Kenneth Palmer: Radical Super City blueprint bold, decisive and workable

Kenneth Palmer

Opinion

The Government's decisions on Auckland governance - "Making Auckland Greater" - are bold, decisive, and overall radical.

Finally we have a workable prescription for Auckland to speak with one voice and act boldly in the regional and national interest. The Government has moved swiftly on this issue, possibly inspired by the urgency of the global financial crisis. One can speculate whether the previous Government would have done likewise.

The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance released in March was itself radical in recommending a unitary Auckland Council. It wanted one long-term council community plan, one spatial plan, one district plan, one rating system, one rates bill, and one voice for Auckland. Those conclusions were compelling.

The report recommended six local councils, essentially preserving the identity of the present territorial authorities (less Papakura). Subject to the overriding powers of the Auckland Council to set rates and employ all staff, the local council functions could have replicated the present councils.

In maintaining significant checks and balances against the Auckland Council through their elected members, those six bodies could have made decision-making as problematic as it is now. The savings in administration costs were essentially confined to the abolition of most community boards.

Although innovative in promoting the Super City concept, the report's overall thrust was incremental, basically retaining the existing territorial governance level.

The Government's decision on Auckland Governance provide a far more radical blueprint. The Auckland Council, being a unitary authority, is to be the sole council for the area. It will comprise an elected mayor, and 20 councillors with 12 elected from wards and 8 at large. This electoral mix follows the Local Government Act 1977-1986, and is resonant of the MMP system.

The council will have complete legal powers in all respects, subject only to minor delegation to the proposed 20 to 30 local boards. The boards may make recommendations back to the Auckland Council on budgets, targeted rates and community needs and aspirations.

The proposed central tier of six local councils has been wholly emasculated. This is dramatic, ending the historic evolution of the competing councils originating in 1851. The unitary council structure could significantly affect employment and contractors, and result in a major reduction of the existing council-controlled organisations.

In the last reform in 1988, employment was protected by a two-year guarantee of continuity or a payout for that period. That law was repealed after those amalgamations were completed.

The establishment of the 20 to 30 local boards across the region will be finalised by the Local Government Commission. The structures, including the electoral wards and board areas, must be in place by the end of April 2010. This timeframe is manageable, similar to what was implemented throughout the country for the 1988 reforms.

On paper the possible 30 local boards may emulate many present community board locations. The Government sees this restructuring as providing appropriate community input.

Overall Auckland will be empowered to speak with one voice and able to think regionally, plan strategically, and act decisively.

One Auckland Council for the region will end chronic disagreements over location and funding of regional amenities, and the provision of necessary infrastructure. By eliminating the massive duplication of functions with eight rating authorities, seven district plans, a multitude of differing bylaws, the future will be fairer and more uniform for all residents of the greater region.

The voice of the communities will still be heard through the local board structures and ward members, striking an appropriate balance between unified representation and local democracy. The Auckland Council will have the power to establish particular committees and contract with other agencies for necessary services to promote community well-being.

The recommendations of the royal commission for a mandatory regional economic development agency, and a social issues board, have been set aside. Other initiatives are proposed. A waterfront development agency has been recognised as desirable to address the needs of the central city area.

The recommendation for three Maori seats put forward by the commission has been deleted. The Government considers that Maori representation can be better provided under existing options which may allow for a poll on introduction of Maori wards.

In any event, the Local Government Act 2002 requires all councils to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori in decision-making processes.

The Auckland Council could be expected to reconstitute standing committees and co-opt committee members to represent Maori.

The Government decisions on making Auckland greater usher in a new era of leadership. Both legally and practically all the recommendations can be implemented.

The status quo for many will be changed. The existing seven mayors, with a wealth of experience and local knowledge, could all be elected members of a visionary Auckland Council.

Calls have been made for a citizens' referendum or for time for further submissions. As was evident in 1988, this cannot happen if principled reform is to be achieved. The royal commission was clear on the need for carrying through the momentum.

The level of property rates may not diminish, but the level of increases for the future should be better managed.

The Government decisions are aspirational and compelling. As the Prime Minister states in the foreword, "the price of doing nothing is far too high, not just for Auckland, but for New Zealand".

Associate Professor Kenneth Palmer of the University of Auckland is a local government law specialist.