranga, they’re proposing to cut 30,000 books from [the four local libraries] stock. And they’re going to be reducing seven equivalent staff positions. So what you’re seeing is a decline in service, and a charging of higher fees for it.”

As mentioned, the demand for library services is – if anything- on the increase. Even so, is there evidence as to whether, as the library service becomes more expensive, this causes a drop in patronage? Historically speaking, Hughes indicates, Ashburton is still the main relevant example, Some years ago, he says, patronage dropped by around 40% when a fee for general books. was introduced. “They’ve subsequently gone back to a free book system.”

Given the rash of local government reform since the change of government, a conflict is emerging within councils, between public service delivery on the one hand, and a growing preference for funding the kind of activities believed to generate economic gains for the region. Or, at least, gains for the firms involved. Does Hughes see this being played in the funding problems facing public libraries ?

“ Yes, You are seeing that,” he says. “Tauranga again, is an example I am familiar with. They’re looking for $430,000 in fees from the local library system.” Problem being, central government has recently decided to allow heavier trucks on the nation’s roads – a decision that will have considerable financial repercussions on local councils in terms of paying for the wear and tear on local roads and bridges.” Regardless, the mayor of Tauranga has said he was happy and comfortable with the policy, even if this meant extra costs for the council. “So what you’re seeing is that its fine if the spending supports productivity gains for private companies – but if involves a public benefit, then the library is going to have to hunt for the money.”

In any provincial town around New Zealand, the public library is usually an imposing looking building. A sign of times past perhaps, when there was collective pride within communities, at possessing such an obviously beneficial asset. Even today, isn’t there a residual affection for libraries within the community that councils should be wary of violating?

“Absolutely,” Hughes agrees. “Walk into any library around the country and they’re packed with people doing a whole variety of things – reading magazines, working on their laptops, using library computers, students doing research, Even homeless people using the warmth and shelter of the library. Its not just about books or services, either. It is also a place for people to get together, to have coffee, for young mums to take their kids, for people to have Internet access that they can’t afford at home.

This happens to be local body election year. Why then, do budding councillors seem to be misreading the mood of their communities so badly on this issue ? To Hughes, libraries are but one front in a wider battle being waged around the country right now, one that is questioning the role of what a council does. “Are [councils] there just to facilitate corporate transfers of wealth – or are they there to provide services for the public? Because I think there is a right wing ideology that says councils should stick to collecting the rates, paving the roads and providing footpaths and lights.” For people who believe in that agenda, he points out, community parks, libraries, and museums should all be treated as private goods, and paid for on a user pays model.

Or paid for by charity? “ Or by charity. And that is what we’re seeing in Tauranga, with the seven equivalent staff that are being lost. They’re expecting to take up the slack with voluntary positions.”

From the vantage point of middle class privilege, everyone now has the internet. Libraries – do they still exist ? – are seen as receptacles for fusty books on dusty old shelves. In reality, libraries are more relevant now than ever, as a means of bridging the digital divide so that those who cannot privately afford the internet can access it publically, at reasonable cost. This is the same role that libraries have been performing for over a century, with digital access being merely the latest technology on the block. Libraries have always provided easy access to information – and with it, social participation – to those otherwise unable to afford the price tab,

Pool people together in a library and the access cost to knowledge, information and entertainment – for a book, magazine, CD or DVD – comes down, to within reasonable reach of everyone. Right now, that entire process of empowerment is under threat – for example, from the fee hikes being levied on individual users. Hughes, to his credit, is not just sending out warnings and issuing complaints about this trend. Later this year he will be promoting either a supplementary order paper or a private member’s bill that would prohibit councils from charging for the general stock on library shelves.

“At the moment as I understand it,” Hughes concludes, “ the Local Government Act enshrines a ratepayers’ right to free access to a library. That means free membership. Some libraries do charge for the plastic – but the membership is free. So what I’m investigating is whether we can amend the Local Government Act, in order to make [the stock of general] books free as well.”

By and large, library defenders tend to frame their case on the role of libraries as social and recreational assets, which indeed they are. Yet in the process, the economic benefits that libraries also bring to the retail sectors of the cities in which they are sited, tend to be overlooked. In Wellington for instance, the expenditure on libraries is located in council plans within the same silo as parks and swimming pools. Libraries could just as credibly be situated in the economics section of council budgets and plans.

Reason being, libraries generate more foot traffic annually for a wider range of retail businesses in most cities, than the multi-million sports stadiums tend to deliver. Most of the major event council spending serves to benefit relatively few firms in the hospitality and retail sector, who enjoy most cof the financial gains from the large amounts of ratepayer monies lavished by councils on the building and maintenance of sporting arenas.

The key term here is “footfall.” Library visits and shopping commonly go hand in hand. In this study of the economic contribution made by libraries to the city centres in which they are sited, the authors conclude that libraries increase the foot traffic for retail outlets, but libraries and councils have been slow to market the economic benefits that result :

The greatest benefit of the presence of a public library in retail centres is increased footfall. Shopping centre locations also benefit the library, and this is often perceived as being more significant than the library’s impact on the shops. Recommendations are made as to how libraries could maximise the awareness of their value and the benefits they provide.

An extensive store of information on the economic value of libraries to retailers, and to the wider goal of urban renewal can be found in this Sheffield University study However, few councils (or councillors) bother to promote the economic benefits that libraries bring to the retail life of the city, or the role that they play in regenerating the urban core. Instead, libraries are treated almost exclusively as a cost burden. Plainly, similar disciplines are not evident when councils sink ratepayer funds into their dealings with some elements in the private sector. In Wellington, the case of the $2 million in business rates reportedly owed to the council by the entrepreneur Terry Serepisos is seen by some as merely the tip of the iceberg.

Meanwhile, property investor Richard Burrell has criticised Wellington City Council for not pursuing rates debts – and claimed defaulters are using the council as a cheap source of finance.
“The easiest way for a commercial ratepayer to get a loan in this town is to simply not pay the rates. The council does virtually nothing to collect them. It is the loan you can get without even making an application.”

