Even the Labour Party, in an otherwise critical analysis of changes to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, has had to concede the amendments make the Super City legislation "more workable".
They have, in fact, made it far more acceptable by addressing many of the widespread concerns.
The bill, as reported back from the Auckland governance legislation committee, is still far from perfect. But, finally, it presents a workable framework for uniting Auckland that should have the support of Aucklanders.
Nothing less than this would have sufficed given the range and depth of well-warranted opposition. This focused on two main aspects of the bill: the powers allotted to the so-called council-controlled organisations (CCOs) - unelected companies that will run 75 per cent of council functions - and the absence of specified powers for the local boards.
Originally, the CCOs were to operate out of the public eye and be virtually unanswerable to Aucklanders. This bore the hallmarks of a corporate approach that did not sit comfortably in the arena of public affairs.
That shortcoming has been significantly leavened by steps that make the CCOs more transparent and more accountable to the Auckland Council and ratepayers.
All CCOs will have to have their board meetings open to the public, and the council can require them to report quarterly, rather than half-yearly.
Additionally, the Auckland Council will appoint the chairman or chairwoman and deputy of each CCO, and can remove CCO directors, who will be appointed by the Government, from day one. That will exert its own discipline on appointments.
The CCOs have also been made subject to the council's long-term and other strategic plans.
Further steps could have been taken. As Labour pointed out, the Government has declined to shelve the transport CCO, Auckland Transport, despite opposition from many quarters, including the Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment.
Auckland's greatest problem warrants a far more influential hand from the mayor and council. Doubtless, Auckland Transport and other CCOs will also stoop to holding meetings in committee when they deem it necessary. But at least the changes mean the public will not be left only with recourse to the Official Information Act, a state of affairs that offered, at best, knowledge of decision-making after the event.
The Government has disappointed somewhat in not specifying the responsibilities of the local boards. It has sought to allay concerns by outlining the functions they "could expect" to undertake in the likes of planning, community development, libraries, parks and economic development.
The Auckland Transition Agency will, on an interim basis, prescribe the boards' role, and the parliamentary committee suggests any subsequent changes by the Auckland Council should be "minor". The boards will be pivotal in ensuring the council remains within reach of its citizens.
In the absence of enshrined powers, the councillors elected in October must recognise this and be prepared to delegate so boards can respond to their suburbs' particular needs.
All in all, the changes remove many of the fears that have led Aucklanders to have increasing doubts about the Super City concept. The Government's initial response to these concerns was utterly unconvincing.
It has now accepted the validity of much of the criticism. Aucklanders, for their part, need not have the same worries about a loss of local democracy and a Super City structure devoid of transparency and accountability.
The select committee has done a worthy job. It now falls to Aucklanders to make the Super City work.
<i>Editorial:</i> Changes make Super City plan acceptable
It now falls to Aucklanders to make the Super City work. Photo / Supplied
Opinion
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
