Rudman's city: Future face of region may finally rate some debate

By BRIAN RUDMAN

Exactly a year ago Auckland's seven mayors called on us to ponder the future form of local government in the region. Did we want a single super city, more of the same, or something in between?

Releasing their learned discussion paper, the chairman of the mayoral forum at the time, Bob Harvey, declared it was "just the wake-up call we need to start thinking seriously about the best way forward for local government in Auckland."

If anyone did wake up to Bob's clarion call, it was just to take a comfort stop. Then back to sleep we all went.

Now it's the turn of the forces of the Right to try to excite us about local government reform. Auckland City's Citrats and their New Right upstart bedmates, Auckland Now, are to make an Auckland supercity one of their policy planks at October's local government elections.

As one who could be convinced that such a supercity is just what we need, I have somewhat mixed feelings about being on the same side as CRAN.

It's not just the worry of what my mates will think, it's also the memory of what happened when fast-fading National Prime Minister Jim Bolger suddenly seized leadership of the republican cause. In that instance, far from giving that worthy cause a nudge into the mainstream, this party political intervention was the kiss of death, alienating both traditional republicans and Mr Bolger's monarchist supporters.

The kiss of CRAN (or should that be NARC?) may have a similarly polarising effect on the supercity campaign. Still, it's not as though there's much support to lose anyway.

The mayors had raised the question of whether the present structure of four cities, three districts, one regional council and sundry institutions and bodies was the most efficient way of delivering local government to the region. They highlighted the need for a united front when coping with issues such as public transport, water, roads and urban planning. When you consider the twists and turns of the rapid transit debate, you can see their point.

The response from their fellow politicians was a textbook example of the perils and pitfalls of doing politics in Auckland. The mayoral forum is itself a de facto body with no power. Alongside it is a CEOs' forum, which, like the mayoral tea party, meets informally and in secret.

To try to get debate going, they invited councillors from across the region to a mass briefing. It was hardly a roaring success. After 15 years of permanent revolution, many councillors, like the rest of us, were just plain reformed out. Others were suspicious of anything hatched in secret from on high. Even the civic leaders dithered.

Regional council chairman Phil Warren thought a single council would be "wonderful" but backed the three-city-plus-regional-council option as the more achievable. Manukau's Sir Barry Curtis was for three cities also. Auckland mayor Christine Fletcher and Papakura's David Hawkins leaned towards the supercity ideal while Waitakere's Bob Harvey hedged, saying only that change was inevitable.

North Shore councillors gave the whole project the heave-ho, resolving that the discussion paper was an unnecessary distraction from its core business. Waitakere and Franklin councillors delivered a similar message. Papakura councillors seem to have ignored it, although copies were distributed throughout the community. Manukau sat on the fence.

For these councils, the debate was about process. Only Auckland City and the regional council actually opened the book and decided to consider it further.

Auckland City has gone as far as to pledge, as part of its 20-year strategic plan, to "lead the debate on restructuring, strengthening and improving local government in the Auckland region."

An officials' report on last night's Auckland City Council agenda noted rather wryly that while there is strong public support for "simplification of the political governance structures across the region" it was "likely to be difficult" to gain "regional accord" on any restructuring in the next 12 months. I'm not exactly holding my breath either. Still, with CRAN signalling a place for it in the election campaign, maybe it will now get the serious debate it deserves.