This is not an isolated example. Lindsay Shelton has pointed out on his Scoop blog, that Wellington councillors have indicated an interest in spending an unbudgetted $2.4 million to create a temporary “tensile fabric structure”on the eastern side of Te Papa. Bizarrely, the same council seems to be simultaneously exploring the feasibility of constructing (on the same site) a building that won a design competition for the location back in 2005.

Money again, does not seem to be a problem. Similarly, every few months, the Wellington City Council issues a newsletter detailing its plans for the Rugby World Cup celebrations. While the capital’s share of the RWC bounty extends to a miserly hosting of only five first round games and two quarterfinals, the November 2009 council newsletter (named “Absolutely Positively Right By Your Side”) revealed that council CEO Garry Poole and other top council officers had been meeting with local retailers to discuss ways to enhance “ the cleanliness of the city, parking enforcement and public transport.” All agreed that the RWC is.”an opportunity for Wellington to demonstrate and display a unique and high quality retail experience.” Yep, that sounds like core council business.

To that end, scarce council funds have stretched to providing new artificial surfaces on the city’s sportsfields, to ensure that our rugby visitors get to train on only the finest of facilities, that “comply with best practice at the time of the Tournament.” In addition, the newsletters reveals that council funds will also be found for this RWC-related shebang :

[RWC] plans include a major festival in the city for all to enjoy. “We’ll be pulling out all the stops to ensure this is a month-long celebration that everyone feels part of,” says the council’s RWC 2011 Director, Derek Fry. “That’s what will make RWC 2011 so memorable.”

Wellington is not the only city that is feeling giddy about the Rugby World Cup. Similar signs of largesse are evident around the country. Community facilities stand to be the loser in the rush to underwrite a rugby party that will deliver most of its rewards to the private sector, while the rest of the community inherits the hangover.

What Rugby World Cup fever exemplifies (more than anything) is the mindset in which sport is considered not trivial (by men) but reading (an activity associated mainly with women) certainly is. Years ago in A Room Of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf put her finger on the common double bind whereby women are first assigned a restricted place, and then ridiculed for occupying it :“Speaking crudely, football and sport are important, the worship of fashion, the buying of clothes, trivial, and these values are transferred from life to fiction.” And back again. A few years ago, then-Wellington city councillor Chris Parkin insisted (City Voice, May 1, 1997) that libraries were even then, an anachronism : “The single largest group of users were white middle class, middle-aged women borrowing lascivious pot-boilers.”

These days, the same sentiments tend to be wrapped in economic jargon, and in the rationales for cost recovery. To be fair, the question of free borrowing from New Zealand libraries is not an entirely new one. In the early decades of the 20th century for instance, not all the 18 libraries that the billionaire US philanthropist Andrew Carnegie built in New Zealand stuck to his explicit desire that borrowing, and not just admission, should always be free. Until recently though, most councils did strive to meet Carnegie’s ideal.

Not for much longer, perhaps. The outlook for community facilities seems bleak, if the Rodney Hide local government reforms are allowed to roll on through council structures. In future, library users will need to fight to protect the good things that public libraries provide for the many – as opposed to the economic benefits that Hide is seeking to deliver, to the few.

FOOTNOTE: Hat tip for the Virginia Woolf quote to US film theorist Tania Modleski and her 1988 essay on Rear Window.

ENDS

by Gordon Campbell

Understandably, a lot of time and energy has been spent on how the Supercity structure has been imposed on Auckland, without much consideration yet of what it might do, once in place. In mid April however, Business Roundtable CEO Roger Kerr wrote a newspaper column about cutting back the size of government, and he signaled in the same column that one of the pet projects of Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is still very much alive. Kerr wrote:

I would argue that any spending cap proposed by the government should be judged against three criteria: it should be binding (subject to referenda and with limited exceptions for valid reasons such as emergencies); it should be capable of being monitored on a year by year basis; and it should reduce the share of government spending in the economy over time unless voters choose otherwise. A Colorado-type TEL [Tax and Expenditure Limit] would meet these criteria and was commended for consideration by the 2025 Taskforce. It would not be an unreasonable constraint.

In Colorado they call that idea the TABOR, or the Taxpayer Bill Of Rights. This TABOR plan, as a I pointed out in an article on Scoop in 2008, was the central plank in Hide’s first private member’s bill on local government reform in 2006. Once such a plan was in place, the only increases in local government revenues that would be tolerated would be those due to inflation or population increases. All other revenue would have to be returned to ratepayers as rebates, unless increases were explicitly approved by a referendum that the council is required to conduct whenever it wants to save anything beyond a mere adjustment for inflation and population growth, or if it should want to spend anything further on public services or on infrastructure. Welcome to the future of Auckland.

What the TABOR mechanism does is create a permanent shortfall in the revenues of central or – in Supercity Auckland’s case – local body revenues. As the Denver Post once put it : “It pits programs and services against each other for survival every year and virtually rules out any new initiatives to address unmet or emerging needs.” The mechanism not only prevents local councils from saving for a rainy day –ie, during good economic times, or from periods when it has been financially prudent – in order to pay for major infrastructural projects or the expansion of social services. Even worse, it also has the effect, as my Scoop article explained, of racheting down the resources of local government, since the rate revenues collected at the depth of a recession become the new benchmark.

The TABOR measure was adopted in Colorado in 1992. By 2005, Coloradans had voted to suspend the most stringent aspects of TABOR for five years, to give the state finances some room to recover. So what does life look like in a society that has a TABOR in place? On almost the same day that Roger Kerr was writing in praise of Colorado’s big idea, the Independent newspaper in Britain carried this story about life in Colorado Springs , including an interview with TABOR’s creator Douglas Bruce ( pictured left) The article begins:

“Fantastic,” says Sean Paige, of the financial crunch that is slowly throttling public services in Colorado Springs. “I welcome it.” Never mind that a third of the street lights have been dark since February and the citizenry may soon be asked to take their own lawn mowers to city parks to trim the grass…

Mr Paige….contends that it is the perfect time for the city to get out of running things like parks, pools and community centres – he believes the private sector, charities and churches will do it better for less money.

