Editorial: Little time to ponder over city proposal

Opinion

A note of urgency in the Prime Minister's response to the royal commission's report on Auckland should concentrate the minds of all concerned. John Key indicated the Government could make decisions on the report as early as this week because preparations would need to start within weeks if the royal commission's plan was to be in force for local body elections next year.

Aucklanders are not used to this pace of decision-making in matters of local government, which is one of the reasons the royal commission was called. Citizens have barely had time to absorb the broad outline of the proposals, let alone consider in detail what it might mean for them.

Not many will rue the passing of the Regional Council and its replacement by a larger, more powerful Auckland Council, though questions have been raised about the fairness of making nearly half its seats elected from the whole city rather than from wards. City-wide elections are said to favour well-heeled candidates with the resources to reach so many mail boxes.

But that view possibly overlooks the free publicity that elections to a single Auckland Council would attract. The election of its mayor would be the contest that mattered above all, whether or not the Government agrees with the commission's prescription for that office. The mayoralty would be keenly contested, probably by parties as well as prominent individuals, and a great deal of attention would extend to candidates' slates of supporters standing for council seats.

It is the powers of the mayor and the council that remain to be defined. The commission suggests the council have sole rating power in the region and distribute funds to the local councils of North Shore, Waitakere, the isthmus and Manukau, each of which would be watching to see that its share was comparable to the portion of rates collected from its residents.

And the local councils, it seems, would still have much to do. The commission envisages them continuing to issue resource consents, building permits, liquor, gambling, prostitution and dog licences; and to manage local parks, streets, footpaths and graffiti removal among other things. They would be responsible for most of the decisions that set the character and physical standards of the locality, but without rating responsibility it would be hard to hold them accountable. They could always blame deficiencies on the Auckland Council's parsimony.

And probably, they would be right. If the Auckland Council fulfils the hopes of the royal commission and those who pressed for it, much of the income it gathers will go to big, bold projects of city-wide value.

The upkeep of local streets, parks, libraries and other amenities will depend on how much is left over. The rations would be less than the present cities raise if the Auckland Council is also to fulfil the commission's claim for savings in costs overall.

Few will put much faith in the financial gains. Fused bureaucracy usually turns out to be bigger than the sum of its parts.

Aucklanders should also be wary of another element of the commission's plan. It redraws the boundaries of North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau to exclude Hobsonville, Whenuapai, Paremoremo, Okura, Clevedon and the Hunuas. The purpose can only be to constrain growth with tighter urban limits.

Auckland has much else to ponder in the plan if the Government means to go ahead, and not much time to do so. At least the city has had a chance to consider the commission's prospectus before the Government announces how much of it might be adopted.

The speed at which it appears to be considering its next move suggests the single city is definitely on.