Sir Hamish Hay: teamwork without undue risks

Press, 19 July 1989, Page 19

Sir Hamish Hay: teamwork without undue risks

SIR HAMISH HAY doubts that his soon-to-be-published autobiography will rattle many local-body skeletons in Christchurch. But he warns that it should be of interest. The book, encompassing his time, at the top, is due out in August or September in time for October’s local body election and Sir Hamish’s bid for a record sixth term as Christchurch’s Mayor. He has not rattled many skeletons, nor ruffled too .many feathers, nor created too many waves. Of his style as Mayor, Sir Hamish says, ”1 make no pretence to be a Shadbolt. “I have tried to work as an effective liaison between the council making policy and the management implementing it. I’m not flamboyant. I don’t grab the headlines as much as some of my council colleagues. That’s not my style.” Controversy has been remarkably absent from his stint as Mayor. Has he been lucky or has he carefully avoided it? “My term has not had the controversial issues that marked Neville Pickering’s term, but the council has not ducked issues.” He emphasises that the Mayor is not a one-man or woman band and can only be as effective as his council team. "I have always seen myself as a team person. I have tried to work in that context, sharing responsibility and letting others have the chance at the limelight where appropriate.” He believes it is that approach which allowed him to be a Citizens Mayor of a Labour council in the late 1970 s without the council being stalemated for three years. He has often been Christchurch’s advocate on many issues during the last 15 years,

tramping quite a few miles along the corridors of Parliament. Over the years the issues have included power prices, airport runways, and most recently, police cuts. In spite of his low : profile approach Sir Hamish says he has been a forceful advocate for the city. “I’m prepared to stick up for Christchurch. We have a lot to be proud of here. We may be at a population disadvantage to Auckland and we don’t have the bureaucratic circles of Wellington but Christchurch has a lot going for it. People in the north speak in envious tones. And the city’s achievements are recognised nationally.” That is no cause for complacency, however. The local body politician believes there is much to be done. His priorities in this campaign are employment, tourism, a safe city, tight control of the ratepayers’ money and promoting the city. “We’re going to have to spend more money on that. I make no apologies for what we have done but we must do more.” Battering on the doors of Parliament for funds and facilities for the south can be frustrating, perhaps more so during the last National Government when some Ministers believed Christchurch came too often asking for too much. “You go up there and say your piece. You feel they have made up their minds already. With the police cuts Mr Tapsell (Minister of Police) wasn’t promising anything. But it’s a case of persistence. Eventually what has been said counts and so it will with the police cuts. But it takes determination to keep going.” That determination to keep putting Christchurch’s case is a large part of the mayoral advo-

cate’s role, he says. A united Christchurch would make that role easier. The long-serving Mayor is a committed advocate of amalgamation and has been from his first days in local body politics. Some say he decided to stand again for the mayoralty because he fancies being Mayor of an enlarged city. He says the key factor in his decision was that reform is not yet finished. “There’s still a job to be done. I want to finish something we started. In a sense I have a duty to finish the job.” He would probably have stood even if reform had not been so far on. “There would have been more of a job to complete then.” His qualifications to finish that job are his experience, but particularly his commitment to reform, he says. “Others in Christchurch are still reluctant. They’re reconciled to its happening but they have reservations. I’m committed to making it work.” There is no substitute, he adds, for experience. In a time when the city is being turned upside down there is a need for stability. “The last thing we need is •rash decisions. We have to look at the next three years as a shakedown transition period. Careful, business-like decisions. We need experience in our leaders. We don’t need undue risk taking. “Vicki Buck might be seen as a young, go-getter against someone who’s been around a while. People are sick of young whizz kids who in the private sector have shown an ability to lose millions of dollars. People want experience in which they can have confidence. “I’m happy to invest in good projects for the city and I’ll advocate them, but not just for the sake of it.”

