David Wilson: Time to move with a collective purpose

Opinion

The current model of governance for Auckland, being promoted by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide concentrates on the reduction of local government to "core" functions.

Local boards are being promoted as the answer to a perceived deficit of local democracy in the Royal Commission's recommendations; however local boards are a far cry from any recognised form of local government and/or empowered local democracy.

The fundamental problem is that Hide has misinterpreted the central policy issue in Auckland which is; how do you get better metropolitan governance?

It is not and never was; how do you eliminate parochialism or deal to local government. It is disingenuous to suggest that mayors and councillors, who are elected by their local constituency, are too parochial.

That they advocate for their local communities within regional and national contexts is exactly what you would expect them to do - represent the constituency that put them there. This is in fact for the most part helpful, not harmful, given the right expression. We desperately need people who are passionate about their communities and who are willing to work to better them.

What we have been lacking is a collective purpose, and the mechanisms to enable that purpose at a regional level.

Many of those mechanisms recommended by the Royal commission have been done away with in the government's proposal.

To reduce local government to "core functions" goes against a tide of international evidence that suggests that central governments need to partner with local governments in order to address complex social and economic issues - especially in a metropolitan context.

Local communities are the focal point where social, economic, cultural and environmental policies are joined back up again and local councils are where there should be enough capacity to give effect to those policies.

Reducing local councils to local boards advising on graffiti, dog licensing and liquor control, has the potential to give us the worst of both worlds; severely disempowered and ineffective local democracy and deadlocked overburdened regional government.

If that happens the default position will be to continue to make decisions that affect Auckland in Wellington.

The whole point of better metropolitan governance is to place the power and resources at a level where better decisions can be made.

In this respect Wellington needs to partner with Auckland so that Auckland can play a positive and constructive role in New Zealand society and in the New Zealand economy.

Ensuring that the decisions get made and implemented at a regional [or local] level means operating in a different way; through partnership, inclusion, giving voice to the diverse communities, devolving and sharing power, and providing innovative mechanisms for civic participation in decision making.

Why? Because enlightened central governments have recognised that they cannot solve the complex issues associated with large cities on their own.

They need to partner with local governments, local communities, business and civil society to address these issues.

Large cities are more diverse, with more mobile populations attracting mobile investment; but they also have greater disparities and the potential for greater disengagement.

Diversity can be a strength given the right outlet; it attracts talent and investment.

Talented people with business acumen and money like a city with soul, diversity, creativity and innovation. If diversity is suppressed that becomes a disincentive for investment and a recipe for disengagement in the political process.

Auckland values its diverse communities, its history and its heritage; it needs and wants migrants with international connections, and it needs and wants New Zealanders to have access to new markets through those connections.

The hikoi was a symptom of perceived disenfranchisement; poll results show that Aucklanders are, at best, unsure about a "Super City"; quick decisions post the royal commission that put form before function; the prime minister's endorsement of one particular mayor; and the creation of a mega bureaucracy charged with doing everything instead of deciding and implementing only things of regional significance, are all signs of the wrong problem definition by the minister and either a disinterested or bemused National party.

The political risk in this for the National Party is immense, they need to wake up!

The scenario before us and currently before the Select Committee does not deliver better metropolitan governance and it does not deliver better local democracy.

Democratic and public institutions need to be created, not a corporation.

The answer for Auckland's governance lies in embracing our strengths and our diversity - business, cultural and otherwise - and giving that expression through our democratic institutions. It also involves a partnership with Wellington.

Better metropolitan governance will come from discerning those decisions that need to be made at a regional level (regional spatial planning, public transport, key regional infrastructure, assets and utilities, regional economic and social development initiatives, major events and so on) and placing those decisions in the hands of a mayor and regional body that has both the elected mandate and the power and resources to implement those decisions - that can only come from a partnership with Wellington. Better local democracy will come from a local government sector able to implement decisions at a local level that will shape the future of our local communities in line with a regional plan. We can have the best of both worlds and New Zealand deserves nothing less.

* David Wilson is Director of the Institute of Public Policy, AUT University