Jeff Chapman: Our city's needs should outweigh politics

Politicians at both central and local level have been looking at ways in which Auckland can best be governed.

The Auckland region - the Bombay Hills to Warkworth - is New Zealand's only true metropolitan region.

Nothing elsewhere in the country matches its size and complexity of Auckland and any proposals for reform need to take this factor into account.

Models of local and regional governance that would be perfectly satisfactory for the rest of New Zealand, may not be suitable for Auckland.

The reforms in the late 1990s eliminated small uneconomic local authorities but did not produce regional coherence or effectively create local government units which represented natural communities of interest.

Most Aucklanders will tell you that they are residents of their local communities first and then Aucklanders.

The reforms were a necessary part of bringing efficiency into Auckland local government but they should have been regarded as a first step to a broader governance model.

Any model for change which perpetuates these artificial local government units is doomed to failure.

Turning to Australia for guidance is the wrong way to go. Because of geography and history, the Australian state capitals, as they are called, have all become metropolitan conurbations with many of the major infrastructure and other regional developments being the responsibility of state governments rather than local councils.

Local government in Australia, compared with New Zealand, is very much the junior partner - or poor relation - in the inter-government scene.

The most democratic form of government is that which is local. In terms of the 1989 reforms, the most democratic reform was the institution of community boards which acknowledge the local community of interest of citizens.

Any proposal for reform of regional governance must ensure that nothing is done to harm this concept.

Principally there are four models on offer:

* Present model with some change.

Continuation of the existing model, with some extra powers given to the Auckland Regional Council to enable greater co-ordination of regional projects.

This may entail transferring from Auckland City Council to the Auckland Regional Council some regional functions - for example, funding the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and the Auckland Zoo. That would be the least disruptive of any change to regional governance but might not necessarily produce the desired results.

* Greater Auckland Council.

A new Greater Auckland Council with a smaller number of city and district councils which would become merely service delivery arms of the Greater Auckland Council.

This is the original proposal by the four big city mayors, which Waitakere City mayor Bob Harvey was politically astute enough to walk away from.

This was merely a grab by old, tired mayors to gain greater power at the expense of their own councils.

For a time there was a real fear that the Government would favour this model. Fortunately, sense seems to have prevailed. Let's hope this proposal never returns.

* An enhanced regional body.

Greater Auckland Council is probably a good name as long as it can be divorced from the mayors' proposal. This would distinguish it from other regional councils.

It should be given wide powers to either direct local councils or take over their powers and responsibilities where it can be shown that such action will advance regional coherence.

The regional activities now funded by Auckland City Council and the roading and water supply networks of the region are obvious targets.

It is not economic to have seven roading networks and seven water supply networks in one region.

The leader of such a council may gain more mana in the region by being directly elected. If roading and water supply networks became regionally based then the question that would need to be asked is: Why have seven city and district councils?

* A Supercity.

This option is being advocated by Grant Kirby and the One Auckland project. First, let's forget talk about reduction of costs and greater efficiencies from economies of scale.

The need to preserve the meaning of "local" in local government will necessitate the retention of area offices and community boards.

As the supporters of this option say, there would need to be about 20 community boards with funding allocations at a higher level than most have at present.

The number of community boards required will probably exceed 20 because some councils do not have community boards and Rodney, Franklin and Papakura residents will want local advocacy and control over purely local projects.

The present powers of community boards are adequate to serve within a supercity. The real difficulty is the difference between councils as to what powers they are prepared to delegate to community boards.

Waitakere boards, for example, now have substantial financial delegations. North Shore City boards have almost none.

The practicalities of a larger city will require these delegations to be more extensive if local residents are not to feel disenfranchised in local needs. This is probably the only option that will bring full coherence to regional governance over Auckland.

Unfortunately, it is probably the most expensive to implement in terms of financial, human and other costs. It is interesting that its advocates are not politicians. This means that they are looking at it reasonably objectively and not with an eye to what job they can preserve.

For this reason and the fact that MPs in Wellington are afraid of a strong Auckland local government, it is unlikely to get the political go-ahead.

Where does this leave us?

Probably, as in all areas which involve politics, with an unsatisfactory compromise.

There is a strong need to do something because of the growth of Auckland and the need to make it an international metropolitan conurbation. Legislation enhancing the powers of the ARC to co-ordinate regional activities, with a power to take over activities of a regional nature from city and district councils - subject to consultation - while leaving the present structure below the ARC intact is probably the best we can hope for at this stage.

Again, however, in that process we should consider electing at large the leader of the ARC.

Unfortunately, the present round of consultation is likely to be inconclusive because it is being conducted by elected politicians who have jobs to lose in any reorganisation.

In the end, central Government will have to bite the bullet and decide which model will incur the least wrath - not from local politicians, but from citizens - and go ahead and do it.

I urge central Government to act in the best interests of Auckland. There is absolutely no guarantee that our locally elected politicians will do so.

* Jeff Chapman is a public policy specialist at Massey University's Auckland school of social and cultural studies school in Auckland.