Sham democracy' criticised

Tony Mayow tells Auckland councillors the Government has ‘changed a system that is not broken’. Photo / Richard Robinson

Disgruntled community groups met last night to express their concern that a single Auckland super council would leave grassroots organisations out in the cold.

Community Waitakere, which represents community groups in the area, told a meeting of councillors from across the Auckland region that the Government's "take it or leave it attitude" was "incredibly arrogant".

Chairman Tony Mayow criticised the lack of consultation with community boards on the restructured council, which proposed 20 or 30 local boards to address grassroots democracy.

"What they are proposing is a sham democracy. We were devastated to be told that the consultation had already taken place.

"In two days the Government overturned a decision which took a year, millions of dollars and 3500 submissions to make.

"We have not had a voice on the new system, which has abolished key initiatives with the stroke of a pen."

The initiative he was most concerned about was the rejected social issues board, which would have planned the use of $12 billion of tax spending in Auckland. Mr Mayow said the Government had "changed a system which was not broken".

"We were working incredibly well. At the moment a community group can go to your local council and ask for assistance, for funding, or to make decisions. But nothing in the new system shows us that we will have this voice."

The councillors gathered from all seven territories echoed Community Waitakere's concerns.

Councillor Brenda Brady summarised the marginalisation of community boards under the new system: "The mouse will roar but the lion will turn their back - or eat them."

Those gathered felt the Government needed to increase its dialogue with the councils. They were also struck by the speed of the Government's decision-making.

Waitakere Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said the consensus of the meeting was that the Government's decision had "struck at the very heart of local democracy".

They wanted a Government assurance that whatever system was created for community boards needed to be adequately funded and empowered.