Development of Marsden Pt Port has won the support of National Business Review writer Matthew Hooton and many of his readers whose analysis make it clear Northland local authorities should be focusing on the Marsden rail link as realistic, genuine and gilt edged key to regional development.

Writing in the February 25 NBR Hooten repeats his call for Auckland’s container operations to be shifted to Marsden Pt and Tauranga over 20 years.

He points out that Auckland makes just $24m a year, or 1.3% return on investment, if its port land is valued at a realistic $1.7b as business/residential .

By progressively closing container operations Mr Hooten argues the land could be returned to Aucklanders for ``economically rational development.’’

However he says despite the current financial performance the Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) wants to expand its operations by 18hectares which would transform Waitemata from harbor to river and cost Auckland ratepayers over $2b on new roading, rail and dredging.

Even then Auckland couldn’t properly cope with the huge S-class vessels becoming the norm for international trade.

Marsden Pt, says Hooten, has about 200 hectares available for immediate expansion and can already deal with S-class vessels.

One respondent to Hooten’s column maintains a twin port created by extending and upgrading a rail line from Marsden Pt to a South Auckland hub and on to Tauranga would be the envy of cities everywhere.

It would also free up Auckland’s Port to be developed as a South Pacific hub for cruise liners and public domain.

Another writer points out that shifting container traffic to Marsden Pt would remove one heavy vehicle every five minutes from central Auckland roads where the consequent freeing up of the traffic flow would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The statistics and analysis put forward by Hooten and his readers underscore the argument that development of Marsden Pt Port and rail link could benefit the North massively.

Waitangi Day was a lost opportunity for the North’s civic leaders to get that message across to central Government - instead we’re again facing infighting and territortial boundary wars as some again attempt to get their hands on the Regional Council’s $120m in assets .

A massive opportunity exists right now that could be a win-win for both Northland and Auckland. 

Returning to the battlefield of local authority amalgamation in Northland – a concept ratepayers have already roundly rejected – is simply distracting attention from what is Northland’s best chance at future development and prosperity.

In an article reporting on the results of my survey in the Whangarei Leader (24th July 2007), Dorothy McHattie, Whangarei’s representative on the Northland Tourism Development Group, is quoted as saying: “The Town Basin is an important tourist attraction in the central town. It is important the public has a say in the development of the facility. It is absolutely essential it stays in public ownership.”

Without casting any aspersions it is a fair question to ask what safeguards are in place to guarantee that performance of “public service” is really of service to the public!  Before addressing that question, though, it would be useful to think about exactly what does “public service” mean in the context of local government?

The “Mission” of WDC and hence, it’s Councilors, is “To create the ultimate living environment.” We can readily accept that it is a big job with heavy demands on exercise of moral, ethical and legal principles… and we should expect nothing less of our elected officials.  They are entrusted with our money to fulfill cultural, social and infrastructure needs that are essential to and in the best interests of our community as a whole.  That should be their full-time job and focus of attention.

Yet a number of Councilors take on additional duties as Chairpersons of Trusts that are created by WDC to provide for efficient and effective fulfillment of some of those needs.  Needs such as arts and cultural centres, attraction of tourists to our area, provision of public information for business, industry and tourists, etc.  Why use Trusts to accomplish this?  Because they are supposed to provide a measure of independence, objectivity, efficiency and effectiveness in operations of entities such as the Quarry Gardens, Heritage, Clock, Art - Museums, Tourism and youth services.

However, when Councilors serve as Chairpersons of such organisations, not only are their attentions, time, and focus diverted from the business of representing the primary interests of citizens who elected them, but also any semblance of independence is lost.  To the extent that such Trusts receive financial support from the citizens through rates, such Councilor/Chairpersons are both the funds requesters and funds dispensers of public money.  And to make matters worse, any semblance of fair performance review of Trust Chairpersons and actual Trust accomplishment of mission is compromised by the fact that the Chairperson writes his/her own review for submission to him or her self as Councilor on the overseeing WDC.  This is a clear violation of the main principle of accountability for any type of organisation.

Is there any wonder that annual reports (when actually made) by the Chairpersons of WDC created Trusts always reflect favorably on the leadership and operation of such Trusts?!  It would be nice if such reports reflected reality, but at best they represent blind spots for the Councilors making them and at worst, serious ethical conflicts of interest between furthering one’s political career, and genuinely serving the public good.

As a Principle of operations, no WDC Councilor should serve as Chairperson of any Trust that is created by or funded to any degree by WDC.  Service on the Board of such Trusts could fulfill a useful purpose for liaison between the Council and Trust and governance of these Trusts.  However, the Chairperson of such Trusts should be totally independent from Council influence in any way.  Only in this manner can such organisations best serve the public interest, to be seen to be free of hidden agendas and politically biased interests.