Editorial - Tuesday November 19, 2013

Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age

THOSE who led the push for a Far North unitary authority, specifically former Mayor Wayne Brown and his fellow Better Local Government chairman Rangitane Marsden, might be disappointed by the Local Government Commission's preferred option for Northland's council structure, but they can hardly be surprised. It was never likely that the commission would opt for two unitary authorities in Northland, given the populations (and likely costs) involved, and the proposal it released last week, given that the status quo was another non-starter, was the best we could have hoped for.

And while it might stick in Mr Brown's craw, it could be argued that we have been saved by the Northland Regional Council, which he criticised so strongly for so long, whose electoral model, adopted earlier this year as a result of the review it was compelled by law to undertake, laid the basis for the commission's preferred option.

Despite assertions from Better Local Government and the Far North District Council to the contrary, there has never been any evidence that the people of the Far North, or Northland for that matter, were or are hankering for change, although the increasing dysfunction of local government in Northland, not least manifested by the recent relationships between the existing councils, will have left few in doubt that the region could be better served than it has been, especially over the last three years.

That is not to say that there isn't an argument for the retention of the status quo, particularly given the election of new mayors in the Far North and Whangarei, and a new regional council chairman, who at this early stage show a heartening enthusiasm for co-operation on a level that hasn't been seen before. That might well lend weight to the status quo argument, if and when it comes to a referendum, although there is a lot of water to go under the bridge before we reach that point. And if it does come to a contest between the LGC's final preferred option, which is unlikely to differ much from last week's draft proposal, there will be strong arguments to support the change it has recommended.

At this early stage there is already a strong argument in favour of the status quo, and an equally compelling argument against it. The latter was expressed by Robin Shepherd, then chairman of the Mangonui County A&P Association, who many years ago said a good system will work whoever is running it, while a system that needed the right people to make it work was not a good one. That might be worth remembering when comes the time to decide whether we want reform or to stick with what we've got.

It might well be that John Carter, Sheryl Mai and Bill Shepherd can make the status quo work very well. There is certainly plenty of potential for co-operation between the authorities they now lead, but those who were saying that six months ago were speaking more in hope than expectation. The time will come when Carter, Mai and Shepherd go the way of all elected leaders, and Northland could be at risk of repeating recent history. We know from experience that the status quo does not necessarily work well, so perhaps we should take the opportunity to abandon it.

The argument in favour of the status quo was most eloquently expressed by Cliff Colquhoun when he addressed the LGC in Kaitaia three months ago. He spoke of the economic and social damage that had been done to Far North communities, particularly Kaitaia and Kaikohe, by the amalgamation of four counties and two boroughs into one Far North District Council in 1989. With amalgamation came 'efficiencies' that cost those communities the most valuable commodity of all, jobs.

That is the way of the world, however. The days when Kaitaia, for example, offered many hundreds of labouring jobs courtesy of the Kaitaia Borough and Mangonui County councils, the Ministry of Works, the P&T and Aupouri Forest, will not be returning, although it could be argued that the savings achieved by shedding those jobs has been thoroughly outweighed by the monstrous cost, not only in financial terms, of social welfare. It would be optimistic to hope that the process we are now going through might ameliorate some of that damage, but the draft proposal does offer a flicker of hope.

The proposal makes provision for one council and seven community boards. Given the emasculation of the Far North's community boards, and the failure of any of the last four mayors to give them some meaningful role, there is little reason to hope that those boards will make any contribution towards restoring local to local government, repeatedly promised by John Carter. However, within a few weeks we should know if the government is prepared to allow Northland to elect local boards, a la Auckland, currently prohibited (and therefore not available to the LGC to recommend) by virtue of the minimum population of 400,000. If the law is changed, and local boards are included in the commission's final proposal, the game will change.

Again, there is a lot of detail yet to come, but the optimist will be looking for a structure that includes local boards that will effectively be mini-councils. The boards' functions, whatever they are, will be protected by legislation, as opposed to being at the whim of any future council. And if those boards, one of which should be elected within each of the FNDC's existing wards, have a genuine role in making decisions regarding, for example, the striking of rates and investment in infrastructure, we might have the chance to undo at least some of what happened in 1989.

That's a big if, but if that's the prospect offered by the LGC's final proposal early next year it will be worth considering, and could well give the status quo a run for its money.

The other major issue is Maori representation, and specifically the provision of dedicated Maori seats on the new council. And again, the disappointment expressed by Better Local Government is difficult to understand. The fact, as Better Local Government surely knows, is that the LGC did not have the authority to dictate that Maori seats be provided. It went about as far as it could, proposing a Maori standing committee comprising representatives of Northland's 13 iwi, three appointed councillors and the Mayor, and a Maori advisory board, but could not have gone further even if it had wanted to.

To cry foul at this stage is silly. It is the new council, if one is established, that will have the ability to provide Maori wards, and it is that council that Better Local Government will need to persuade. It might be scratching even at that stage, given that all 13 iwi will no doubt want to be represented - already the proposed standing committee will be significantly bigger than the council it is proposed to be part of - but time will tell.

There is little point in having that discussion until we know whether there will be one Northland council or a return to the status quo, although the potential for Maori seats might well encourage some to support the LGC's preferred option. For the moment, however, Northlanders should be studying the proposal carefully and preparing submissions. This is not the time to be jumping the gun, and nor is it the time to be folding one's tent and going home to sulk.