Grant Kirby: Overgoverned but underperforming

Anyone who has followed various Auckland issues play out in the media in recent years must have formed a view that this is a region where it is hard to get agreement on what infrastructure projects are needed, hard to get agreement on priorities, and difficult to get funding and the projects built in a timely and efficient process.

An observer would be right on all counts.

There are growing concerns that New Zealand's biggest city (in fact, four cities) and three district councils plus a regional council is struggling to perform to international standards, or to perform its expected and vital role within the country.

Factors such as continued rapid growth coupled with historic underinvestment in infrastructure contribute to this situation.

And despite the local government reforms of 1989, which abolished 39 local councils and created seven new ones from forced amalgamations; the region suffers from an inefficient local government structure.

Ponder this. Brisbane, roughly the same size as Auckland, is basically run by 27 full-time politicians, implementing an agreed plan which has transformed Brisbane into a attractive modern city.

The Auckland region, on the other hand, has 264 elected representatives to do basically the same job. They are running four cities placed cheek by jowl in the centre of the region and three district councils on the outskirts (Rodney, Papakura and Franklin). In addition, we have the Auckland Regional Council presiding over planning and a plethora of companies controlled by local bodies running everything from transport to water supply and property development.

It's just not working. The establishment of the Mayoral Forum, which has no legal powers, is a commendable attempt to build bridges over the chasms which divide the various councils, but manifestly it is a compromise.

More recently, the international team of experts assembled to create a development blueprint for Auckland has expressed disquiet at the complex local body structure in the region, and suggested a new body would be needed if the plan was to be implemented successfully.

Let's ask ourselves, "Is the present structure really the structure we would choose, starting with a blank sheet of paper, to run the biggest and most important region of New Zealand?"

Each year, the seven local councils and one regional council collect more than $800 million in rates, have operating expenditures in excess of $1.3 billion and spend about $650 million on capital works.

Every three years Auckland elects seven mayors, 110 members, and 147 community board members.

In addition, the quangos set up to bridge the divided Auckland governance structure have further appointed members.

Several council controlled organisations also exist, each with a separate governance structure. Auckland local authorities also employ eight chief executives and more than 5200 staff.

The huge compliance cost to keep this complex structure operational through endless rounds of meetings and intra-city negotiations is hugely wasteful; including the cost of the Mayoral Forum.

Ratepayers deserve better. Taxpayers deserve better. The region and nation deserves better.

The effects of fragmentation are encouraged by legislative provisions. The Local Government Act requires mayors, chairpersons or members of a local authority to declare that they will act in the best interests of the authority to which they are elected.

When a person is elected to a local authority this declaration only applies to that particular local authority. The only exception is the regional council where the declaration applies to the region.

Thus you have a Mayoral Forum where each mayor has made a declaration that says that they will work in the best interests of their local authority, not in the best interests of the collective local authorities in the region.

This does not mean that every mayor only has parochial interests. Some certainly see the "Big Picture". However, this declaration tends to legitimise the fragmentation that Auckland suffers.

This is further exacerbated when you consider that most local authorities are elected on a ward basis.

Although ward boundaries are for electoral purposes only and a councillor elected in a ward takes this declaration to act in the best interests of the district, the realities of the electoral system work strongly against this.

They inevitably seem to act in the interests of their ward and the people who they rely upon to get re-elected.

Even in the case of the regional council, where members make a declaration to work in the interests of the region, they are elected from particular wards.

Negative outcomes of having eight local government authorities in Auckland include:

* Auckland seldom speaks with one voice or presents a unified view through its political representatives. This makes Auckland weak.

* No wonder Auckland can't make progress on key problems like roading, passenger transport, regional funding of key services and organisations and other issues when eight local government representatives individually visit Government in Wellington with different messages.

* Auckland, with one-third of the New Zealand population can be seen as threatening by other centres and this can negatively influence national support to address Auckland's problems.

* The inability to get national support to invigorate what should be the powerhouse of the New Zealand economy is to the detriment of all New Zealanders.

* The splintered Auckland governance means that eight separate rates are set every year in Auckland.

Auckland needs to draft and vigorously promote a proposal to have a single governance structure for the region.

An Act of Parliament could create a new unitary authority to govern Auckland and have it up and running within 18 months to two years. That authority would combine the governance roles of the seven local authorities and the regional council.

One mayor and 25 members would replace the seven mayors and 110 members.

An appropriate number of community boards could give effective local representation and retain local identities.

The spectre of a "super city" is needless scaremongering - a unified Auckland would give us a chance to match Brisbane's progress.

Such a structure is practical and pragmatic and would finally achieve one funding and service delivery.

One Auckland, one plan, one voice.

* Grant Kirby is immediate past chairman of the Local Government Commission.