This is what some are already calling the “Grand Experiment” of Colorado Springs, which is expected to face a revenue shortfall this year of about $28m (£18m) or 10 per cent of its whole budget, brought about in part by the recession and also by the strangulating effects of the Tabor laws. But if this experiment is to be embraced and pursued, then the question arises: how far should it be taken?

It is not just about lights and lawns. Buses no longer run at weekends or at night; services at community centres have been drastically reduced; at least two of the city’s six pools will be closed. The police department’s two helicopters have been pawned off on eBay. In the new spirit of volunteerism, taxi drivers must double up as amateur cops watching for crooks while traditional police patrols are trimmed.

In this sort of society, people don’t a damn about the fate of anyone else. In fact, society barely exists at all. Those outside the locked and gated compounds are seen as the enemy, until proven otherwise :

Mr Bruce, who whips from his shirt pocket a copy of the US Constitution signed by Clarence Thomas, the conservative Supreme Court Justice, is unconcerned about service cuts. The city’s four community centres, which faced closure until the Council at the 11th hour scraped together a lifeline subsidy to last them the rest of this year, are, he says, “a bunch of parasites”. They inflate the numbers of residents – the poor, the old and the young – who rely on them, he says. “It’s the same with the buses. They are used by 1 per cent of the people. It would be cheaper to buy them all cars.” Not that he would, of course.

The ideological rationale is the one that tends to be produced whenever the opportunists in the Act Party feel inclined paint themselves as libertarians : namely, that taxation is theft, and government does best when it leaves the public exposed to market forces. Douglas Bruce, the author of the TABOR instrument so admired by Kerr and Hide, certainly sees it that way :

While Mr Bruce is not advocating shuttering government entirely – “I am not an anarchist” – he equates taxation to oppression. And like many radical conservatives here he indulges in hyper-ventilated comparisons with Communism, Marxism and what he takes to calling the S-word to protect the sensibilities of a visiting reporter – socialism. “I have a book at home where it says, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ The government is stealing from us to redistribute the wealth and that is a key component of the Communist manifesto. Taking money from one group and giving it to another – I call that stealing.”

Paige, who faces re-election next April, cannot afford to be as ideological or as cold when it comes to the cuts. He claims to believe in the capacity of do-gooders and the private sector to “step up” to replace the safety net. “No doubt the cuts will fall far harder on lower income people,” he admits. “That doesn’t mean we can’t find partnerships to fill the gaps. There are a lot of affluent people in this town.”

There are a few affluent people in Auckland, too. Perhaps some will drive down to south Auckland occasionally and donate funds to soup kitchens for the needy, in the best 19th century tradition of Victorian charity. That seems seem to be the direction in which Kerr and Hide are intent on leading Auckland. The Independent sums up the toll of this policy to date, in Colorado Springs :

One third of the Colorado Springs’ 24,512 street lights were turned off earlier this year to save around $1.245m. Residents can adopt a streetlight if they pay $100 a year.

*To relieve the overstretched police force, the aptly named Cabs on Patrol programme asks 150 taxi drivers to report any crime or suspicious activity seen while driving around the city.

*Park budgets have been slashed by 75 per cent. Grass is mown monthly instead of weekly, bins have been removed so authorities do not need to pay for rubbish to be collected and public toilets have been closed.

*Nine city buses were sold and services no longer operate on evenings or weekends.

*Police and fire service budgets lost around $5.5m this year and police helicopters were auctioned on eBay

.

Of course, it should be said that Colorado has not been the only American state where social services are now in disarray because of ratepayer/taxpayer experiments in small government. California’s budgetary woes – where the funds for everything from firefighting to education has been cut back drastically – can be traced directly to the notorious Proposition 13 initiative in 1978, which slashed property taxes and rendered the state government permanently incapable of meeting basic social needs.

In Colorado, it may take a similar state-wide collapse to discredit TABOR enough to induce voters to remove it. As mentioned, voters managed in 2005 to temporarily lessen some of TABOR’s worst impacts. Yet even within the private sector, many now see TABOR as being bad for business, as this evaluation last year in the Colorado Springs Gazette indicated :

“Our crime is above the national average. We have buildings we can’t repair,” said Mike Kazmierski, president of Colorado Springs Regional Economic Development Corporation. Leaders worry about a future of continued tax limitations. “[Bruce’s] TABOR is going to restrict the recovery,” City Councilman Jerry Heimlicher said. “TABOR never anticipated two or three or four years in a row of reduced revenues. The city has the inability to restore services. “Kazmierski agrees: “It will eventually drive us into a hole that will be nearly impossible to get out of.”

He sees TABOR as a good idea gone bad. “TABOR in its purist form is very attractive – it’s citizens having a voice in the increase of taxes,” he said. “The way it is written and implemented is destructive.”

“What he has essentially done is make budget officers of every voter in Colorado,” [Colorado College political science professor Bob] Loevy said. “We now see Colorado as a giant laboratory. We are seeing whether you can give all this power to make financial decisions to the average voter and have it work. This is going on nowhere else in the country.”

Welcome to Rodney Hide’s vision for the Supercity. He will call it giving ratepayers a “choice.”

K-12 is the American term for Primary and Secondary school education

ENDS

by Gordon Campbell

The appointment of Auckland businessman Doug McKay as the interim chief executive to steer Auckland through its Supercity transition is a bit like this old headline from the Onion satirical newspaper : “Rich Guy Wins Yacht Race.” All along, the odds were fairly high that some wealthy white businessman would end up being picked for the job. However, the selection of McKay, a former Sealords boss and liquor industry chieftain, is more interesting than it seems at first glance.

For his pains, McKay is being paid an annual salary of Auckland $675,000 plus a $67,500 incentive bonus – and since, at this rarified boardroom level, incentive bonuses seem to be paid out to anyone who so much as brushes their teeth in the morning, we can only assume the real pay packet is indeed $742,500. McKay is said to be a very good ‘change manager.’

