Mike Lee: Humility and focus key to better region

The uproar about residential rates increases around the Auckland region has raised again the question of further local body amalgamation and the notion of one super city for Auckland.

Some of us remember the last serious round of local government amalgamation, in 1989. In Auckland it resulted in the amalgamation of 12 borough and county councils into one Auckland City Council, with 10 community boards (consisting of five or six members), a mayor and 19 councillors. The two main reasons behind that reorganisation were to bring more cohesion to Auckland's policy making and service delivery, and to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness. The ARC during this time was downsized from 28 councillors to 13.

While that amalgamation may have brought about greater cohesion, I think most ratepayers would still have serious questions about whether it delivered better cost effectiveness.

There are strong arguments in favour of smaller is better. A survey of 12,000 readers of Consumer magazine last year found that those councils that performed better in the eyes of ratepayers tended to be the smaller cities and rural district councils.

The present debate, which we must remember has been triggered by another round of significant rates increases, highlights deep questions about democracy and governance in New Zealand. It has become much in vogue among some in local government that a "true leader" should push through policies that are unpopular with the people because he or she knows what is best for them. It's not a model that I subscribe to.

We live in a democracy where the onus is on our leaders, councillors, community board members and council officers to listen carefully to what the people are saying. Some may be surprised to find that the public is often, if not always, wiser collectively than any one individual leader.

Since the 80s and the advent of Rogernomics, the concept of public service has almost disappeared from the lexicon of local government. The concept has a long and noble history and essentially means the provision of services (such as water or transport) and civic amenities for the benefit of the public. In other words, the basic infrastructure of civilisation. I believe elected officials and staff in local and regional government need to give renewed thought to the concept of public service and what this really means.

A certain amount of humility in dealing with the public would be, I believe, a desirable quality for both elected and non-elected officials.

As regards the future structure of local government in Auckland, an enormous amount of work will be needed to build a new local government structure that delivers improved cohesiveness and cost savings. But first there needs to be culture change in local government.

In his recent Herald opinion piece, Grant Kirby, a former Auckland City Council senior bureaucrat, focused on the desirability of reducing the numbers of elected councillors and community board members. What was not discussed were numbers of managers, staff, consultants and contractors and the costs of that.

The question needs to be raised - is less democracy better? I am rather sceptical of simplistic arguments being put forward by some that certain city-regions in Australia are doing it a great deal better than Auckland simply because on paper they appear to have fewer councillors. What about staff numbers? What about the layer of state government, which we don't have? Do these councils have a regulatory role or does another state agency carry that out?

I agree with the Herald's John Roughan when he said that reorganisations can be a substitute for action. After all, the original question was about rates, which is not necessarily the same thing as another round of amalgamations.

In regard to restructuring it was found that, after the 1989 reforms, it took many years and a huge amount of money to complete the reorganisation of local government. As a relatively small city-region in global terms, do we have the capacity and skills to carry out our existing responsibilities and take on another great big revamp in a cost-effective way? I'm not sure we do.

For all Aucklanders, the urgent challenges upon us are:

* How will we accommodate Auckland's disproportionate population growth?

* How will we pay for and provide enough public transport and other essential infrastructure and services for them?

* How will we turn our waterfront into the world-class amenity we want?

* How will we cater for the the Rugby World Cup in 2011?

* And how will we do it in a cost-effective way that is affordable and acceptable to the public?

This will take serious money and ratepayers have made it plain they have had enough. So even if central government steps in, councils are going to have to do more with less. Whatever the benefits of further reorganisation, councils will have to prioritise spending and become more focused and cost-effective.

As for changes to the structure of local government, as chairman of the Auckland Regional Council I can see the benefits of giving serious consideration to a further round of amalgamation, especially the urbanised part of the region. But my support is firmly predicated on two requirements. The local would have to remain in local government. That is the role of rural councils and urban community boards, acting in the interests of their ratepayers. And any new structure would have to be demonstrably more cost-effective than the present set-up.

* Mike Lee is chairman of the Auckland Regional Council.