My Account
By Bill Foster, Northern Action Group (NAG) chair
In the run-up to the local body elections, there has been a lot of comment on social media about the state of our roads and the way the Local Board is, or should be, run.
Rodney’s lack of road maintenance and sealing is not anyone’s “fault”. It’s the result of a long combination of national and local funding, policy and political choices and arrangements that have prioritised spending away from road maintenance and road sealing, in favour of more urban or politically iconic spending preferences. That all stems from how Auckland Council was formed and structured under legislation, and has been exaggerated by political interests seeking greater centralisation and control and their preferred particular outcomes.
NAG has written extensively on this and argued for better and more democratic governance that would promote community empowerment, localism, devolution, accountability and responsibility (to locals) and fairer representation. We are also opposing the Three Waters proposals.
Road maintenance and sealing has never been about the money. We have shown that Council sits on more than enough unspent Regional Fuel Tax money every year to fund Rodney‘s road maintenance, improvement and sealing programme.
As with national government spending, politicians don’t allocate funds to their most profitable uses, but to “hot” political issues (often social) that motivate voters. Investment is not judged on returns, but on “polls”, “likes” and “followers”.
So, rather than justifying investments by identifying the future cashflows that will be used to pay for them, politicians prioritise operational and investment spending on what revenues they have, how much they can borrow, perceived voter need, and who they have to keep happy. Proper water and roading infrastructure is taken for granted and not “sexy”, so it misses out on spending prioritisation. The result is a never-ending demand for more revenue to maintain or replace assets they could not afford and should not have afforded, frequent neglect of basic assets and facilities that were needed, inability to meet promises, and a resulting disenchantment of voters, who finally replace the government, and repeat the process.
We know that the alternative more distributed (local) decision-making will not necessarily be more efficient, less wasteful or achieve any great central purpose, but it will give people what they want, as opposed to a system of dictatorship by the majority.
Some centralised decision-making benefits everyone such as national defence, law and order, and social safety nets, so in practice we strive for a balance between these extremes that is workable and recognises the value of the commons for everyone.
Auckland Council is under-funded in relation to service obligations and expectations, and the core Council urban majority (quite reasonably) are looking after what they think will get them publicity and votes and are less concerned about rural people, communities and their needs.
What we don’t need are local board members supporting Council policies that don’t represent the views of Rodney’s voters in order to win support for more resources for Rodney. The rural areas of Franklin and Rodney need to be treated fairly, not as afterthoughts. Cycleways in Auckland central, the city rail link, light rail to the airport and tactical urbanism do nothing for Rodney.
The Local Board has worked hard to deliver within its limited remit to allocate spending on local services and assets. But it’s political and representation mistake has been to follow its own block members agenda and not to recognise and support voters’ calls for better roading, and rates more focused on Rodney’s needs.
Ideological and block voting with secrecy (closed workshops and pre-deciding outcomes) are antithetical to an open, representative and community inclusive Local Board. Independent candidates who support open discussions and decision-making are needed to restore confidence.