He cites the Christchurch promotion working party he initiated of council and business representatives. The council gave it a $150,000 budget and the brief to “go and do it.” That group is an example of a partnership between local government and business that Sir Hamish sees as increasingly vital to the city’s economic viability. It is central to the Going For Goals concept. “We must make use of that spirit in the city. People want to give their time to be involved. Now is a good opportunity to make that happen.” Life as Christchurch City’s elected head has become second nature after 15 years. It is a lifestyle Sir Hamish enjoys. “It’s become a major part of my life and my achievements are tied to it. I don’t have to do it. I enjoy it.” The job has thrown up opportunities such as overseas travel, but it also has a wearing schedule of social engagements. Appearances at openings and functions can eat away his weekends and evenings. “If it’s going to the opera, that’s wonderful. Or a football match, that’s fine — other functions, too, I enjoy. But some ...” But it is important that he be there. People want, expect, to see the Mayor and Mayoress when they are invited. Variety is one of the job’s attractions, but he worries about the time taken from his. family over the years. His five children are now adults and some are married. None still live at home. “There have been sacrifices, I suppose. Not many family holidays to see parts of the country. We have a house at Akaroa and the family have been happy to fit into holidays there. They have turned out all right. I do worry about it. My wife has done more

than I have to make sure of our family life.” Sir Hamish entered local government because he was asked. In 1959 he was a young city businessman, prominent in the public fund-raising for the Town Hall — a project he now looks at with pride — and in Christchurch’s Arts Festival Committee. He was approached by the Citizens Association and topped the poll in an election that placed an all-Citizens council in power. He admits his family name helped in that election. His father had been a councillor from 1944 to 1953, and stood, unsuccessfully, for Mayor in 1953. He objects to the idea that his was a silver-spoon upbringing as a member of an old Christchurch family, or that he is wealthy. His mayoral salary is $57,000. His other business interests are as a director of Mutual Funds, Ltd, and Trustbank Canterbury. He went to a private school and on to the University of Canterbury where he took a bachelor of commerce degree. He owns a house in Heaton Street and another in Akaroa. “Ours was an average upbringing. My father was in management but although he was associated by most people with Hays (the business), he did not own it. He was a shareholder like many others when the company went public.” The young Hamish Hay went into the firm, too, and was company secretary when he was elected as Mayor in 1974. He gave up the job, but remained a director, to concentrate on the mayoralty. He recalls with sadness the demise of the firm and says a chapter in his book is devoted to the rise and fall of Hays. He was ready for the mayoralty in 1974 after a 15-year

apprenticeship on the council, he says. Sir Hamish has the respect of counterparts in other Christchurch local authorities although the city’s leaders have disagreed many times in the past on several issues. One old adversary is Waimairi’s Margaret Murray, a protagonist from the Great Amalgamation Debate and now a mayoral rival. Mrs Murray, never one to

mask her opinions, is still critical of the City Council and Sir Hamish in the wind-down of existing local bodies. She says she has not found Sir Hamish easy to deal with in the Canterbury United Council setting. That probably reflects the conflict of interests he felt between the United Council and the City Council, prompting his resignation as chairman of the regional body’s senior committee last year.

He had previously chaired the United Council — a post now held by Mrs Murray — and sees a role for regional government, but not at the expense of district government. “There’s a role in planning and water catchment but not in ownership of shares in port companies,” he says. Sir Hamish has served the city • well, Mrs Murray says. At the council table — and in debate with other local authorities — he has been a listener, prepared to hear what others have to say. “He has done his level-headed best for the city,” she says. “I can’t fault him on commitment. He has worked to the very best of his ability.” Sir Hamish says the toughest mayoral campaign he has fought was his first — against Neville Pickering. As for the 1989 three-way race, he says that “obviously it is not helpful to have two people at the Right-wing end of the spectrum splitting the vote, but perhaps Mrs Murray’s political dealings will have an unexpected backlash for her.” People have said he plays it safe. “But Vicki Buck goes off in too many directions at once.” Sir Hamish’s response about “staying too long” is that he is not over the hill at 61. “One doesn’t want to outstay one’s welcome. I don’t believe I have. “My wife and I know a lot of organisations, and have met a lot of people in the city. I believe the people of Christchurch know we have done our best for the city. They know me— better the devil you know. “I have no personal political ambitions so I can concentrate on the job in hand. This will be my last term but certainly not in. ' a caretaker role. I’m committed to giving it my all.” (