Right now though, many Aucklanders might prefer to have a good stability manager. That is, someone who can listen, cajole, and convince people into recognizing and accepting compromises without them feeling they have been bludgeoned into submission. A sizeable number of Aucklanders are feeling disturbed and angry at the blitzkrieg waged by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide against the previous structures of local democracy in Auckland – and given this climate of suspicion, one has to wonder whether McKay is the ideal candidate.

His track record as a CEO suggests he is someone who brooks no dissent, and who will analyse a situation, devise a solution and then act unilaterally. Some, no doubt, will applaud such traits as the mark of a man who gets things done, his way. Others will take them as grounds for doubting whether McKay will be willing, or able, to practice the sort of community diplomacy that is necessary, given the sensitive post to which he has just been appointed.

More to the point, is he being overpaid? The question has nothing to do with the size of the business overseen by local government in Auckland. which – as the NZ Herald says – entails the management of assets with a market capitalization seven times the size of Telecom. It has to do with the fact that, as the recently ousted CEO of Independent Distillers, McKay gives every sign of having been the captain of a sinking ship.

The firm that McKay recently headed has relied heavily upon selling alcopops, a product for which teenagers comprise an important part of the market. McKay took over the helm at Independent Liquor after founder Michael Erceg had died in a helicopter crash – and the firm is currently looking down the barrel of a deterrent tax on these products once Sir Geoffrey Palmer unveils his recommendations for the liquor industry later this month. Across the Tasman a similar tax has hammered the trade in alcopops, which only two years ago comprised 94% of the business of Independent Distillers in Australia, which McKay had also headed.

McKay was shoulder tapped for the Supercity job. Good for him, because he appeared to be in dire need of a new roosting place. His recent ouster from his CEO job in the Australian liquor trade, and the poor outlook for business-as-usual in the alcopops market have been only some the business headaches that McKay has been experiencing of late. As the NZ Herald recently pointed out :

Two weeks ago, his [McKay’s] business record took a knock when he was one of four men behind Hamilton packaging company Boxing On which was placed in receivership. The four, including former All Black captain David Kirk, got involved in the company only last month.

So who is Doug McKay, Auckland’s new Chosen One ? And is getting him on board a genuine coup for Auckland – or was it a rescue mission for a career that was on the ropes?

Doug McKay does have a very impressive CV. In the past 20 years, he has filled senior positions at Goodman Fielders, Lion Breweries, Sealords and Independent Liquor. Former associates speak highly of his analytical skills, his decisiveness, and straight shooting tendencies. On the other hand, Herald columnist Matt McCarten recently depicted McKay’s management record in the liquor industry in these terms :

That company [Independent Liquor] has an infamous union-busting reputation. When McKay took over, many of his workers were on minimum wages and many joined our union. We wrote to him asking him to stop his managers bullying the staff and offer his workers a modest wage increase. He wrote back declining both requests. The union members have all since left the company.
The company is the most profitable in the industry but its workers are still the lowest-paid.

While this article does not purport to be a comprehensive review of McKay’s business career, it is possible to discern patterns in his management style, and in the corporate values that he espouses.

1. Management style. McKay does deliver to his shareholders. As the Dominion –Post reported on 28 February 2007 (“Fishing Industry Bids Farewell to a Titan of the Deep”) McKay’s term at Sealords between 2002 and 2007 had been a challenging one : “It is a hard-fought industry beset during Mr McKay’s five year stint by a high dollar, rocketing fuel prices, quota cuts and an ever-increasing pressure to go easy on nature’s bounty in the name of sustainability.”

In the same article, Labour’s Shane Jones acknowledged that McKay’s knowledge of te reo had gone down well with Sealords’ Maori stakeholders at the time of his appointment:“ I think that warmed the cockles of the hearts of the Maori [shareholders] that they’d found someone that shared an appreciation, not only for the value of the asset to Maoridom, but where Maoridom had come from.”

At Sealords, McKay’s tendency to set his course and pursue it unilaterally became evident. Eight months into the job, McKay suddenly ordered Sealord suppliers to drop their prices immediately by five per cent and by a further 5 percent within `12 months. As Shane Jones explained with admiration to the Dom-Post’s reporter, the springing of the ultimatum was classic McKay : “It was an amazing wake-up call to suppliers. If there is a signature to Doug’s brand, that was it.”

In late 2006, Sealords’ second fish processing plant in Dunedin was closed, affecting 80 fulltime jobs. At the time, McKay blamed (Nelson Mail, 19 October 2006) on escalating plant overheads and other business costs for his decision to shut up shop. Earlier in that year, when the plan to focus Sealords’ fish processing activities on Nelson was first announced, union officials had complained ( Nelson Mail, “Sealord Workers Demand Answers,” 28 January 2005) about the company’s ‘unilaterally’ proposed timeframe for consultation, of less than three weeks. In this earlier media report, McKay was cited as blaming the closure on the drastic cut in hoki quota.

The autocratic McKay management style evident at Sealords would have been familiar to former staff at Goodman Fielder (see Australian Associated Press report, 26 October, 2000) faced with a sudden announcement that 300 jobs would be slashed. National Union of Workers (Victoria) secretary Charles Donnelly was not impressed by the decision, or by how the process had been managed by Goodman Fielder group managing director, Doug McKay. No consultation had occurred, the union claimed. “Goodman Fielder always seem to be in a state of restructuring, but we weren’t aware that there would be changes of this magnitude,” Donnelly said. “All we were told was that they were reviewing their milling operations, to say they consulted us is not an appropriate term.”

Within Goodman Fielder’s New Zealand operations, the same change management–by-surprise tactics were used again by group managing director Doug McKay – this time with respect to closures of flour mills in Auckland and Palmerston North, and of the Flemings oat mill in Gore, As the NZ Herald reported on 16 June 2000 ( in a story headlined“100 Jobs Hit As Secret Study Axes Flour Mills”) “ the company had tried to keep the review, called Operation Jupiter, secret.”

