KEY POINTS:
The Government could hardly have named more encouraging royal commissioners for the inquiry into the way Auckland is run. Retired judge Peter Salmon has had a career in environmental planning law, Dame Margaret Bazley has handled several sensitive inquiries, most recently into the police treatment of sexual complaints, and David Shand, a public finance specialist, conducted an inquiry into local government rating not long ago.
They have a broad brief to discover "what governance, institutional and ownership structures would best help the Auckland region provide key infrastructure, services and facilities". They can draft a complete revision of Auckland's councils, territories, representation and powers, even recommend changes to the region's boundary if necessary.
The calibre of the royal commission is a tribute to persistent efforts by Auckland business leaders, most recently through the northern Employers' and Manufacturers' Association, to overcome the entrenched interests of councils. Business has believed for years that Auckland and the national economy suffer from the region's division into seven cities and districts, each with a complete range of municipal services, featherbedded staff and elected members who naturally put the interests of their suburban ratepayers first. But each time previously that a single city has been proposed, the four cities and the weak regional council have batted the proposal away.
They looked likely to do that again a few months ago. Single city advocates had convinced the Prime Minister to act and there was talk of legislation in time for this year's local body elections if "Auckland" could agree on a scheme. The sitting mayors and regional chairman said their councils could.
Months later, with the elections pressing, single city advocates got wind that the councils' scheme would make minimal change. Fearing the Government would happily accept it and present it as the answer to Auckland's call, the Employers and Manufacturers Association embarked on a publicity blitz for a more drastic solution.
When the Cabinet duly issued its response to the councils' paper it had a dollar each way, endorsing the tinkering suggestion but announcing also it would set up the royal commission for a longer view. It has taken three months but the appointees chosen and their terms of reference announced yesterday suggest the exercise is serious. Their findings will be hard for any government to ignore.
They will of course take a critical view of the single city advocates' now finely honed plan for centralised power. They will hear arguments for preserving local control of most municipal services and many ratepayers will weigh up whether they would be better or worse off contributing to a different pool of wealth and needs.
The risk in the royal commission's exercise is that instead of reducing the number of councils it will add one more over-arching authority for purposes that a united city would serve. It should be careful also to ensure that bodies empowered to spend money must also have to raise it directly from those whose votes they seek. Democracy and accountability must be the guiding rules.
And advocates of a single city should remind themselves that decisions made at a higher level might not necessarily be wiser or braver. Organisations do not make decisions, people do. It is ultimately the people who stand for office and the preferences of voters that decide the quality of local government. But an apparatus that better reflects the whole city's interests would help.
