Editorial - Tuesday June 11, 2013

Choosing by gut instinct

INCREASINGLY it seems we are being asked to make decisions, or more accurately make our contribution to decisions that are largely out of our hands, by gut instinct rather than from an informed point of view. Efforts now being made by the Far North Better Local Government working group to promote a unitary authority is one example of that, although the charge would be denied. Hamilton City's decision to remove fluoride from its water supply is another.

Fluoride is a strange topic, one that offers two diametrically opposed schools of thought. One school has it that fluoride drastically reduces rates of tooth decay, saving the country multi-millions of dollars and thousands of young people the pain associated with the damage done, in many cases, by poor diet and/or oral hygiene. The other would have us believe that the substance has been foisted upon uninformed communities by unscrupulous industrialists who wish to profit from an otherwise worthless byproduct which might reduce rates of tooth decay but at the price of all sorts of nasty side-effects, ranging from cancer to lower IQ levels.

The task of reaching a conclusion as to who might be right and wrong is made more difficult by the ease with which both arguments are able to quote supposedly expert support. For every research project that can attest to the efficacy of fluoride there is another that stakes reputations on declaring it to be a killer.

Meanwhile, on the sideline are those who baulk at the principle of mass medication, apparently oblivious to or prepared to overlook that mass medication has been a fact of life, in New Zealand at least, for decades, most notably by the addition of iodine to table salt. No one seems to object to that, unlike those who girded their loins for battle when a proposal to add folic acid to bread, in the interests of unborn children, was made a few years ago.

Then there are those who point out that parents who want to expose their children to fluoride are perfectly entitled to buy tablets or fluoridated toothpaste. And there's another sub-group that points out that fluoride is actually a naturally-occurring substance which in some parts of the world, but not here, finds its way into public water supplies without human intervention.

All very confusing, not helped by the fact that there seems to be no credible authority that does not have a barrow to push. Those who argue that fluoride must be excluded from public water supplies as a matter of some urgency and those who argue that it is a benevolent substance that does only good generally come across as zealots, when the debate cries out for an expert, dispassionate view that those who will end up making the decision can listen to and so form their own, somewhat informed conclusion.

Much the same goes for the current debate in the Far North over the pros and cons of forming a unitary authority. The Better Local Government group and/or the Far North District Council - it isn't easy to tell which - is/are currently conducting a survey that is aimed at establishing how much support exists for one unitary authority for the Far North as opposed one for the whole of Northland, and urging residents to acquaint themselves with the issues before the Local Government Commission asks them what they think.

Some points made by this educational campaign are fair enough - 'Our challenges' do indeed include the facts that the Far North is geographically huge with a small, far-flung population, that we struggle to maintain our roads (for reasons which are not necessarily simple), and that we have little say in how our roading priorities are met.

Others are more questionable, and again cry out for independent analysis. Some, such as the cost of employing staff, and even ability to employ staff, for a Far North Unitary Authority, are not addressed at all.

The most common objection to what some have described as propaganda is the perception that forming a unitary authority is offered as a panacea for a raft of issues that could be addressed by the existing councils, if they wished to do so. For example, the statement that the Far North is geographically remote from Whangarei decision-makers and is not on the government's radar. The 'Whangarei decision-makers' are presumably NRC members, who have proposed an electoral formula that will address that issue, if it is one. And how will forming a unitary authority put us on the government's radar?

'Maori aren't fully involved in council decision-making and the economic growth and resource management plans of councils and iwi aren't integrated.' True, but a UA won't change that. Why can't councils and iwi work together now?

'There are too many policies and plans (true again) and it is confusing for people to have to deal with a district and regional council with jurisdictions in the same area.' Some of us aren't confused. And why can't the two councils work together now instead of reconstructing local government?

'Local government is bureaucratic and a cost burden on communities.' Very true, but how is that going to change with a UA? The best bet is that the new council will be more bureaucratic and more expensive than the old ones. And if the FNDC wants to be less bureaucratic, what's stopping it? 'We struggle to meet the rising costs of infrastructure.' True again. What will change with a UA?

'There is no transparency of regional asset ownership or return for Far North communities.' Really? The average Far North ratepayer's minuscule regional rate suggests we're getting a significant share. 'The Far North has high unemployment and low economic growth, many poor communities and much sub-standard housing, and waterways that are being polluted by intensive farming.' A unitary authority will fix these how?

Forming a UA in the Far North will not, as claimed, give us a stronger voice in Wellington. We will still be the Far North with the same geography, the same population and the same problems. Relationships and intelligent arguments open doors, not council configuration.

We're told that with a UA, Maori and non-Maori will work together in a strategic partnership that addresses challenges and opportunities. What's stopping us from doing that now? Local government will be more user-friendly and cost-effective. Why? Especially when a UA must increase costs significantly.

'Far North communities will have more control over infrastructure costs and alternative solutions.' Really? The NRC administers rules made in Wellington. Those rules won't change. 'The Far North will get its fair share of income from the region's assets and use that to grow the economy and infrastructure.' How much? And how will that compare with added costs? 'Locally-elected people will be in the driving seat when it comes to determining the district's roading priorities.' The key factor here is government funding. Why will that increase if a UA is formed?

The Far North will be invited to express a view on how its local government is configured, and any effort to educate voters before that is to be applauded, but this campaign does not get close to the required standard. We are being asked to make a very important decision on sweeping statements and gut instinct. Hopefully the LGC will offer much more detailed, and balanced, information before we make a decision that will affect this district far into the future. We are entitled to make our decision on facts, and we haven't seen enough of those.