Editorial: Local boards rethink may hurt Govt

A valid criticism of the royal commission on Auckland was that it placed a higher priority on unity than the involvement of local voices in decision-making. That complaint was echoed by, among others, the Prime Minister and the Local Government Minister, and swiftly they have sought to remedy it. The commission's recommendation of six local councils subservient to a super Auckland Council has been superseded by a prescription that sees up to 30 local boards underneath the Auckland Council. Given the extensive work of the commission, this represents a startling change.

Pointedly, the notion of a large number of local councils was rejected by the commissioners. They said there would be high set-up costs, and it would be a recipe for disruption and questionable community benefits. These reservations have been ignored by the Government in its desire to implant what it believes will be effective local representation. It is reasonable to ask whether that quest has been carried too far.

One concern is the number of the local boards, which are effectively bulked-up community boards, charged with developing operational policies for local issues, such as dog control, liquor licensing and graffiti control. They will also advocate for their local community and have input into the Auckland Council plans. It is easy to foresee the cacophony of competing claims as the many boards vie for attention. As Len Brown, the Mayor of Manukau

City noted, it will be hard for these boards to be heard above each other at the Auckland Council level. If so, the local boards may become a footnote in the democratic process, and the commission's fears will have been recognised.

The local boards will be unable to raise their own revenue or hire staff. If a community wants extra services, the Auckland Council will have to approve a targeted rate rise for that area. This lack of rating responsibility means it will be hard to hold boards accountable. They can always blame their shortcomings on the council. They may also spend a lot of time and energy querying the council's budget allocations, rather than engaging with the local community and responding to its concerns. While this problem would also have been present under the commission's recommended local-council structure, it is amplified by the number of boards.

Another significant Government change is the effective scrapping of the three Maori seats recommended by the royal commission. It wanted two of these to be elected from the Maori roll and one appointed by local iwi. The latter was always bound to be problematic, given iwi differences. Of the other two, the Government says the Auckland Council can choose to establish Maori wards, and a poll on the issue could be run at the next general election. Such a referendum would not only represent a cheap exit strategy but be a little odd, given the Government's unwillingness to address the issue nationally. It would be more appropriate to actively encourage a community of interests based on wards.

The Auckland Council, with one elected mayor, the centrepiece of the commission report, remains intact, charged by the Prime Minister with thinking regionally, planning strategically and acting decisively "in a way that has not happened for the past six decades". There will be no disagreement over that ambition. Nor can there be any denying that the council promises the strength, command and coherence missing from the current regional set-up.

Now, for extra measure, it must meet the challenges posed by the Government's abrupt excursion into grassroots democracy.