It was not only suppliers, unions and business rivals who were prone to getting nasty news, out of the blue, from McKay’s executive office. So were his own staff. On 15 July 2003, the NZ Herald announced (in a story called “Sealord Axe Falls On Managers”) that new chief executive Doug McKay had decided to make 70 staff at Sealords redundant.

As the Herald report says : “Doug McKay, appointed to the job last September, has been silent about the restructuring and its impact on staff, but it is understood the jobs were largely in management..” McKay would not give numbers, but did say all the salaried jobs in the company had been ‘redefined.’ Said McKay: “We have just streamlined our operation. Its about running a more efficient business.” None of the above indicates a person capable of consultative, inclusive decision-making.

2. Corporate Values The Supercity system will be bedded in against a backdrop of suspicion about the centralization of power and council resources represented by the Hide model of governance. As indicated, there is reason for concern about McKay’s past record of secretive and autocratic decision-making. In a wider sense though, what do we know about the corporate values and attitudes that McKay has demonstrated during his long career in the private sector?

The whaling dispute. As mentioned, McKay has a reputation for straight talking. He is a man, the Dom-Post said in its adulatory“Titan of the Deep” story in 2007, who does not mince words. That trait was certainly evident in this November 27, 2005 story by TVNZ about the controversial involvement of Sealords’ joint partner, Nissui, in the Japanese government’s bogus “scientific” whaling programme. The Earth Island Institute conservation group had responded to this linkage by calling for a boycott of Sealords products, on the grounds of the involvement in whaling by one of Sealords’ major shareholders.

McKay’s response? “He confirmed that any dividend payments from Sealords operations are shared 50-50 with their Japanese partner,” TVNZ reported, “but said that Earth Island’s threats were unjustified.’Sealord does not have a problem with what Nissui does in it’s own patch.’” McKay then went on to describe the Earth Institute’s proposed boycott action as being an act of “ commercial terrorism.”

The Foreign Crews Issue. In 2006, McKay firmly expressed Sealords’ displeasure with the Clark government’s ‘code of practice’ and new pay scales for workers on foreign fishing boats. The code had been a response to a 2005 report that some foreign crew members were being paid as little as $195 a month.

McKay estimated in a 2 October 2006 NZPA article (entitled “Sealord Unhappy With Govt Pay Plan For Foreign Crews”) that this code would cost Sealords $4.8 million. While verbally supporting the need to weed out poor operators and industry cowboys, McKay opposed the measure being proposed which – he claimed – would lower the value to Maori of the entire Treaty fishing deal. ”Maori, who rely on foreign charter vessels to maximize the returns on the quota they have received under the Treaty settlement see the government proposals as seriously undermining the value of the settlement.”

The code of practice, McKay claimed, would impact negatively on everyday New Zealanders. “ I can’t understand why the government wants Sealord and the wider fishing community to pay millions more each year to foreign nationals, and effectively deprive the New Zealand economy and pour shareholders of those funds.” In this exchange from Hansard, then Labour Minister Ruth Dyson explained the rationale for what McKay was so stoutly opposing :

The fishing industry is important to our economy, but it cannot be built on the exploitation, mistreatment, underpayment, and abuse of foreign crews. The wage adjustments required under the new rules for foreign fishing crews are modest and will take effect over time.

The Alcopops Issue. In 2008, in his capacity at the time as the head of Independent Distillers in Australia, McKay testified before a Senate inquiry and opposed a tax on so-called RTDs – the ‘ready to drink’ sugar flavoured alcohol drinks widely seen as a gateway drug for young teens, in that it uses the soda pop flavouring as a way for very young drinkers to overcome their initial distaste for alcohol. In his submission to a senate inquiry into alcopops available here and in a memorable duel on the Australian website Crikey with community liquor industry critic Geoff Munro available here – and continued here, and in the subsequent thread McKay staunchly defended the trade in RTDs. There and in subsequent media op ed pieces, McKay claimed the federal government had gone out of its way to vilify the spirits industry. He labelled the deterrent tax measures as a failure, and predicted they would backfire. The tax, McKay predicted, would cause a “substitution” effect whereby once RTD’s were priced out of reach, teens and problem drinkers in general would revert to beer, wine and straight spirits.

One can query whether the CEO of a firm that has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of peddling alcopos to teenagers is the ideal choice to become the civic leader of the city of Auckland. Matt McCarten, in his recent NZ Herald column (entitled “Booze Peddler To Spin democracy Down the Toilet”) spelled out the methods via which McKay’s old firm monitors and exploits teen fads, styles and allegiance to musical groups to hone and promote its alcopops for maximum desirability.

Reality has not been kind to McKay’s substitution argument, either. On the evidence, the Australian tax moves against RTDs have in fact, been a raging success. In the resultant shake-up in an industry that had been hooked on this dubious trade – and in an effort to stem the decline in the fortunes of Independent Distillers in particular – McKay was replaced late last year by Peter Murphy, as this report in the Australian liquor trade press indicates :

Independent Distillers former executive chairman Doug McKay has stepped down but remains on the board as a non-executive director.

In the course of a much fuller story – one that portrays Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s looming review of the liquor trade as a potential threat to the wellbeing of Independent Distillers – the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the background to McKay’s demise in these terms McKay’s demise in these terms :

The initial attraction of Independent Liquor was its strong cash flows and the fact that Australia was an anomaly in the global alcohol market. The penetration of alcopops here was twice as high as that of any other market, including Britain and New Zealand.

But this all changed when the Rudd Government decided to reverse the Howard government’s tax concession on alcopops last year and tax these drinks at the same rate as full-strength spirits. They did this to curb binge drinking among teenagers attracted to the drinks, which are generally aimed at young adults.

Before the tax was introduced, AC Nielson data suggested that the alcopop market peaked at 310 million litres for the year to April last year. A year later, the market had hit a low of 218 million litres.

Independent was hit hardest of all. In the year to April last year it sold 67 million litres of alcopops. In the year to April this year, Independent’s volume had fallen to 43 million litres, a drop of 36 per cent. By October it had fallen to 42 million litres, according to AC Nielson.

