Making haste slowly

Ratepayer apathy and its companion, voter apathy, may be considered the biggest problem in local government and every triennial election proves the point.

In parts of our community, especially among younger voters, apathy rules.

It seems those who do not directly pay rates (even while using the services paid for by rates) cannot be troubled to take more than the most fleeting interest in community concerns.

Direct interest by ratepayers in Dunedin, as in most communities, waxes and wanes depending on the importance and cost of matters under consideration by local bodies.

These are concerns of long standing; they prompted a reaction in the 2001 review of the Local Government Act, carried out by a joint working party of Local Government New Zealand, which represents all local authorities, and the Government.

One of the new Act's purposes was to encourage local government to lift its sights when considering community needs beyond the provision of basic services to promote social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being.

Another goal was to create the framework where local bodies could respond to the needs of their communities through a process of formal consultation.

It needs to be remembered that local government representatives are the only other people beside MPs who are elected through our electoral process.

That carries with it a certain status for the individuals concerned, but also a greater accountability to those who elect them.

What, then, are ratepayers and non-ratepaying voters alike to make of concerns, as expressed by the Mayor, Peter Chin, the unelected chief executive, Jim Harland, and the veteran councillor and former mayor, Richard Walls, that the requirements for public consultation are being misused? They argue the process has become confrontational and been taken over by "special interest" groups.

This in turn, they claim, has made decision-making much slower.

Several examples include the upgrade of the Dunedin Town Hall, the proposed stadium, and the location of the South Dunedin public toilet.

But their argument is really baseless.

While councillors must make decisions - that is, after all, why we elect them - ratepayers do not invite them to make decisions in haste, especially not when they involve large sums of money which, most likely, will be a continuing burden on present and future generations.

There are grounds for believing that "special interest" groups can, by their vexatious actions, cause decision-making to be delayed.

The suggestion that the Hands Off Harrop group falls into this category cannot be sustained when the council has itself decided to revisit the options.

Similarly, the long list of conditions that must be met before a funding commitment is made to the stadium suggests a council that is being responsive to ratepayer worries.

These projects are not routine issues for this or any council.

They are rare challenges, and thank goodness can no longer be hidden from public view until it is too late for the public to effectively have a say.

Similarly, whereas in the past some "special interest" groups often had greater backstairs influence on council decision-making than the public realised, although it may have been suspected, it is less likely with the formal procedures of annual and long-term plans.

"Informal consultation" continues to take place, our report disclosed, and has apparently been found to be "useful".

The formal, public process was "where we get difficulties".

We were intrigued, in our innocence, to learn from Cr Walls that, "the problem with formal consultation is it gets captured by interest groups."

And informal consultation is not the same horse in different colours? We agree with Mr Harland that decision-making is not about numbers.

Those who assume that because more people register objections to a proposal than do not, therefore the proposal must fail, are not cognisant of reality.

But nor can councils assume that just because the so-called "silent majority" stays silent a proposal has automatic approval.

Councils have a duty to consult communities precisely to gauge as accurately as possible the balance of public opinion.

Councillors might be unwise to ignore the clear-cut view of ratepayers, but they also have that right, too.

The three-yearly sanction exists for voters to attend to the matter.

But surely at its first basic level, the relationship between local government and voters is a conversation, if not consensus.

It is called "democracy" and, while it might not be quick, it retains many more virtues than faults.