KEY POINTS:
It is hard to support Trevor Mallard these days. But he was right when he said that Auckland needs to be an internationally competitive city with an outward-facing attitude, that demonstrates a capacity to lead New Zealand's economic development.
The debate about governance in Auckland is timely, because
right now the city's structure is not geared towards the challenges we face.
The current local government configuration is the product of the 1989 changes driven by Sir Brian Elwood and me. We reduced 29 territorial bodies and a multitude of special purpose authorities to seven, and introduced community boards to boost the local in local government.
The changes cemented into place the lower tiers of local government, but did not deal adequately with the sharp end, the regional point to the pyramid.
As the recent stadium debacle has shown, we need people with an Auckland-wide mandate who can speak with authority for all of us.
I mean no disrespect to the current chairman of the Auckland Regional Council, who often displays leadership. But whoever wins that position requires only the votes of 13 councillors. Mayors are elected with tens of thousands of votes each.
Inevitably, the regional chair is the product of a backroom deal made after an election. Under current rules, no one knows who the chair can be until the 13 councillors have been elected. The ultimate winner lacks a mandate. It's time to fix that structural flaw.
While dealing with the sharp end of Auckland's governance we also need to review the number and powers of community boards. Some occupy quite powerful positions within their council areas. Others are barely tolerated by their local authorities.
Standardising the place of community boards within the system is overdue. And we should also remove wards from the major territorial authorities. On top of community boards, wards entrench parochialism.
Given the challenges facing New Zealand's biggest city, wards retard progress. I introduced them for large councils in 1985 before community boards existed. I regret not re-visiting that issue in 1989 once community boards came into being.
Wards restrict urban vision. And they tend to elect lesser lights with parochial reputations rather than more able visionaries.
How to change things? I wouldn't waste time trying to reorganise the territorial units of government in Auckland. Seven units and a region are about right, given that Auckland sprawls every which way.
But I would reduce the number of councillors in Auckland City, Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere, and have them elected across those cities at large. The community boards with re-jigged powers would maintain the vital local element in local government, although there could be fewer of them.
It is excessive parochialism that bedevils our four cities. Under the current system, only one person in each city, the mayor, has a city-wide mandate. At Auckland's regional sharp end there should be a mayor, or Lord Mayor, elected at large.
At present the Auckland Regional Council has 13 members. That's about the right size. They, too, should be elected at large from across the whole region. They and the Lord Mayor together could then reasonably claim to speak for wider Auckland.
We would still need a mayoral forum so that regional councillors consulted on a regular basis with the territorial councils. But it would be the Auckland Regional Mayor and council that would negotiate with Wellington on things like a stadium.
And they would be the ones who talked with Sydney, Brisbane and Los Angeles over issues like airport locations and ports.
The regional council would look after water and sewerage, promote tourism, fund the zoo, the library system, and deal with central government.
The recent confusion over an Auckland stadium should make us realise how weak our collective voices can sound when you are in Wellington.
Having a region-wide council would pose challenges. Getting elected would be expensive. Inevitably tickets would become entrenched at election time.
No bad thing; we have rough equivalents now. And experience shows neither side hangs together on all issues.
There might have to be some form of public funding, too, lest only the wealthy felt able to chance their arm when standing for the regional council. Above all, we would have to re-examine the current system of funds for regional council expenditure.
Yes, it should hold regional assets and use profits from the port towards transport and infrastructure. But it is an infrastructural famine in the region that is now holding us back. Tolls on new roads and higher fuel levies are essential to make up Auckland's revenue shortfall.
Relying on central government to fund all the things Auckland needs is to blunt our own sense of destiny.
Auckland's current governance system is better than I found it in 1984, but nowhere as smart as it now needs to be. More than anything, the stadium debacle pointed to the need for Auckland to have better-focused vision and an authoritative voice.
* Dr Michael Bassett was Minister of Local Government at the time of the 1989 reforms.
