SETTLING AUCKLAND: Cockle Bay resident and international public finance consultant David Shand sits on the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Times photo Wayne Martin.

What’s it like working in international arenas and then returning home?

I came back to retire. I’m also an Australian citizen, but most of my family and friends are here. It’s a cool place. Look at a day like today, Cockle Bay by the sea! This country’s got a lot going for it, people should realise how good it is. It was a conscious decision to come back after 30 years. The government has given me a whole lot of jobs to do, more than I wanted but I didn’t say no.

How do you find time?

I work long hours. I’m in Wellington a lot, weekends a lot. The RCAG is not a fulltime job yet but it’s very demanding, so is the Tertiary Education Commission.

What were the conclusions of the national rates review?

The rating system is unsustainable or will become so in affordability for fairly significant groups of the community. So councils need to take actions to properly prioritise their expenditures. We recommended some changes to the rating system. These are a bit technical, but we also said central government should provide some assistance to local governments. We’re still waiting on the response. I suppose that’ll come in the Budget.

What about councils? Have they made changes?

Some of them have. We may have had some impact on the mayoral elections with people feeling there needed to be more restraint on council expenditures. We said local government should borrow. That’s a controversial view but we were quite firm and some of them have begun to do that. We said that rates were higher than necessary cause they try to fund all their capital expenditure on rates, and they should borrow some of it. That’s a difficult issue because a lot of people, particularly older people, think being in debt is a bad thing.

It’s unpopular for councils?

It’s politically difficult. A lot of councils have made a virtue out of being debt-free which we think is a silly way to finance. That’s just our view. There’s nothing wrong with debt as long as it’s sensible and sustainable. I think it’s been welcomed as a good factual report, which put a lot of stuff on the table. A lot of the decisions are not for government. They’re for councils. It’s for them to take those up. But there are some decisions for government. One was Maori land, which is quite complex, how it’s valued and managed. We said government should pay full rates on its properties, which is another form of assistance. There were quite a few big issues on which we’ve yet to get the government response. Councils have already done some analysis on this report and provided comment to government. Some of the things they like, some of them they don’t. We’ve just had an increase of 4.9 per cent in [Manukau] rates. It’s lower than forecasted. But it’s still an increase. You’re talking about people not being able to afford increases… for significant groups. A lot of people in Cockle Bay are well off. There’s no problem with their rates. People shouldn’t whinge too much. I’m talking about particular groups in the community, not necessarily the average ratepayer who’s employed. Or a two income household. I’m talking about low income, one income households and people on low fixed incomes but high value properties.

Was there research on the effect of rates rises on ratepayers?

We did some very original research on what the real impact of rates is that you can see online, but we haven’t done anything since.

Aren’t councils looking at consumer price index (CPI) increases, but not at whether people are getting wage increases?

That’s true. Cost increase is a very council focused activity. It’s inward looking. But the fact is councils buy the sorts of things where cost increases are larger than CPI. That’s well documented. Construction cost and materials, no question it’s more than CPI.

Can we slow down the rate of building public infrastructure?

That’s very hard to say. We did some analysis that suggests we could defer things. They don’t all have to be done at once. Councils should look more at that. Is it all necessary? Does it have to be done now? Is it affordable? If you go down to Cockle Bay there’s a very nice new footbridge over the stream. There was an old wooden bridge. Rather rustic looking but it was fine. I go down one day and there’s a great engineering job going on where there’s a concrete path going across… I suppose that’ll be nice, but is it really necessary? Now it’s finished it looks fine. I’m not saying the money was wasted but it could have been deferred. The main problem is things take too long. This city here spends a lot on recreation and libraries. The council’s got a policy of free access to swimming pools. It makes rates higher but has some advantages. Councils have different priorities, but in Manukau there’s always been an emphasis on sporting and cultural facilities.

Where is the Royal Commission for Auckland at now?

We’re still doing our homework. All the sorts of reports done on Auckland before, lots of business groups have done reports, then councils’ long-term plans… so I’ve got stacks of stuff.

As we get further into it we’ll have to divide the work up. I’m already focused on the economic issue because I have the most experience. One of the key issues is Auckland as a world-class city and driver of economic growth. So there needs to be analysis of Auckland’s economy: is it growing; is it driving us and if not, why not? I’ll be looking at the work other consultants will be doing. But it’s not just economic. It’s also about other things: transport, water, planning – are we building in the right place? Auckland is growing at a huge rate. Some of its problems are growth, not governance. We need to work out which are governance problems. What decisions are being made wrongly or rightly, or not being made at all? The biggest spender in Auckland is central government. A key issue is proper coordination between councils and central government.

