Auckland Council Austerity Budget Part of the Problem not the Solution

Submissions on the Auckland Council ‘Emergency (COVID) budget’ closed on Friday, and received many more submissions in this special consultation than it did with its business as usual budget, first time round, earlier this year.

Just when the Council’s annual plan indicated a small step towards overdue environmental, infrastructure and social equality, it has reviewed its budget in light of expected income slumps, and suggests cutting all things good in favour of austerity, prioritising contracts where commitments have already been made with socially distorting effects.

The unprecedented review of the prior budget has been brought about because of reduced revenue and expected ratepayer hardship resulting from COVID-19. Income is expected to be around $525million less than first budgeted, due to lower dividends (for example from Auckland International Airport and Ports of Auckland), fewer public transport fares, lower fuel tax income, less event and facilities revenue and fewer developer contributions and regulatory services fees.

The Council considered a range of budget reduction options, and Councillors will now have to grapple again with weighing up whether to proceed with a / any planned rates increase to make up the shortfall.

But make no mistake, the ‘austerity’ options proposed, aren’t politically neutral. There’s nothing immutable or fixed, and there are no ‘necessary’ measures in the budget that aren’t a reflection of ideology. Even though conservative elements always fall back on the catch-cry “focus on core and essential services”, it remains to be discussed, what are core versus discretionary functions for local government. Indeed, your essential service is my discretionary one, and vice versa. Where you stand will depend on where you sit – and that will partly depend on where you sit in the socio-economic hierarchy.

In a democracy, each view should be valid, equally considered, without privilege, and determined through debate, discourse and deliberation. However, under the SuperCity, the opportunities formerly provided, pre-amalgamation, to even speak to your annual plan submission have been eroded. And participation in local government is generally loaded toward wealthy, white ratepayers rather than renters or citizens, or the working class. We have less democracy now than we did before. And despite an anticipated increase in participation from younger cohorts, the political prerogative to keep rates low is a strong one, even without economic duress from COVID-19. Just when the budget was actually looking progressive, equitable and toward addressing the existential issues of the future, a crisis occurs that drives the agenda for cuts.

But austerity is a solution looking for a problem. Instead of amplified investment to stimulate the economy and to respond to Aucklander’s lockdown love affair with walking and cycling, the ‘There is No Alternative’ budget slashing mantra comes to the fore.

But just look at what’s proposed to be cut – and assess whether it feels politically neutral: a delay in new climate change responses; a cut to support for initiatives addressing homelessness; a delay in extending the living wage to contract cleaners; cancelled public transport fare subsidies for children; reduced investment in Māori outcome projects including marae and papakainga safety; delayed walking and cycling projects – while acknowledging this will cost lives; defered regional parks track upgrades and cancelled parks events; community facilities, library, halls, and playground closures; reduced public transport services and road and footpath maintenance and less investment in environmental services. This is cutting costs for the present to punish generations in the future.

The draft budget allegedly prioritised ‘financial prudence’, honouring contractual and statutory obligations, public health and safety, asset integrity, Māori outcomes, jobs and employment, ease of implementation, protecting the most vulnerable and “supporting our communities”, -“avoiding making them worse off”.
However, the budget also acknowledges that the proposed cuts will also have a disproportionate effect on lower income households and those communities most in need.

The Mayoral budget (cut) recommendations proposed deferring the living wage roll-out, Housing First, climate change responses, marae development, and the closure of community facilities. And even though there are also staff cost reductions proposed, and some Councillors have volunteered to donate some of their salaries to charity, the Mayor ordinarily earns $296,000 per annum, 86 staff earn more than $250,000 p.a., seven staff members earn more than the Prime Minister. And the Council will retain its $98million spending on the America’s Cup.

Auckland’s five substantive “Council Controlled Organisations” are under review – to assess whether they are sufficiently efficient, responsive, accountable, well governed; whether they appropriately reflect the Council brand, if their roles are appropriately defined, if there’s unnecessary duplication, and if there are other viable service delivery models. But the review has been overtaken by COVID-19, and opportunities for rationalisation of the CCO’s, and amalgamation of their functions – while perhaps obvious targets to address savings, are not on the table for the emergency budget. Proposed reform in the emergency budget disproportionately impacts the very community services local government is designed to deliver, while leaving publicly unaccountable, overpaid, duplicative CCO’s intact.

The law of Maslow’s hammer has it that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The recourse to slashing community investment, future proofing transport, saving lives with better walking and cycling and road safety, fire sales of community assets, retrenching services, neglecting existing infrastructure, abandoning recreational services in the community while retaining spending on elite yacht racing, and cancelling living wage increments while top dogs get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, reminds us that the hammer of austerity is an ideology ready poised to hit any progress right on the head.

If the Council is serious about public health and safety, Māori outcomes, community support and asset integrity, Councillors will vote to maintain higher rates, socialising the costs across the wider ratepayer base; they would review support for the America’s Cup, they would turn their attention to a root and branch reform of the CCO’s. They would fund the living wage for contract cleaners and reduce inflated executive salaries. They would recognise that public service is about the public good, and future investment requires bravery now, most of all, courage to invest in their communities. They would recognise that austerity is an ideology, a choice, that’s loaded in favour of entrenched interests and comparatively wealthy elites, both within society and within Council staff.

This week, Stephen Town, hitherto Auckland Council’s Chief Executive departed the $698,000 role. At forty hours a week, that’s about $335 an hour. Meanwhile, if the Council won’t find the money to pay its (contract) cleaners a living wage of $22.10 an hour, and cuts community services, it is part of the problem, not the solution.