KEY POINTS:
Individual submissions on Auckland governance are broadly in favour of a single authority to run the region.
In the third part of the Herald's snapshot of more than 3000 submissions to the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Auckland Governance, the paper looked at individual views.
It found these views reflected those of businesses and organisations in supporting the concept of a single council to run Auckland, with strong representation at a local level.
Here are some examples:
MICHAEL BASSETT, Former Labour Minister and architect of the 1989 local government reforms.
The 1989 structure was the best that was politically achievable at the time - reducing 29 territorial local bodies to seven plus a regional council.
But weaknesses have shown up with the structure, particularly at the regional level where the voice is weaker than intended at the time.
Auckland has never spoken in unison, and the reforms of 1989 did not fix the problem. At present there is no "el supremo", but there needs to be.
The costs of major infrastructural developments, such as rail, roads and the increasingly urgent need for a second harbour crossing are now beyond existing local structures and their incomes streams.
Desirable changes are strengthening the regional council by forming a Greater Auckland Regional Authority with members elected on parliamentary boundaries. This would guarantee at least three Maori members.
The chair should be elected among members. He or she should be called the Mayor of Auckland, or Lord Mayor of Auckland, and be the only person to carry the title "mayor" in the region.
The seven territorial councils would continue to exist, but with reduced functions for things such as maintaining non-regional roads in their area, parks, footpaths and the hearing of building consents.
They would be elected on the same ward basis as now with no separate mayoral elections. Each council would elect a leader to chair the council.
Community boards, which were my idea in the first place, need to be examined carefully. They have not been a roaring success and are expensive to service. Some involve a small number of regular attenders who can make a pest of themselves. Most ratepayers ignore them, except in geographically isolated areas such as Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands.
There are faster and more democratic ways for the voice of the people to be expressed directly than through community boards. Remember, in 1989, the internet did not exist.
Councils should be able to abolish the boards if they conclude they are no longer needed. A phase-out process for community boards could be accompanied by a requirement for councils' ward councillors to hold monthly forums in a community location.
DAVID LOWE
I live in Auckland, Waitakere actually, but I see it as Auckland. We are all one city. On any given day I will travel through three or four council territories, but it is really just Auckland.
What I don't understand is why we have to go to different websites to find out what is going on in our city, why the rules are different and why they spend so much time arguing among themselves instead of just getting on with it.
The argument between the Auckland Regional Council and Auckland City Council on the Eden Park upgrade was embarrassing.
One single Auckland council is what I would like. That reflects the way I see the city that I live in.
ANDREW McVEY
It's not perfect but I am not convinced that significant structural change is needed.
One important rationale for change is the lack of co-ordination on infrastructure but structural change is not necessarily the answer.
If the problem is infrastructure, then the answer should be focused on infrastructure. Central government has a large responsibility to fund this. A lot of the lack of co-ordination is because of arguments over funding.
As a former resident of Waitakere City, I am concerned that a proposed super city would ignore the needs of West Auckland. It is possible that a super city would see rates unevenly spent in areas with more lobbying power.
If there is change, ensure that Auckland City does not suck up resources from the rest of the region.
JOSHUA ARBURY
Less conflict between local governments is essential for Auckland to become a world-class city.
Having different councils with different aims, which are often contradictory, makes it difficult for Auckland to project a united front to the rest of the world.
With councils such as Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere marketing themselves as being separate from Auckland, the Auckland brands appears weakened.
Having a single unitary council definitely appears the best way to present Auckland as a united city to the rest of the world. It allows regional decisions to be made in a way that best suits the region and not be compromised by local parochialism.
Should the unitary councils cover the entire Auckland region or just the urban area? Perhaps the best solution would be to create two councils. An urban Auckland inside the metropolitan urban limits and a rural Auckland outside.
JEREMY EVANS
I believe Auckland needs overall governance and supervision from a single elected authority with special reference to the environment, water and transport.
However, I believe many smaller elected local authorities should exist and be responsible for ensuring that local needs are met.
I would very much like to see the Devonport peninsula returned to a democratically elected local council so we can continue to innovate in improving our way of life, unconstrained by the democratic might of a large number of people who do not share in our community and with whom we have little in common.
JOHN ROBB
I am very much in favour of amalgamating all local councils into one "Greater Auckland City Council". It is quite ridiculous that the ratepayers of Auckland City should be the only people who pay for the likes of the Eden Park upgrade. It is clearly a Greater Auckland asset.
There are other reasons for having one council. Reduction in the number of councillors, support staff, meetings and reduced costs. It must be more efficient.
DAVID PHILLIPPS
It has to be a super city. It has to include all of Franklin and Rodney counties.
For the 50 years I have known this town, there has been constant parochial bickering. Nothing short of a super city will stop it.
Franklin and Rodney have to be included to future proof the new city. It will need room to expand. The Auckland Regional Council's development boundaries will only slow the process.
ANNE GIBBINS
I would prefer a return to the system of borough councils that we had in the 1970s while keeping the Auckland Regional Council.
We have not enjoyed the savings that were promised with the abolition of these councils.
We need to ensure that heritage areas such as Devonport, Birkenhead and others in Auckland are protected for future generations.
ANUSHA GULER
I believe there are too many councils for one million people. I prefer the Brisbane model.
We need one structure that will govern the entire region. Policies, bylaws, processes and procedures need to be the same for the entire region.
Community boards are not effective in their roles We do not need them. They are just advocates for their communities, have little decision making power, their meetings are not effective and few people know they exist.
The councillor role will need to be fulltime and focused on working for constituents.
KEITH HARGIS
I strongly believe that the eight local authorities in the Auckland region should be merged into one authority.
That would give teeth to a far more strategic approach to regional development which would enable Auckland to truly become an "international city".
Clearly the single-city model must be supported by strong democratic links to the communities within the territorial area.
However, I believe that the current "cities" in the area have to be abandoned if Auckland is to become a city that is a desirable place to live in the future.