This is a non-binding report?

Absolutely. You can’t have a government by commission, that wouldn’t be a democracy. We elect the government and they decide.

Are you getting a lot of different proposals?

We haven’t seen them all. There’s a general view that the regional level should be stronger. If you’re going to do that, we still want to keep the local. What form should that take? Do we have a regional, council and local, or regional and one other level. Where should the boundaries be? Should Papakura go into Manukau? And how’s it elected? Does it have a directly elected mayor of greater Auckland?

Then the government will have your report and all the other opinions to consider?

Sure, we’re not having a referendum on this. We do a consultation but it’s a political decision by the government, whichever is elected next time. They’ll want good support in Auckland. So we’re conscious of the need to do good analytical work but also come up with recommendations that are politically feasible.

What about amalgamation in 1989? Could we be going back to previous structures?

Some of the recommendations we get will go that way. I mean Howick was never happy being part of Manukau and if Howick was made a separate community and the cities were abolished, maybe some people in Howick would be happy.

You’ve seen a lot of overseas cities. What’s special about Auckland?

I’ve worked in developing countries. We’ll look at models like Brisbane, Melbourne and Toronto. In Australia the state has a lot of power. London has a greater council and the elected mayor Ken Livingstone has executive powers. But there’s a limit to what you learn overseas. Everywhere is different. What works overseas won’t here. One thing we want to make sure is whatever system we have the different ethnic groups get reasonable representation. Auckland Regional Council is 13 [elected] people and they’re all white. You have a hugely diverse city but it’s not represented, except perhaps in Manukau. We need to look at making an electoral system that throws up different ethnic groups in Auckland.

Is that possible through structural changes?

It’s possible to have separate Maori wards, but it’s a boundary issue because the ethnic groups are concentrated here and there and so on. You couldn’t reserve seats for an Asian or Pacific Islander. I don’t know how you’d do it. You can’t talk about them as a homogenous group.

What are the problems particular to Auckland?

There’s obviously transport. The concern is government is putting millions into rail electrification. That serves the south and west. It doesn’t serve here [east] and the north. The poor state of public transport, especially rail, slowness in getting decisions on SH20. There’s no public transport to the airport. Transport is probably the number one illustration of Auckland’s problems. And Auckland has pretty good recreational facilities, but do we have the right decision making structure to give us regional facilities? Another issue is the waterfront. There are social problems: the gang issue is a real one in certain parts of Auckland. If there are social problems, what’s the role of regional government in solving these? The mayor of Auckland says this is nothing to do with them, it’s a police matter, but in Manukau they take a different view. Should local government be involved in housing affordability? So it’s not just transport and infrastructure.

What things aren’t the responsibility of regional government?

Some of these problems are normal growth problems, but could they be fixed more quickly? There’s no question of government slowing down Auckland’s growth. That’s the driver of the rest of the economy. If Auckland is to be world-class, what should local government do? Should we have a minimalist view or a broader view?

So you’ll look at all these reports and submissions and draw conclusions?

We start with all our own views. We’re not a blank slate. We have to be objective, but we have our own opinions about what a good community looks like, what the role of government might be. Different people can reach quite different conclusions based on the same facts and what we have to do is make clear in the report why we’re saying what we say. I assume we’ll be in agreement. It’ll have to be very well documented and argued. We’re not going to be short of advice. Royal Commissions are quite rare and I suppose the government wanted to emphasise this issue. We don’t want the whole process gummed up by lawyers. We want people to give us facts, not just opinions, and solutions, not just gripes. We’re not here to decide a stadium or a harbour crossing. We’re just looking at governance structures. We’re doing a lot of homework but the work will really start once the hearings start.

You’ve done a lot of this sort of work, so you must enjoy it?

I’m not very good at saying no. I do like being involved but I want to be part time. I work from home because it’s peaceful, I can get quite a lot of work done. I want to get back into running and swimming but I don’t have time. I want to spend time in my house in the Marlborough Sounds, do some more travel and work with the World Bank. I’m a little pressed at the moment, but these things pass.