I was trained in Economics and have a post-graduate qualification in Public Health. My professional career has involved private and government work in health, education, transport, energy, community relations and administration. 

My major concerns relate to our economy, environmental sustainability, the relationship between local government and the communities it serves.  I want to see increasing cooperation, coordination and transparent communication.  How we do things is as important as what we do. 

I am convinced that Wellington is unique in New Zealand, being pivotal historically, geographically and politically, as well as having a multi-cultural spirit, and strong sense of potential.  But I want more for Wellington.  We need to seriously re-consider the relevant goals required for our city and its citizens to take advantage of the rapidly changing new century.

I believe we can do so much better. 

Top 5 Issues

1. Sustainable Communities – Communities need a heart and for people to value them. Community based services and facilities are important to provide a place and focus for the people who live there. Services need to remain community-based and not be centralised in the name of ‘efficiency’ (which may or may not be realised). Services and amenities need to be fit for purpose and maintained. I think the council would be hard pushed to convince people that many sports fields around Wellington are fit for purpose.
2. Public Ownership of Assets – It’s a bit of a myth that private ownership/the free market produces efficiencies and hence lower prices - just look at the electricity sector for evidence that the reality can be different. What firms actually do is to maximise profits. It’s actually competition that produces efficiencies however for some services it’s just not feasible to introduce competition. In particular, for services related to transport like ports, airports, it makes no sense to try to run more than one operation in Wellington. We’re just not big enough. As transport is a crucial part of the economy, these assets need to be seen as strategic and important to the economic wellbeing of Wellington. I question whether placing them in private hands is a sensible strategy in the long term.
   
   With other services, it’s not desirable to privatise. For example clean drinking water, sewerage disposal are public health issues and should not be privatised. Ever. Modern business practices can ensure that services are run as efficiently as possible.
   
3. Sustainable Urban Design – the Romans built roads 2000 years ago in Britain, some of which are still being used today. Urban design can have a long term impact and therefore we need to think about what we are likely to need in the future. As an economist, I understand that developers want to make money. I don’t have a problem with that however the community is going to be left with the consequences of bad design for a very long time. Why do we have children’s play grounds with no footpath access, or streets with no footpaths, or too narrow to allow for public transport? The council needs to promote sustainable design within buildings. We flush drinking water down our toilets, when we could be using rainwater.
   
   Urban design also needs to be holistic and consider the impact of the accumulation of different activities. I’m not convinced that our council is seeing the bigger long-term picture. Are ‘green’ roofs really a good idea in a region prone to earthquakes? What will increasing the allowable coverage of buildings on land do to run-off and the demands on our storm water system? Can our water and sewerage system cope with more intensive land use? What is going to be the impact of multiple apartment blocks, not only on infrastructure but on the community? What sort of community will you get from apartment blocks if people only stay there for short-term (2-3 years) basis?
   
4. Sustainable Transport Systems – Transport is crucial to the efficient working of an economy. I believe one of our problems with the road network is a peak load issue. How do we manage the demand for transport at peak times? With reliable convenient public transport and other means - especially walking and cycling. Although we already have a significant proportion of the population using public transport or other methods, there is a limited amount of space on our roads. Cars are not an efficient use of the road space. I know they are more flexible and convenient (and I do own one!) but the same amount of space that can take 20 people in cars can take 200 in buses. Where can we build more roads in Wellington’s already built up areas without bulldozing through parks or homes? It does not make sense to sacrifice parks and homes for roads that only solve temporary congestion. I will also support further development of cycle-ways and the development of useable footpaths along our streets.
   
   Has anyone else noticed the number of slips and rock-falls that we’ve been having? Wellington had steep topography and weak rock. It needs to be a priority that hillsides above and below roads are retained, particularly for major routes. This is a greater priority than building new roads, or widening tunnels in my opinion. It’s a risk management issue. It’s not just about the inconvenience of a blocked road, (which has economic implications) it’s about people’s safety.
   
5. Sustainable Economic Development - as an economist, I don't buy the argument that being sustainable or environmentally responsible means we have to forego economic development. We need to be smarter how we use resources and technology can provide a better way of doing things that is less harmful to the environment. Development and use of digital technology will be one of the driving forces of economic growth. The other driver will be the development of 'green' technology. Developing countries like China realise this. If developed countries like New Zealand try to hold onto old inefficient technology, we will stagnate. I believe the Council has a role in facilitating broadband, and promoting the use of green technology where possible.

Personal Profile

I was born and grew up in South Canterbury, and went to the University of Canterbury in Christchurch.  I still have a lot of friends and relatives in Christchurch so it’s been a relief to hear that they are ok after the earthquake. 

I have worked in both the public and private sector.  I have negiotated multi-million dollar contracts and monitored performance against those contracts.  I have reviewed and assessed the performance of organisations such as ACC.  I understand the need for value-for-money and the fact that prioritisation of resources is a necessity.

I did a Master’s degree in Economics at Canterbury, graduating in 1985.  The School of Economics there was considered to teach ‘dry’ economics, which means it had a strong emphasis on neo-classical and monetarist economic theory, that is, minimalist government involvement in the economy.  This was as opposed to ‘wet’ economics such as Keynesian economic theory, which argues that there is a role for government intervention.  I’m explaining this because if you have read my explanations of what I think are the key issues, I probably do come across as a bit ‘wet’ and you may be wondering how someone trained in neo-classical economics believes that government should be involved in aspects of the economy.

What happen?  Well, life really.  I was involved in the public service in the late 1980’s when many reforms where happening.  While we got rid of a lot of unnecessary regulations, I do wonder if we threw the baby out with the bathwater with an over-emphasis on trying to gain efficiencies (assuming that it was possible) sometimes at the sacrifice of other values. 

Then like many young Kiwis, I did my OE.  I worked in a variety of organisations including a whisky company in Edinburgh and a not-for-profit housing organisation in London.  The inefficiencies in the whisky company made me realised that the profit motive was no guarantee of efficient operations and the non-for-profit housing organisation showed me that you didn’t need a profit motive in order to run an organisation with costs kept at a minimum. 

You see, neo-classical economic theory is based on assumptions that don’t hold up in the real world.  The real world has irrational beings called humans who make decisions using incomplete information.  Some of those humans aren’t actually interested in making as much money as possible and sometimes they prefer being nice to each other and showing compassion rather than getting whatever they can and living only for themselves.  This does not fit in well with the economic theory that says we are all rational independent units and if we just focus on ourselves then society as a whole will be better off.

Some economists are now starting to appreciate the value of community resources.  Elinor Ostrom jointly won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Economics for her work on different ways to manage communal resources.  There are times when the free market is appropriate and there are times when we are better off when we work together and co-ordinate our efforts.  Contrast the response of the people in Canterbury after their earthquake, with how things were organised (or not as the case may be) after Hurricane Katrina.  Systems need to be in place to respond in emergencies.  While this is an obvious example of where government action is necessary, there are other examples where communities can be better off if there is co-ordination of effort rather than a bunch of individuals doing their own thing.  Amenities like libraries, swimming pools, sports fields can be provided and used jointly and everyone benefits.  Co-ordinating the use of networks and the provision of services to provide for public health is more effective done by one agency than many individuals.

 I like to think that this is common sense rather than any particular political ideology.