KEY POINTS:
If there was any doubt that Auckland is in for a major shake-up by the royal commission on its governance, it has been dispelled. The commission is known to be developing a proposal that would see not just a single council for the whole city but a concentration of power in a single office, its mayor.
An "executive mayor" would run the city with the help of appointed officers. The council, it seems, would be a sounding board, or perhaps a budgeting, rating and policy-setting body to which the executive presumably would be answerable.
The respective powers of this executive and legislature are not yet known and may be still under discussion, though with the commission due to report to the Government within 10 weeks its precise proposals should be well advanced by now. But the broad concept of a separation of powers is a bold departure from the parliamentary mode of government that prevails nationally and locally in British-bred democracies.
An independently elected executive is a characteristic of American federal, state and city government, though one of the models that has attracted the commission's interest is that of London, where the Lord Mayor is an executive position with extensive powers. The previous incumbent, Ken Livingstone, introduced a policy as sweeping as congestion charges for cars entering central London.
The royal commission on Auckland has set out to find a means of giving the city greater cohesion and more decisive leadership without losing too much local democracy. An executive mayoralty sounds like a strong and effective force for unity and direction. It may allow the elected person to appoint a team of public officials and thus bring into the city's service able and forceful people who would not otherwise be available.
Obviously, the leader of such a team would have to be democratically mandated and answerable through direct election by the whole city. This puts an end to the argument that the mayor should be chosen by the council as the chair of the Auckland Regional Council has been. The lack of a direct election for the chair is probably the main reason the ARC has never acquired the mana and confidence to unite its constituent cities and lead Greater Auckland strongly.
Its elections have never attracted the level of public interest an effective leadership needs. Attention has usually focused instead on the mayoralty of isthmus Auckland, which carries just one vote on one of the four main councils that divide the city.
The royal commission's plans for existing councils remain to be seen. North Shore, Manukau and Waitakere cities have argued for their own survival, with acquisitions from outlying districts, but it is unlikely the commission will accommodate them. It seems more likely to preserve local government in units approximating parliamentary electorates.
The commission is also said to be giving a united city some sort of role in social welfare advocacy or services. It is hard to see a reason for that. Social welfare is properly national policy, financed from taxes not the property rates that mainly sustain regional and local government. In its concentration on Auckland the royal commission should not lose sight of the fact that we are a nation of just four million people and for most purposes one government is enough.
The sample we have seen of the commission's thinking might be a trial run. Elements that arouse too much antagonism might not appear in the final report. But the commissioners have stressed their proposals will not be measured on popularity. They have the basis of a bold solution. They should put flesh on its bones and publish their prescription for Auckland's progress without delay.