While other producers had a slight upturn in spirits, only in part mitigating their alcopop losses, Independent Liquor’s spirits volumes hardly moved.

Besides the falling profits, believed to be down at least 40 per cent in the past two years, Independent has an unusual model and culture that involves very little advertising but aggressive sales execution based on deals and personal incentives for store managers…They would [also]be nervous about the Palmer review, which could easily recommend an alcopop-tax increase in New Zealand similar to that in Australia. This would be devastating for the group, which relies heavily on the New Zealand business.

Independent Liquor is just one of a number of assets that private equity players have bought in the past few years that are struggling.

In other words, and as I mentioned at the outset, Doug McKay’s most recent corporate experience has been as the captain of a sinking ship. Couple that with his total lack of local government experience and a secretive, autocratic management style, honed most recently in the trade of alcopops to teenagers and others.

Within the private sector, McKay’s skills may still retain a market value – unfortunately, we will now never know what that value would be. Add it all up and you have to wonder what sort of bargain Rodney Hide has just foisted – to the tune of an annual salary effectively totaling $742,500 – upon the good citizens of Auckland.

ENDS

by Lyndon Hood

Rather than paying for a real logo, the Auckland Transition Agency has decided to run a public competition, complete with an open brief and a panel of unqualified judges. The idea is, this will be as awesome as the NZ Herald’s flag designs.

Debate is raging as to whether this is a surprisingly stupid plan or merely the kind of fundamental mistake you’d expect from a budding autocracy.

They have requested something “distinctive, exciting and dynamic”:

Click to enlarge

… although admittedly they also want it to reflect the nature of the newly-united city. This is trickier than it sounds, because you can’t really make a graphic of a giant clusterf#%k that’s appropriate for public consumption.

So I decided to concentrate on depicting the spirit in which the Auckland super city and its council were created.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Unfortunately they say they’re not after a coat of arms or crest, because I was rather pleased with this:

Click to enlarge

The blazon shows the National Party’s legendary sense of righteous indignation – a creature famously ready to savage anyone who would undermine democracy, pouncing at the first sign of anyone allowing unelected government lackeys to control our lives, at the slightest abuse of process, or at any attempt to use political deals to rush through laws that ignore the objections of everyday New Zealanders.

It is depicted as confused and angry, because it hasn’t been let off its leash and it doesn’t understand why.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Some, who object to councils spending money on logos at all, have suggested the following:

Click to enlarge

However, it’s worth noting that under recent court rulings this could breach the copyrights both of the estate of composer John Cage and of author Stephenie Meyer.

The only other selection criteria that stuck in my mind was that the proposed logo had to be suitable for rubbish bags. I apologise to my competitors if this sews up the competition, but my final offering is this:

Click to enlarge

ENDS

by Denis O’Reilly

When Rufus Marsh, a poster boy for the promoters of the 3 Strikes legislation, died earlier this month there was no tangi at his papakainga, Mangaroa Marae. The first I knew of his passing was a story in the Dominion Post. I’m told that he had been cremated on his mum’s instructions. For all we know his ashes may well have been discarded like detritus, an unambiguous statement as to the considered value of his life.

If there were tears of mourning it was equally likely that they would have been for Rufus’ victims, Taffy Williamson and Dianne Miller. Taffy was an ‘old school’ Wellington drunk, an angry and irascible codger, an alcoholic who lived in an abandoned Ministry of Works house in Hopper St alongside a similar pad squatted by a group of young Black Power. It was 1974. Rufus could only have been 18 and he was living it rough, part of a wave of young unskilled rural Maori heading to the city and struggling to find a place in a rapidly changing society. Taffy, staggering past, called Rufus and his mate ‘black cunts’ and the two attacked him, basically kicking him to death, and then dragging his body down the road and hiding him under a pile of pallets.

During his lag it became apparent that Rufus had major mental health issues. He was a tragic figure – illiterate, lonely, troubled by demons. In 1986, after twelve years of enclosed madness, without any real habilitative support, our criminal justice system released Rufus back onto the streets of Wellington. He couldn’t cope, and it was apparent to any independent observer who cared to think about it that he was a danger to himself and others. His life sentence had done little but twist his already troubled mind.

Somehow all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t see the blooming obvious. For his own good and for the safety of others on the streets of Wellington this confused man needed to be held still, yet treated with compassion and shown some love and humanity based in the belief in his potential to heal. That can’t happen in a prison. The brother Skull tried to help him, to be a mate and to enable him to access housing and to get the thing most vital of all, a job. He wasn’t an easy candidate to place, and, Skull, big hearted as usual, took him on into his own business, ‘Shift a Flat’, where he could be directly supervised and earn a decent and legitimate dollar.

It was a move that had unanticipated and tragic consequences. One client was a young woman, Dianne Miller, a nurse if I recall, who wanted to be shifted into a flat in Mt Victoria. The job was done. But, Rufus the predator came back to Dianne’s flat and murdered her, assaulting her horribly in the process. And so back into prison he went, eventually to die and be discarded. Mad, bad, and sad. Rufus Marsh didn’t even need three strikes. He needed a system based on common sense and the provision of community support.

The National/Act three strikes legislation has been introduced in the quest for safer streets. If it will achieve that is moot. We are radically changing the dynamics at the hardest edge of the criminal justice system – the prisons. This 3 Strikes initiative will consolidate a difficult-to-manage cohort within the prison system. We are likely to see the development of units based on North American super max style prisons, domains of hopelessness and despair.

This administration’s push towards privatization of prisons can be interpreted as a market response to a system that now ensures that there will be a body of inmates who never get out. Moreover, what are the fresh sanctions that can be applied against someone who is already a perpetual prisoner? What do we do when they kill, or try to kill, whilst in prison? Look at Graham Burton’s recent conviction.

On the current policy trajectory this sort of behavior – which we are going to see more and more – is likely to become a platform for an argument for the re-introduction of the death penalty. In any case 3 Strikes is with us. It is the latest move in a decade of ‘getting tough on crime’ initiatives undertaken by successive governments in response to the populist demands of an aging white Pakeha populace waiting out their twilight in talkback zone. They’re scared of the young brown poor who might thieve from their houses.

