KEY POINTS:
The Government has given the task of "strengthening Auckland's regional governance" to a royal commission of three people.
Around two years ago, some powerful, self-interested business groups pushed hard to make things much easier for them to do business across the Auckland region.
Together with four mayors, these people approached Government with their plea to reform regional and local government in Auckland. Government supported this idea, hence the royal commission.
In my opinion, that approach was little to do with strengthening the democratic purposes or function of local and regional government in Auckland.
On the contrary, it is anti-democratic if the aims of organisations such as the Northern Employers & Manufacturers Association (EMA), the One Auckland Trust and the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development are implemented.
Their model has echoes of the powerful European city-states of the middle ages, which were controlled by merchants, guilds or oligarchies for their own purposes. They certainly weren't democracies.
The proposal of a Greater Auckland Council with an executive "lord mayor" runs the risk of being manipulated in a similar manner, despite the inevitable packaging in democratic jargon.
There are worrying statements from central government in announcing the royal commission, in which the emphasis was on economic and commercial matters and almost no reference to the preservation of democratic control and input.
Government spokespeople keep hammering away at the economic importance of Auckland to the rest of the country and declare that we need to be a top-level, world-class city. Throughout is the imperative that Auckland must be improved, speak with one voice and be tightly controlled (by whom?) because the whole of the nation's economy and advancement rests with us.
That ignores the vital role of dairy farmers, kiwifruit growers, wine producers and the tourism industry, prime earners of our overseas funds. That's where our real wealth is based. Auckland is just a large service and commercial centre.
Improvements and efficiencies are needed, but if similar previous Auckland reorganisations driven by Wellington are anything to go by, they will have little to do with any "One Auckland" solution dictated from Wellington or the introduction of a local commercial oligarchy to rule us.
If a major part of the problem in Auckland is its poor transport network and public transport system, it has resulted from 30 years of neglect. The publicly owned Yellow Bus Company and railways were privatised by the government of the day, and we are still trying to get back better co-ordination.
It has taken many years even to get the integrated ticket system started.
Finally, because of the farcical time permitted for dissemination of information, consultation, discussion and well-considered submissions, substantial grass roots public input to the royal commission will be virtually impossible.
The public will not have the time, information, leadership or resources to respond to the long-planned, well-resourced business interests pushing for this takeover. An assault on democratic rights and institutions in favour of business and central government bureaucracy is the likely result. In essence it could be described as a coup.
I hope enough people will make their views known to all politicians in this election year to ensure that this potential erosion of democratic control of Auckland is not supported, no matter what the royal commission recommends. We can't vote for the EMA or for the royal commission, but we can for members of Parliament.
* Tony Holman is a councillor on the North Shore City Council with 25 years' experience in local and regional government and 14 years in senior management positions in statutory authorities.
