KEY POINTS:
Two months of consultation have ended and now the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Auckland Governance must chart a path forward. It has a deadline of December 1 to recommend "what governance, institutional and ownership structures would best help the Auckland region provide key infrastructure, services and facilities".
Its very existence is a response to the divisiveness and self-serving agendas encouraged by the current regional framework of seven municipal councils and a limited regional council. Strong and corrosive territorial instincts were re-emphasised when several of these local authorities delivered submissions.
Implanting a structure that puts the interests of Auckland first is the commission's essential task. At the first instance, it must decide whether to retain the present three-tier model of regional/council/community boards. On balance, it still appears the best option - but only with changes that embed an "Auckland first" approach. A cogent three-tier system of representation and administration could be headed by a strengthened regional body that would oversee transport, water, planning and environmental issues throughout the current seven cities and districts. It could be called Environment Auckland, in common with bodies that have a similar sphere of operation in other regional centres.
The second tier would be a single city council, to be called Auckland. It would incorporate the largely urban areas of the region - Auckland City, Waitakere, Manukau, North Shore and Papakura. The council could have 20 councillors, one representing each of the region's electorates. Rodney and Franklin districts, while part of Environment Auckland's bailiwick, would, as is their wish, have their own councils. This would recognise their largely rural nature and their concerns, which have little in common with the infrastructural woes of urban Auckland.
The third tier would be five elected community boards, which could occupy the boundaries of the defunct city councils. While not having the power to levy rates, they would continue to provide a valuable link between citizens and the Auckland council and make most of the decisions about amenities in their neighbourhoods. Indeed, because of the size of the Auckland council, the community boards would undoubtedly become far more significant.
Several submissions envisaged that not all members of the Auckland council would be elected. Some would be appointed for their expertise in business or their other connections. That notion might reflect an understandable impulse for decisiveness but it should not be countenanced. It flies in the face of democracy and accountability, which must be the central tenets of any restructuring.
Similarly, the mayor of Auckland must be directly elected by citizens, not chosen by the elected councillors. Direct election creates a public contest between individual contenders that, in turn, engenders interest. This also prompts the paying of more attention to the council poll, and the chance of a strong mandate. Any mandate would not, however, be enhanced by the conveying of titles such as "lord mayor". That reeks of a pretension that has no place in modern local government.
The aim of the commission's exercise is not to save costs. These, in any case, would be far less than might be imagined. It is to recommend a structure that better reflects the whole city's interests and provides decisive leadership. It is to rid the region of the divisiveness that torpedoed the waterfront stadium and the self-interest that led to an absurd duplication of facilities such as sports centres. Inevitably, there will be teething issues, some of which will require a period of grandfathering. But what should emerge from the commission's deliberation is a vehicle to get Auckland moving.