Hell, they should be more scared of the white-shirted rich financiers who will steal the actual house. God give us the day when we have 3 Strikes for crooked banksters! In my view there has been more than enough of criminal justice whoop- ass aimed at Aotearoa’s young brown poor. We should reflect on the words of Winston Churchill (he was hardly a cardie tugging liberal)

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused and even of the convicted criminal against the State; a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and an eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry, those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of punishment; tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every man; these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminal mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it”.

How do we now balance up the scales and meet our social justice obligations by putting equal effort and resource into what Justice Minister Simon Power currently refers to as the ‘drivers of crime’. The current administration has consulted widely and come up with ideas about what to do, and even how to do it, but they’ve made available sweet fanny adams in terms of fresh resource, nada, zilch. Well, to quote Rutherford, ‘then we must think’. And, if we are to think, let it be beyond the self serving tick box interests of current policy conventions emanating from the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Justice, and the other beneficiaries of the criminal justice industrial complex.

The ‘outside the box’ feedback to the Government from a broad consultative hui convened by Ministers Power and Sharples and held at Parliament suggested that the drivers of crime are complex, social, inter-generational, and require early intervention. The full report can be read here, but it can be summarised as:

Parenting and family
Underlying issues stemming from family dysfunction were a significant part of the discussion in all groups at the ministerial meeting. Poor parenting and child maltreatment were discussed as problems that are being transferred between generations, and are coupled with poverty and low educational attainment.

Community and identity
Several issues relating to community and identity were identified. Alongside parenting and family issues, the community environment was identified by all groups as contributing to crime. Specific reference was made to a deterioration of community values and support structures, and alienation from community and wider society as wider issues.

Schooling, education
While a range of concerns were identified, education was seen as a solution to many problems.

Alcohol and drugs
Alcohol was discussed by most groups at the meeting as a contributor or ‘facilitator’ of crime rather than a driver. Alcohol was seen to amplify negative issues in family and community environments.

Mental health
Mental health problems were seen to exacerbate already identified risk factors.

Behavioural problems and conduct disorder
Many participants identified behavioural problems in childhood as a warning sign for later criminal offending. These problems can also contribute to family stress and poor educational participation and achievement by children and young people.

Justice system factors
Many groups identified the need for a philosophical shift in the justice system, from a retributive or punitive model to a restorative, rehabilitative community-based model. There was discussion about the extent to which the police, courts, prisons and youth justice facilities perpetuate offending and re-offending. Particular issues identified included the criminalization of low-level offenders, and the lack of interventions to reduce recidivism.

Whoa! What! A philosophical shift! A fence at the cliff top! What a radical proposition. By the time these suggestions had been filtered through the policy mill the respective Ministers Power and Sharples were prepared to announce ‘whole of government’ priorities on four priority areas:

Antenatal, maternity, and early parenting support.

Programmes to address behavioural problems in young children.

Reducing the harm caused by alcohol.

Alternative approaches to managing low-level offenders, and offering pathways out of offending.

Apparently the focus across these areas will be on improving services for those at risk of being the offenders or victims of the future, and their families. The MSD Social Report suggests that in both instances they’ll disproportionately be Maori New Zealanders. Power says that addressing the drivers of crime for Maori will be a priority in all aspects of the work. That makes sense.

In my view, based on Peter Doone’s research, the biggest contribution that could be made might well be to challenge and resolve the issue experienced by Maori at their first encounter with the criminal justice system. This is the systemic racism embedded within the New Zealand Police. The ‘whole of government aspect’ is premised on the assumption that the answers will come from sectors such as health, education, parenting support, housing, recreation, and economic, social and community development.

Black Power Gang Members, Herd Street, Wellington (Image: Ans Westra, 1973)

But, despite the fact that the stubs of the nation’s chequebook reveal our true priorities, as I’ve noted, there’s no fresh bucks. We’re prepared to spend whatever it costs to crush and crate when it comes to crime, but when it comes to prevention we will rely on synergies leveraged from the fiefdoms of the public service. Power said “The focus will be on improving outcomes by tackling fragmentation, ensuring ministerial and chief executive co-ordination and leadership of the work programme, improving value for money, and improving the relationship between government and the community.” Tui Billboard!

It’s hard getting a ‘whole of government’ service at a community level. I will share parables based on my own recent experience. I drive a national movement that aims to engage the leadership of the two major Maori gangs (the Mob and Blacks) in a movement to self-prohibit the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine. It’s not a universally popular mission and from time to time I get criticism and opposition from within.

I get criticism from without too – often from the operational arm of the Police and from their union – so if I’m copping it from both flanks I’m probably right on the button. Recently a member of my extended whanau – who I’ve supported for some thirty years – went on a hikoi and came back fried up on meth. He had a few messages for me, probably given when he was sharing a pipe with my detractors. These were delivered in the main through texting.

As he was tweaking he began to tumble into bouts of psychosis and experience anhedonia – a state where you can turn on those who may well love you most. He became increasingly angry, sad, and his threats moved to those of self harm and murderous intent, with me being the intended victim. I’m no Taffy and I accept that my whanaunga is in a state somewhat similar to Rufus. He can be a dangerous man and the situation was unpredictable.

I decided to call in the mental health professionals. I hold a Masters degree in social practice and lead a national MOH project. You’d think I might be able to get a bit of traction, a whole-of-government response to an issue that has been ‘owned’ by no less than the Prime Minister. I went to the Hawke’s Bay DHB and tried to get action. I told them I had a whanau member who was threatening to do himself harm and or to do me harm. I believed he was experiencing methamphetamine psychosis. I had the texts to back up my assessment.

Call the Police they said. No, I don’t want to prosecute my whanau member, I want to get him help. If the helpers needed the Police, fair enough, probably not a bad idea in the circumstances, but I’m not the bloke who comes with the Police. It seemed little could be done until he had actually attacked me or attempted to kill himself. I have a loving family. My three sons were anxious for my safety. The son who was closest to the whanau member went to see him. The whanau member came out of his whare armed with knives and stabbed my boy. My other two sons heard the attack – we live nearby – and came to the rescue. A fracas ensued and it spilled out onto a main road. The Police were called by passers-by.

