My commitments as a candidate are:

• No sale of public assets.

• Expansion of public assets through in-housing, investment in existing assets, and establishment of new assets where warranted.

• Christchurch to aim to be a city of full employment and livable wages.

• Council to investigate methods to adjust rates valuations in a way that reflects household income.

Christchurch is a great city to live in when it’s a great city for everyone to live in. For this to be possible, a prosperous and thriving economy is essential. As our city reestablishes itself after the devastating 2011 earthquake, a challenge we face is making sure no one is left behind in the new, thriving, 21st century Christchurch. 

Quality of life and cost of living are huge issues in Christchurch, and in New Zealand generally. Over the last few years the combination of interest rate rises, basic cost of living increases (power, groceries, housing, etc.), insurance pressures, and – yes – council rates, has left far too many struggling to make ends meet. 

Christchurch City Council needs a serious economic plan to lift up all its residents. This plan needs to include responsible spending, alongside a commitment to core principles that support a thriving local economy. 

As part of this plan, I believe Christchurch City Council needs to keep our public assets and should consider increasing public ownership and control of key economic infrastructure.

In the past, the capacity for local government to directly run and complete projects was much higher. Today, all local governments rely on an enormous array of contractors to fulfill the basic functions of a city. The argument in favour of this is that putting contracts out to tender encourages competition between various firms to deliver at a better price. Any savvy resident only needs to look at the failure of large council projects to come in on-budget to see this philosophy doesn’t work.

If we look at the construction of Te Kaha stadium, an enormous and impressive project, we find that the number of contractors and sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors is significant. Every new layer of contracting out of services moves the control of the project further and further away from the Council  – i.e., further away from the residents who elect their councillors and mayor. It also enables a long line of ticket-clipping: administrative fees for every new small contract. Moreover, private companies need to charge a premium in order to turn a profit in their contract - something that direct control and in-housing can avoid.

To improve efficiency, Council must bring more of these skills and services in house. Direct control over the core projects and operation of the City Council is not only economically wise  – it’s more democratic. Endless layers of bureaucracy and external companies between elected members and the delivery of a project makes councillors less accountable.

A second area Council needs to look at is consultant spending. If the council needs ongoing expert knowledge it should be seeking to employ it directly. Moreover, if Council already has the expert knowledge in its workforce it must trust and empower its employees to do that work, instead of bringing in consultants, at extraordinary fees, to double and triple check work.

I believe we need to stop contracting out and start contracting in. We need to trust our own staff and verify they are fulfilling their roles.

Furthermore, we need to direct the council to seek efficiencies wherever possible. This can’t be achieved with more consultants and advisors, as anyone in a workforce knows that top-down “culture change” lasts about as long as that well-paid advisor is still on site. Council should seek to build a model of high performance, high engagement - one where employees are asked for their ideas and knowledge to achieve better, more efficient, and cost effective outcomes in their departments.

Responsible spending is not about doing things cheap: it’s about doing things right. What costs the least immediately but needs to be replaced in a few months due to shoddy work or insufficient planning, is a waste of rate-payers money. The old adage “measure twice, cut once” comes to mind. We can have infrastructure, services, city planning, amenities that will stand the test of time and serve the residents of Christchurch for decades to come, but only if we do it properly, if we future proof it, and if the Council’s right hand knows what it’s left is up to. This is only made worse by local politicians rushing certain projects in order to have them delivered during “their term”, or delaying other projects in order to make them appear financially responsible.

Responsible spending also means that “a society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit". In the case of Christchurch that is both figurative and literal. We know that the average temperature in the City Centre will increase, and urban spaces, with a great deal of concrete, can cause hot spots that are significantly more dangerous for people. Council must commit to its “urban forest” policies, not merely for beautification but for pragmatic reasons: bringing the local temperature down with the presence of green space and tree canopies. 

Finally, responsible spending does not sell off the family silver. The assets owned in part or in full by the council are owned on behalf of the people of Christchurch. We have bought and paid for our port, airport, and lines companies. They deliver a premium back to ratepayers, and mean we retain a say and control over core infrastructure in our city. Proposals to sell them must be rejected outright  – you don’t sell your car to pay for a taxi. Any other position is economic vandalism.