Editorial: Rate outcry must force change

Opinion

Auckland Mayor Dick Hubbard must have recognised the peril of taking out a full-page advertisement in this newspaper to defend hefty rate rises in the city. He must have known that to recall the exploits of great civic leaders of the past was to risk ridicule. Perhaps he thought he would be applauded for his courage, and complimented for spending thousands of dollars of his own money. Alas, he has succeeded in confirming for many that he still does not quite understand what is riling Auckland ratepayers.

In an attempt to justify this year's 13.4 per cent average residential rate increase, Mr Hubbard's message laid great store on the approach of two former civic leaders - Sir James Gunson, Mayor from 1915 to 1925, and Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, the dominant figure of the 1960s. He lauded Sir James' foresight and bravery in building the Auckland War Memorial Museum. He neglected to mention, however, that his mayoralty ended after ratepayers rejected a dogmatic approach to the construction of a civic centre.

Mr Hubbard also notes that Mayor Robbie's stewardship of the Mangere sewerage works "hit ratepayers' pockets" as the more expensive of two options. Yet if there was disquiet over the cost of that project, it was a murmur compared with the present outcry. Nor was mention made of the skilful way Robbie involved the community in what he planned.

The current city council has managed only to alienate ratepayers. The reason is simple; it has failed to tailor its spending and approach to what is acceptable to them. The rates burden, in addition to a 9.6 per cent rise in water charges - a rates increase in disguise - and increasing petrol and power costs, is too great a load. It is a matter of timing. In a year in which property revaluations affect rates, why not adopt maximum prudence in all calls on the ratepayer's pocket? The unfortunate result is that a stain has been cast upon the projects of which Mr Hubbard speaks, no matter how worthwhile they are.

The Mayor's meanderings through history need not have been totally misplaced, however. He might also have noticed local councils' frequent entreaties to Governments of the day about financing. In 1958, the year before Robbie took the mayoral chain, such complaints prompted a royal commission, which, among other things, examined ways to ease the burden on ratepayers. Nothing came of its recommendations. But, almost half a century on, councils have cause for an even greater sense of grievance.

Government legislation in the past decade has undoubtedly been a major factor in accelerating rate rises. Since 1996, councils have been denied money for capital spending by having to set aside funding for replacement of depreciating assets. And for the past four years, their responsibilities have widened to include social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing. Add to that additional spending on roads, and there is a recipe for ratepayer suffering.

Local authorities have let the Government know the consequences of its law-making. They have sought amelioration of the likes of the depreciation requirement and GST on rates. The Government has not obliged, but at least their plight has not gone unacknowledged. Finance Minister Michael Cullen has spoken for some time of the need for an "intelligent debate" on the means of delivering a fairer rating system.

Ratepayers' current woes provide the catalyst for that debate. Now, only a framework is needed. The time has come for another royal commission to canvass the issues, and recommend the best means of reducing the burden on ratepayers while ensuring that Auckland's development is not stifled by the absence of alternative sources of council funding. Mr Hubbard, to his credit, is demanding change. And, this time, the findings must not be ignored.