Brian Rudman: Little incentive for City of Sails to change tack

On Wednesday I got a "Dear Brian" letter from Don Brash telling me to do "the right thing" and vote for change. As incentive he said that under him I'd be paying less tax and, nudge nudge, that my national superannuation would be safe. Cheeky cheeky. One thing I'll always have over him is my youth.

He's not the only one pressuring me. Nestling alongside his letter in my mailbox were four glossy leaflets from the ubiquitous Brethrens - each different from the three from earlier in the campaign. Do I win a fast-track to heaven for the full set?

My colleague Fran O'Sullivan is on the change bandwagon too, claiming that Labour's "propensity to third-term drift" rules it out of the race despite it having presided over, she concedes, "six years of economic growth". Puzzling.

Admittedly, I'm always in the market for something new, particularly if it comes with offers of folding stuff for nothing. But as one who's been round long enough to be sent National's superannuation brochure, I do know that nothing, in this world at least, is for free.

And putting aside any personal tax windfall, there seems little to celebrate as a citizen of this community from a change of Government. Indeed the only Auckland specific policy I can find - that involving transport - risks more than just drift.

It's easy to promise to complete the regional highway network in eight years, rather than the 10 of Labour's programme, but can they do it, and if so, at what price?

Part of the recipe is to "streamline the bloated bureaucracy" and establish a standalone Transport Auckland agency "to oversee all parts of the public transport system". This would amalgamate all the functions of existing local and central government transport and roading agencies.

It's a seductive concept now, as it was two years ago when reform was last in the air. It was mulled over by government politicians and reported to death by the bureaucrats, but eventually, by mutual consent, the mega-agency concept was discarded as likely to create as many problems as it might cure.

An obvious issue was how to maintain a nationally focused highway network organisation if a crucial sector is split off to become an inward-looking Auckland agency. There was also a worry that Wellington and Christchurch would demand similar treatment and the central authority would disintegrate into a bunch of disconnected regional boards.

The compromise was to set up the Auckland Regional Transport Authority which began work just nine months ago. Now, just as it gets up to speed, National is proposing to begin again. There was partial paralysis during the last round of reform. Do we need a repeat?

National also hopes to fast-track things by streamlining the resource management process, scrapping legal aid for objectors and preventing "vexatious and frivolous objections". Objectors such as the National Party supporters opposing ugly power pylons across their Hunua lifestyle blocks, I presume. How National can reconcile its commitment to individual property rights with its wish to silence the victims of Government-driven progress, I have never understood.

And it's not just roads. What hope has the imperilled Jean Batten Building got from a developer-friendly rewrite of the RMA?

As for political reform, there's no written policy, so we'll have to go on past behaviour. Experience suggests National, if it has the chance, will rapidly home in on the testicles - to use this week's buzz word - of the regional council.

They've never much liked strong regional government. It's only eight years ago that Maurice Williamson, now shadow transport minister, wanted to force the sale of the $849 million assets of the Auckland Regional Services Trust and scatter the proceeds to individual Aucklanders. To our credit, only 4 per cent of us agreed.

But the worst aspect of a change of government is that we Aucklanders would have to start all over again to train a new bunch of politicians about what is best for our town. Time for a change? Nah.