Stuff the context, the Police arrested my three sons (Maoris fighting on the street – dad’s a gang member don’t you know). All three boys are family men in steady relationships, well employed, and one is a recently graduated lawyer, who, like me, runs a programme designed to combat meth. Where’s the commonsense in this policing?

I mentioned Graham Burton earlier on. My friends in Wellington tell me that, like Rufus Marsh (pictured left), Burton was pretty lost when he was released from jail. He wanted to do good, and wanted help. It was unavailable in any meaningful way. Its apparent that the man wasn’t psychologically well. Although the Probation Service have copped the blame that fact of the matter was that there was a warrant out for his arrest. Maybe the Police were too scared to go arrest him – “We tried Sarge but no one was home; leave it to the next shift”. Maybe the CIB were happy to have him out taxing and terrorising the meth dealers.

He was dangerous but nothing was done. Look at the tragedy that ensued. Where’s the commonsense? Just this week a local Hawke’s Bay bloke Bruce Ngaranoa has pleaded guilty to a raft of charges stemming from his violence. He’d been deported from Australia where he famously climbed onto the roof of a prison to complain about the conditions. If you don’t like it fuck off back to New Zealand they said, and gave him a free ticket home. Here, it was obvious he was unwell. He’d stand in the middle of the road in a traffic island and stare at the traffic, eyeballing drivers in a most threatening way.

Brucie is a big strong bloke. I’ve known him since he was a kid. His mum and dad and family members are wonderful people, but apart from continuing to love their obviously stressed son and brother they could do little to change the situation. He is mad, and maybe to some degree bad, but I’m sure the former predicates the latter. It had to wait until he had stacked up a number of serious criminal charges, all of them related to violence and intimidation before ‘whole-of-government’ would act. Three strikes indeed. Just give me some bloody common sense.

ENDS

Click to enlarge

Pity Simon Power.

On his sofa watching The Shawshank Redemption, crying into his ice cream while Judith Collins and Rodney Hide announce a new Three Strikes plan.

The Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Local Government.

Who cares if it’s a Justice bill. I didn’t want to announce it anyway.

He hasn’t checked the rules but he has a horrible feeling he might be required to defend the bill in Parliament. Perhaps he could go on some kind of holiday.

‘Three Strikes’. Honestly.

Simon reminds himself that New Zealand does, actually, do quite well at softball. It doesn’t help.

At least he knows now what was happening. Why Judith and Rodney had all those meetings ‘about crushing cars in the super city’. That ‘dodgy lock’ that kept shutting him out of John Key’s office.

That time in Cabinet when they said they were hungry and sent him to the Supreme Court to fetch a slice of statutory tort. And he went, too, even though he knew statutory torts do not come by the slice.

And fair enough. If they wanted a plan that is tough on criminals – while avoiding anything that might actually reduce crime – the last thing they needed was input from someone who actually understood criminal justice. Or might consider how hard it is finding staff for the prisons we have now.

A plan they could credibly (or at least, assertively) say is to make the streets safer. A plan which seems, to Simon, designed to make bad people worse.

Rodney and his mates apparently think that criminals make rational, benefit/loss decisions, that repeat offenders are the sort to be deterred by the threat of punishment. But then, if they made their decisions based on reason, they wouldn’t have already committed multiple serious offences against the state.

Neither would the criminals, come to think of it.

All that for policy Simon thought was only going to first reading because of the coalition agreement, which has now been made harsher.

A policy ACT only has because nobody would vote for their actual policies.

A policy Judith Collins is only so keen on because of… because of something to do with being Judith Collins.

Criminals sometimes believe the justice system is motivated by disproportionate malice rather than a measured response to their illegal actions. That kind of idea is detrimental to their ability to change their ways, and now Simon is beginning to wonder if they are right.

Not that Simon would ever commit a serious violent offence.

Wouldn’t think of it.

Simon learned to stop being annoyed a long time ago. Judith feeds on outrage.

Whatever. It’ll take most of a decade to even start kicking in. So that’s all right.

It’s not Simon’s problem.

It’s not my problem.

And when all these high-risk offenders start getting dropped into this strange outside world without the supervision of parole, ACT will never lack horrific crimes to hitch their wagon to. And National will never want for a coalition partner.

It might not be as bad as it looks. There could be a plan.

Like, you propose implementing your stupid policy in a really daft way, then after submissions you ‘listen’ and implement your stupid policy in a practical way. Which leaves everyone relatively relieved.

Simon might hope they are doing that. That would be the wise thing to do.

One the other hand, any meeting of minds between Judith Collins and David Garret is unlikely to be chaired by Captain Sensible.

It’s not like Simon doesn’t have dreams of his own. He has a intricate scheme to refine the court system until it is as swift and efficient as a coin toss. This is coming along nicely. Simon should be happy.

Box of birds, me.

Simon has been having nightmares.

Like the one where he’s telling Rodney Hide that A-list murder victims, whose killers would still have been in jail, isn’t really enough to prove three strikes will make the whole country safer. So Rodney smiles, and produces the secret list of people who are alive now, who would have been dead under his plan, to compare it with.

Or the one where he wakes up with neat puncture marks on his abdomen, and knows that Judith has returned, sucking the lilyness out of his liver. And that he’s tried to warn his colleagues for weeks, but their eyes just seem to glaze over, like when he tries to tell them about the consistency with fair trial rights of the requirement to identify issues in dispute.

Simon can’t help reaching under his shirt to check.

Nothing there. Just a dream.

Simon had forgotten there was baseball in The Shawshank Redemption. He stops the movie, and puts The Boomtown Rats on the stereo.

Tell me why
I Don’t Like Mondays
Tell me why
I Don’t Like Mondays

Outside, people keep committing crimes.

Poor old Simon Power.

Click to enlarge