A special Auckland governance select committee has been trekking across Auckland for three weeks, listening to nearly 800 ratepayers, interested parties and councils on the Government's Super City plan. Reporter Bernard Orsman, who was at the public hearings, reviews the main issues and considers the possible outcomes.
LOCAL BOARDS
There is nothing more basic to the success or failure of the Super City than local boards. While there is widespread consensus for replacing eight councils with one Auckland Council to handle regional issues, the hardest part of the Super City design is providing for local democracy.
The Government rejected a recommendation from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance for six local councils and suggested Auckland needed 20 to 30 local boards with narrow powers. The public backlash to the "toothless" boards was swift - and heard loud and clear in Wellington.
On the day public hearings started, Prime Minister John Key assured Aucklanders that the Government was listening and they could expect to see increased powers for local boards.
The key questions are how to give local boards meaningful powers within a legislative framework, the ideal numberand what to call boards.
The message was that councils already treated community boards badly and things would be worse under a centralised Auckland Council. Leaving power at the "whim" of the Auckland Council would dilute the authority of local boards and subregional identities, such as the "eco-city" of West Auckland and the social dimension of Manukau.
Many submitters, including several councils and the Auckland District Law Society, urged MPs to enshrine the powers and functions in legislation. Some went as far as to list the functions to go into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The Auckland City Council - which has stripped community boards of powers this term - said the Auckland Council should have the ultimate power to decide what local boards can and cannot do. Calls were made to insert the concept of "subsidiarity" into the bill, that is, decisions are best made at the local level unless there is good reason not to.
There are two camps on the number of local boards. The predominant view advocated fewer boards on the basis they would have more clout. Other groups, like the body representing New Zealand's community boards, believe more boards would be closer to grassroots democracy. Fewer boards could represent up to 100,000 people.
The suggested title of local boards was not popular, particularly among councils, and community councils was the preferred name.
Possible outcome: the concept of subsidiarity will be inserted in the bill and, given the weight of public opinion, the select committee will go beyond principles and prescribe at least some of the powers and functions for the local boards. The Government's goal is to take the heat out of the Super City debate by getting the structure in tune with Aucklanders' wishes, not inflame it further. The bill will be changed to make it clear the Auckland Council is a servant, not the master, and include a dispute mechanism when things invariably go wrong. The number of local boards will be fewer than 20, possibly around 15, and they will be renamed community councils.
REPRESENTATION
The next most contentious issue is whether to have a mix of ward and at-large councillors on the Auckland Council. The royal commission proposed 10 ward and 10 at-large councillors, saying a mix would ensure the right balance of regional and local perspectives. The Government has suggested 12 ward and eight at-large councillors.
The suggestion has not gone down well with most Aucklanders. The main concern is that the at-large system will favour the wealthy, celebrities and political blocs who can afford citywide campaigns. It would also mean the 12 ward councillors each representing 117,000 people, twice the number of electorate MPs.
Business groups were also divided on the issues, with the Employers and Manufacturers (Northern) opposing at-large councillors.
Sir Ron Carter, chairman of the Committee for Auckland lobby group, summed up the argument in favour of at-large councillors by saying past practice was for parochial behaviour at the expense of a cohesive and unifying vision for Auckland.
Peter McKinlay, director of local government at Auckland University of Technology, said if the clutter of local services was removed from the Auckland Council, councillors would be able to focus on local issues.
Possible outcome: At-large councillors will go and there will be 20 or so ward councillors. If local boards are constituted with sufficient powers, ward councillors will be inclined to focus on regional issues. There is also the issue of keeping the voting system simple. Asking voters to select a ward councillor and eight councillors at large is not simple.
MAYOR
The idea of giving the mayor executive powers to appoint a deputy, committee chairs, propose the budget and strategic direction and maintain a mayor's office is a new concept here.
There appears to be general acceptance for an executive mayor, elected at large. However, several councils believed the powers should be limited and the appointment of committee chairs left to the Auckland Council.
