Brian Rudman: Ratepayers give lie to politicians' stinginess claims

The people of Greater Auckland are much more fair-minded than their politicians when it comes to the funding of regional facilities.

For years, regional councillors and local politicians from the satellite cities have turned a deaf ear to pleas from Auckland City that the financial load for institutions as diverse as the Auckland Zoo, Aotea Centre and Auckland Philharmonia be spread more equitably.

Privately they tell Auckland City they would help if they could, but sorry, their ratepayers would never stand for it.

But a May survey of 600 residents of Greater Auckland suggests this excuse is pure bollocks. Respondents were given a list of 15 regional facilities and asked whether they should be regionally funded (either by local councils working jointly or by a single organisation), or funded by the council where the service is based. The only one that didn't get majority support for regional funding was North Shore Stadium, and even it had 46.4 per cent backing for Auckland-wide funding.

Top scoring was the Westpac Rescue Helicopter, with 96 per cent for regional funding, with Surf Lifesaving close behind on 92 per cent. Auckland Art Gallery scored 75 per cent, Auckland Philharmonia 76 per cent, Opera New Zealand 81 per cent, Auckland Festival 71 per cent, Auckland Theatre Company 65 per cent and Ericsson Stadium second to bottom on 60 per cent.

Ironically Ericsson Stadium is one regional facility the ARC does run.

Aucklanders are even willing to dip into their pockets to ensure region-wide funding for regional facilities happens. Phoenix Research, which conducted the survey for Auckland City, told respondents that if funding was spread across the region, "ratepayers in some councils may have to pay around 2 to 4 per cent more on their rates. This is because some councils contribute more than others."

Despite this warning, just over 50 per cent said this was fair, 30.7 disagreed and 19 per cent had no opinion.

Encouragingly, there was support for region-wide funding even for activities which a majority considered only benefited Aucklanders with special interests, groups like the Philharmonia, Opera New Zealand and the theatre company.

It's a pity regional councillors didn't see this survey yesterday before they rejected a chance to initiate a regional forum with territorial councils "to discuss options for appropriate and sustainable funding for regional cultural organisations". Instead they called for another time-wasting report on options.

This despite their obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 "to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities ... "

At today's meeting of Auckland City's arts, culture and recreation committee, another approach to the issue will be discussed. This has arisen from the funding crisis faced by the Auckland Philharmonia earlier this year when, once again, Auckland City ended up as the only local council willing to take the issue seriously.

Following this near-death experience, city officials set up a "regional funding initiative working party" with representatives from 10 "regional" organisations. Besides the ones mentioned above are Watersafe Auckland, National Maritime Museum, and Stardome Observatory.

The plan is for legislation along the lines of the acts which force all seven territorial councils, from Rodney in the north to Franklin in the south, to share Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology running costs.

We're told the various outlying mayors support this move, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen them - both individually and collectively - wriggle out of tighter commitments than this in the past.

Hopefully the Phoenix survey might persuade them that in supporting the legislation, they will not only be doing the right thing, they'll even be doing what their voters want them to do.

As for the regional councillors, they had a chance yesterday to get their heads out of the sewers and busways that dominate their every waking moment, but they blew it.

The report before yesterday's regional strategy and planning committee spelled out the problem - and the opportunity. "Given the lack of progress by territorial councils in developing a fair and workable solution, it does not appear likely that a solution will coalesce soon without some form of leadership. This leadership might come from ARC."

It was a reasonable suggestion. Get the region together under regional leadership to brainstorm the solution to a festering regional problem.

But instead of accepting the challenge, our regional leaders scurried back down their drains.