There has been - and there remains - a degree of mystery as to the arcane logic and processes by which the Dunedin City Council and its specialist committees arrive at some of their funding decisions. On occasion, it would be fair to say, it surpasses the understanding of the common ratepayer.
Take for example the question of Dunedin's city safety officers, the subject of a report to the finance, strategy and development committee. Council customer advocate Adrian Blair had argued for retaining the programme which had been initially introduced in 2003, expanded in 2005, and confirmed in 2007 - after a grant of $65,000 a year for five years was obtained from the Government Crime Prevention Unit.
Mr Blair had argued that it was increasingly important for the city to maintain safety initiatives, which were "key attributes for visitors and residents alike". But he also conceded funding support would not be available for the 2012-13 year and beyond, and the programme in its current form would require $65,000 a year from rates revenue, and in an expanded guise, $100,000. This suggestion met with little enthusiasm from the committee, which suggested such funds would simply be "supplementing" the job of the police; and that there were better and cheaper ways of reducing crime, such as liquor bans and earlier closing times for bars.
Nonetheless, a recommendation for funding for the safety-officer programme was approved to go to next year's annual plan hearing where, on the strength of the sentiments expressed, it was likely to be axed.
Why act now when you can defer the decision for a year?
Now, as to the merits of the programme itself, Mr Blair provided statistical evidence of decreasing violence, behavioural and property offences associated with the programme. That makes sense: the presence of safety officers on the streets in the small, anti-social hours is likely to be a preventive measure against especially petty and nuisance crime. The question is who should be paying for it: the ratepayers or the Government in the form of the police?
In this respect, the argument is not so much about the indication that the ratepayers were unlikely to be footing the bill for the continuation of such a service - rather how significant were the likely savings?
And were there not other big-ticket items that could be slashed to make some real headway against the city's vast debt burden?
Every little bit of saving helps, but squabbling over $65,000 a year on a service with quantifiable advantages could be said to resemble fiddling while Rome burns.
No laughing matter
If the decisions of local body politics are occasionally impenetrable, the same might be said of some directions that emanate from the country's courts. Take the instance of the "well-known comedian" who pleaded guilty to performing an indecent act on his daughter but was last week allowed to walk free - because he has stopped drinking, paid a high price, and makes people laugh.
Notwithstanding the potential complexities of a case such as this, and the detailed information and considerations before the judge, it is just such decisions that are likely to exasperate the public. Judge Philippa Cunningham gave the man permanent name suppression when he appeared in the Auckland District Court, and a discharge without conviction - which means the charge will not blemish his record. She said the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offence and said: "He's a talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we need lots of it." But we also need certainty, deterrence and justice from our court system. Much was made of the part that alcohol played in the offence. How often does this exonerate an offender?
While judges must treat individual cases on their merits within the scope of what the law requires, there has to be at least the suspicion that had this person been a non-entity from South Auckland, he might not have fared quite so well. And if that is the case, it is certainly no laughing matter.
