Loss of public asset a disaster

John Woods

Opinion

Last week's so-called explanation and justification for the closure and sale of the council-owned vehicle testing station by the chairman of Gisborne Holdings Limited is sheer bunkum.

The blather by GHL chair David Mullooly (January 27 story) pitched as accounting for the loss of this service and facility did nothing to allay the concerns and frustration local vehicle owners have been experiencing since the testing station closed late last year, giving a virtual monopoly to VTNZ (Vehicle Testing NZ).

As a concerned resident who agitated Gisborne District Council more than two weeks ago by asking Official Information Act questions around the closure of the council-owned testing station, I find it a remarkable coincidence (not!) that they finally and belatedly attempt to justify the waste and appalling stewardship behind this loss of service and public convenience.

Gisborne vehicle owners seeking a warrant of fitness these days are forced into painfully long queues, controlled no less annoyingly by security guards who try to manage traffic outside the VTNZ testing station in a situation that is far worse than the delays and inconvenience of the wait we had to endure at the old council station.

It is little comfort to hear that VTNZ (who paid how much for the business?) hope to improve and beef up their service after they renovate and move into the old GHL-owned premises. What guarantee do we have that the VTNZ bureaucracy will do a better job? When has a government-owned commercial entity ever improved anything!

Mr Mullooly tries to tell us that a key reason GHL could not sustain the testing station commercially, and what forced their hand in closing down, was the difficulty of finding and recruiting qualified inspectors, and then attracting them to live in Gisborne; so why will that not be a problem for a VTNZ monopoly?

My own inquiries have revealed that management incompetence, and therefore poor governance by GHL as the owner-operator — which I put down to irresponsible and negligent stewardship — are the real cause of the problems that led to this failure.

I'm still waiting for details and answers to my LGOIMA questions about the testing station, and expect these will shed better light on my theory — though it's not massaged facts and figures I want, but rather accountability by GDC as the owner or stakeholder in GHL, for their mismanagement and incompetence in not properly protecting and governing the ratepayer investment in this service and facility.

What I really want to know is when did GDC become aware our testing station was in trouble and what did either officers or council members do about it? Did the directors of GHL get professional advice on addressing the operational problems? Or did they just blithely treat it as a fait accompli, arrogantly dismissing motor trade changes and issues as a fact of life? In other words, did anyone think entrepreneurially and try something innovative or new to try to save the service?

My advice based on interviews with former staff (albeit disgruntled ones) of the GHL testing station is that no one in management listened to staff when they challenged internal decision-making and operational practices during the early days of troubles, nor did anyone try to change the inefficiencies that were dogging the station and would ultimately bring the place down.

I would like to think that the forum of Local Democracy Reporting will allow further investigation and holding to account of the powers that be in this minor disaster and ruining of a public service and ratepayer-owned asset.

What are the people we elected to look after our interests doing about this?