KEY POINTS:
At least with a judge-led royal commission, we can look forward to a report into Auckland's future mercifully free of mindless jargon such as "world class" and "vision" and "vibrancy".
Local Government Minister Mark Burton's announcement of the probe into Auckland governance managed two "internationally competitive's" in two lines. I gave up counting the "sustainable Auckland's."
Thankfully, High Court judges tend to respect the Queen's English more than do the spin doctors and the politicians.
The commissioners should also cut through the sloganeering that has masqueraded as debate in recent months, and get to the truth.
For instance, it will be interesting to see if the Employers and Manufacturers Association will persevere in front of the commission with its wild claims about the rate reductions that will come from creating one city council.
"We've had some people do the numbers and they reckon we could save about $200 million a year, or about $400 per ratepayer. That works," claimed a full-page EMA advertisement in the Herald this month.
Pushed to justify the figure, EMA chief executive Alasdair Thompson said it was based on discussions with accountants who reckoned amalgamation would save at least 10 per cent of operational costs. Such has been the level of debate.
New Zealand local government went through a major amalgamation process in 1989. Hopefully the royal commission will have the resources to analyse the savings, if any, arising from that recent revolution.
The Public Service Association, whose members will be directly affected by any changes, is suggesting the claimed savings may be illusory. It says that creating a mega-city in Toronto in the 1990s cost $400 million and that council mergers in South Australia at the same time were supposed to save $150 million a year, but saved only $19 million.
A royal commission should go some way to ensuring that the group that shouts loudest and has the deepest pockets doesn't end up winning the argument.
I'm all for strengthening the regional council, giving it control over shared infrastructure - whether it be roads, transport, water, parks or cultural facilities. But the Pol Pot solution advocated by the EMA and its fellow travellers promises to be so disruptive, and its benefits as yet unproven, that I'll need a lot of convincing before joining the cheer squad.
What's yet to be proven is whether the main problem Auckland local government faces is structural or financial.
This week, the independent inquiry into local government rates presents its report to Mr Burton. For the past six months it has criss-crossed the country, probing and consulting on local government's funding woes.
This month, in a speech to the local government conference in Dunedin, inquiry chairman David Shand gave a few hints about the recommendations. He warned that in 10 years, "rates will not be affordable to a fair number of people".
In a February background paper, the inquiry revealed that in the 10 years to 2016, councils plan to spend $30.8 billion, double the amount spent in the decade to 2003. Of this, 73 per cent is for network infrastructure - roads, water and sewerage upgrades.
These costs were driving rates increases, it said, and Mr Shand said the inquiry was considering whether more infrastructure funding should come from the Government, particularly "in the water area".
He also said the inquiry would recommend a rethink of the rates system.
Could it be that if the Shand inquiry produces answers to Auckland local government funding problems, the clamour for radical structural reform might die down?
What's for sure is that by shuffling the whole problem to a higher plane, Prime Minister Helen Clark has removed it from the political agenda until the beginning of her fourth term - or National rival John Key's first.
* By the way, if you want to be first, get your views about the Tank Farm plan change off to Auckland City Council now. On Monday, I noted the lack of excitement at the Maritime Museum display centre, where the plans are on display.
City officials said yesterday that not one submission had been received, but this was not unusual, as most people left it to the last moment. Come on guys, does no one care?