A steady stream of submitters also urged the select committee to consider the single transferable vote (STV) system to ensure the mayor had the majority support of Aucklanders. Under first-past-the-post, the mayor could be elected with 20 per cent or less of the vote.
Possible outcome: No change to the powers of the mayor or the voting system. Despite STV delivering a majority mandate, the voting system is complicated and unlikely to be adopted by Government MPs on the select committee.
BOUNDARIES
Rodney and Franklin councils want to go it alone as unitary councils without a regional council. Given their strong ties to Auckland - albeit with a rural flavour - and a 50-year timeframe for the Super City reforms, it is a bold breakaway move.
Rodney, which accounts for 45 per cent of land in the Auckland area but only 7 per cent of the population, has the weaker case. It wants to retain its rural and coastal townships, but can go alone only if it keeps the rating base of suburban Orewa and Whangaparaoa.
Franklin is already divided between the Auckland Regional Council and Environment Waikato for regional purposes and determining the southern boundary is one of the trickiest issues facing the select committee. Franklin Mayor Mark Ball says a poll shows 85 per cent of residents do not want to join the Super City, but residents in the Waiuku-Awhitu and northern wards - with overwhelming support by farmers, according to Federated Farmers - want to be part of Auckland.
The royal commission said the Auckland Council "must" keepcontrol over the development ofrural land outside Auckland's urban boundary to ensure wider goals,such as the regional growth strategy and the regional transport plan.The balance was protecting the lifestyle and land use of rural areas.
Possible outcome: The best Rodney can hope for is to be carved up with the area north of Orewa going into Kaipara District Council and everything to the south and west coming under the Super City. There is more likelihood of Franklin staying together. The boundary in the bill, based on the water catchments for Manukau Harbour and Waikato River, could be moved north but will not move south. The select committee will also tidy up the southern boundary for two of Auckland's largest water dams and three regional parks to stay in Auckland rather than transfer to Waikato District Council.
MAORI SEATS
There are two Maori camps. The first supports the recommendations of the royal commission for two seats elected from the Maori roll and one mana whenua appointed by iwi. Urban Maori leaders, such as John Tamihere and Willie Jackson, are pushing the interests of their constituency under this model.
The second camp, led by Ngati Whatua and Tainui, want two mana whenua seats with the candidates chosen by an electoral college and elected via the Maori roll.
Among councils, the Auckland Regional Council has called for two Maori seats, Auckland City is opposed to Maori seats and other councils, such as North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Papakura, are sitting on the fence.
Few submitters objected to Maori seats. The Employers and Manufacturers (Northern) chief executive said the organisation supported three Maori seats on the Auckland Council.
Possible outcome: This is one for the ninth floor of the Beehive. If John Key wants a long-term relationship between National and the Maori Party, and he is putting a lot of effort into that, he will provide Maori seats. However, Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is understood to strongly oppose Maori seats and the issue is shaping up as a test of the Government's three-way party arrangement.
PM 'LISTENING' AS AUCKLANDERS SPEAK UP
"I want to reiterate that the Government approaches this process with an open mind. We are listening to Aucklanders."
- Prime Minister John Key
"An effective Maori voice at the table will strengthen the new Auckland Council."
- Irene Johnston, Pt Chevalier
"We feel dead scared of being swamped by Auckland."
- Werner Fischer, Puhoi
"There must be some elected-at-large councillors."
- Nick Kearney, Beach Haven
"Although I support the need for stronger regional governance, the greatest risk is that in doing so the local community identities are drowned in a mega city as grey as any other city of 1.5 million souls."
- Nicola North, Oratia
"The Auckland City Council continually fails to represent us or act in our interest."
- Shirin Brown, Waiheke Island
"Size does matter. The bigger the area and the larger the population, the easier it is for people to be invisible."
- Mike Cohen, Devonport
