Janet Clews: Big city not a better one

One may well ask: why are we wasting energy on whether we should have one city for almost a third of the population of this country?

That is not local government. That is virtually state government. Another round of amalgamation would lead only to further disruption and solve nothing.

From previous experience, there are few actual savings from building a monolithic structure. Certainly there are huge losses in a social sense - bigger is seldom better when it comes to providing local services.

The heart was ripped out of many smaller areas during the last round of amalgamations. The parochialism of the past has almost disappeared but further moves would be divisive in the worst possible way. Let's get on with what we are elected for, which is to serve those who elect us.

The current rates debate is not raging just in Auckland. It is nationwide and needs to be solved on that basis. So set that argument aside in this discussion.

What is needed is a refinement of the process for regional decision-making. There has been a large measure of co-operation and agreement on many issues in recent years but the three-yearly election cycle can cause problems. Sometimes, new mayors, often with no local government experience, embark on pet projects which cut across previously agreed positions.

So time is lost, sometimes a full three years, while there is renegotiation and re-education. And it is a pity that in that context, egos often get in the way of what is best for the region.

While mayors have every right to discuss matters among themselves as colleagues, and are influential, they have no mandate from their people unless it has been taken to them at election time or by special consultation.

If they have power it is shared power as the leader of their respective councils, which in turn gives them the authority to advance each council's position. At the present time, I don't believe that debate has taken place anywhere in the region.

The changes in the Local Government Act and other legislation since 1989 now make local government more accountable to its constituents than even central government.

But few seem to recognise that. If people did, they might take a fuller part in the regular consultations which take place, particularly on the long-term plans and the annual plans and budgets.

This might then lead to a greater interest at election time.

Much of the increase in rates can be attributed to matters which councils are required to handle at the direction of legislation.

The funding of depreciation is one such thing. It is a great concept long term, but it is difficult for those who thought they were paying as they went along. It has come as a shock to find that many councils in the past took only a short-term view and kept rates artificially low, especially in election year.

So long-term planning is now a sensible requirement with community outcomes an essential part of that.

Unfortunately, the number who become involved, despite many opportunities, remains small.

If there were one gigantic organisation I suggest the percentage engaging would be even lower. So democracy would be weakened yet again.

But then some are not really interested in democracy. They are interested only in bureaucratic solutions to what are systemic problems.

The cost of democracy is a very small percentage of the cost of local government anywhere, and is an investment in and for the community to see that bureaucracy delivers on the agreed programmes.

In other words, the officers do not and should not run the place. They advise, but then their role is to implement the councils' decisions.

So any debate on what happens in the future should not be driven or led by officers or former officers. It should be based on what the people want, reflected through their local representatives.

Simplistic slogans are not the answer either, which is one reason why the rates debate should not be a part of this discussion.

A great deal of nonsense is talked about cities overseas. There are few places where there is just one city in a large area. The oft-quoted Brisbane cannot be compared with any New Zealand city as it has huge state funding. It also has satellite towns.

Many cities have a regional structure as well, but even the most competitive cities are large conurbations of smaller authorities, such as Sydney and Melbourne.

The many London boroughs all operate independently or in co-operation where that is advantageous. Who says Greater London is not a competitive place?

New York with its many boroughs is certainly competitive. In the United States new cities are still being formed at the request of the people and many of them are much smaller than our cities. Why are we different?

I have just returned from a private trip to Scandinavia. Denmark (population 5.2 million) has 14 regions and 275 municipalities, the vast majority of which have fewer than 20,000 people.

Recently the good citizens of Denmark were deemed to be the happiest in the world. Could this emphasis on things local be part of the reason? Copenhagen has a population of 500,000. The city council consists of 55 members. It is a thriving, competitive place.

In Sweden (population 9 million) there are 20 regions and 290 municipalities. Greater Stockholm has a population similar to greater Auckland but with 772,000 living in the central city of Stockholm, which has a 101-member council. Who says Stockholm is not vibrant and competitive?

Gothenberg (population 460,000 ) has 81 elected members. Norway, with a population just a little more than New Zealand's, has 19 regions, 18 of which are divided into 432 municipalities. Oslo (population 560,000) is the other region. The mayor leads a council of 59 members.

Vancouver BC has a city council serving 600,000 but the Greater Vancouver Regional District encompasses 21 municipalities, each of which appoints one member per 100,000 people to the regional body.

Some of us remember that when the former Auckland Regional Authority was formed it consisted of members from the region's municipalities. Perhaps the answer lies in returning to that mode.

There are many good things about local government in Auckland. The only thing that needs to be fixed is to refine the responsibilities of the many bodies, dealing particularly with transport, and give some teeth to the ultimate deciders.

Do not destroy the basis for regional co-operation developed during the past 17 years. It has worked well with things such as the Watercare Shareholders Representatives Group and with the Regional Land Transport Committee.

It is co-operation, concentration, commitment and energy which are needed, not the gobbling up of cities, which take great pains to reflect their local value, by others with territorial ambitions just to make a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy where no one wins but the head bureaucrat.

* Janet Clews, a former Mayor of Glen Eden, chairs Waitakere City Council's finance and operational performance committee. She has been involved in Auckland local government for 40 years.