KEY POINTS:
Demands for an Auckland supercity are back on the agenda after an MP called for the region's eight councils to be amalgamated into one led by a single mayor.
Act leader Rodney Hide said the current system of four city councils, three district councils and a regional council has become a recipe for paralysis.
His call comes after Auckland City mayor Dick Hubbard backed the idea.
Here is the latest selection of Your Views:
Toa Greening (Manukau)
I am on one of the Manukau Community Boards and discussed this issue quite widely. For the last ten months the ARC, Central and Local Government have been developing plans to strengthen regional governance in Auckland. One of the key issues throughout the process was that public were denied input into the plan. Another major issue was that the Super City Concept was excluded from the scope of work. Therefore it was with great disappointment to find out that our Council unanimously supported the report at its May meeting. The report outlines massive changes such as the creation of a Greater Auckland Council (GAC) with new elected representation, a new committee for sustainable development, creation of "One Plan", inter funding agreements, changes to transport and water legislation and finally shared services agreements. A massive amount of work went into creating these plans but no work was done on performing a GAP analysis of what was wrong with the current setup ,there was no cost/benefits analysis of the new models and of course public submissions were denied. In frustration I ended up making a submission to the annual LTTCP to have my opposition recorded. It is still unbelievable that such a massive change to the Auckland Regional Governance could be permitted without proper public consultation at the beginning. I guess in the future we will see the benefits of strengthening regional governance reflected by massive increases in our GAC (ex-ARC) rates.
Owen McShane (Kaiwaka)
I can never understand why New Zealanders love the idea of large local authorities so much. If big is so much better why not abandon local governemnt and let central government rule everything.The best council I ever had was Newmarket when Newmarket was a tiny borough. You could meet the mayor in the street, go inside to chat to the buiding inspector over coffee and get a building consent issued on the site. There are economies of scale with provision of infrastucture but there are no economies of scale in democracy. The most efficient councils in NZ (in terms of rates per head) are about 20,000 to 70,000. Below that the costs per head are too high. Above that they dream of sister cities. The French have a Mayor and council for every few hundred people but five massive companies run all their water and sewage - on competitive franchise system. My own council, Kaipara, is too big in area. If I became a councillor I would spend half my life in a car driving to and from Dargaville. The best governed districts in Auckland are the smallest ones. We confuse the management of infrastructure such as roading with democracy. If Auckland becomes a super city it will the last in a string of super mistakes.
Sweetpea, North Shore
Remember last time they did that back in the late 1980s and mashed 27(?)councils into 8 on the grounds that it would be more efficient and reduce costs? Did the costs reduce? I don't think so. Mashing the Auckland region into one local body would have the same effect. No doubt North Shore residents would end up helping to pay for fixing Auckland's stuffed stormwater and sewage system after already paying for fixing our own. Give the ARC more power and responsiblity if you wish but leave the rest of our councils alone.
Mark
Supercity? No thanks. What will happen is that the smaller constituencies will be asset-stripped. Can anyone really say with a straight face that Manurewa is getting a fair deal from Manukau City Council? When Cambridge Council was swallowed into Waipa, it was interesting to watch the town at that time going 'downhill' while its larger neighbour Te Awamutu (where the council offices are) was having a makeover. The larger the entity the less accountable it can be. People in places like Papakura know this, which is why we do not want a super-council foisted upon us. If anything, councils should be more numerous and smaller with more localised representation. This whole argument is but a contest between efficiency and democracy, the latter being by nature inefficient when done properly.
Mama Mia (Auckland)
When Hubbard and his gang can't even handle Auckland City as a city should be handled may heaven forbid he gets jurisdiction over yet more of greater Auckland. The more councils the better. Because they can't all be fools, can they?
Adam
Auckland supercity is a good idea only if we can get the leadership that a great city like this deserves.
Mary Jones
One council. No thanks I dont want to end up paying for my water like Auckland City.I am happy to be part of North Shore with our council. One council will do whats best for Auckland City not the other cities. North Shore looks out for North Shore. I am sick of paying for things in Auckland that I dont use but as a ratepayer I have to pay for. Water will become a commodity and user pays will be brought in. Auckland is a big area but not a super city. Auckland city and surrounding areas. I live on the North Shore and I like it that way. No to one council there will be far too much power given to a small number of people. Better to spread it round and for people who are elected in my area that way I can at least vote for those I want. No why change to suit some politicians who at best dont listen to the voters and certainly wont be listen to ratepayers. Too much power... Too much money.... Leave things the way they are.
North Shorite
It's about time Auckland got real. We do not need all these councils. Each council has different rules and regulations for things such as building etc. We are all Aucklanders. We only need one council and one set of regulations. Let's get rid of some of the idiots that are working for all these councils, after all, most of them are useless jobsworths anyway - all care and no responsibility. Let's have one council and get the best people for the job. Hopefully we could employ people who would not forget who actually pays their wages. Us ratepayers should get more say in this.
Isaac (Onehunga)
Yes, all of Auckland's local councils should be merged into one so that there is one local council (Auckland City Council) and one regional council (ARC). This would enable Auckland to move forward as one and more efficiently, and have one united voice to communicate with central government in Wellington.
Deano living in London, Why go home
I am a 36 year old kiwi and have been living in London for 9 months on a working holiday. There is just one mayor in London and things here are moving along very happily things get done and there is always to many things happening ever week wnr weekend it is hard to choose what to go and take part in. the public transport is getting major upgrades and thing happen a lot faster that the new Onehunga Pt Chev motorway that is for sure. And as for Auckland why do we need 4 or 5 lots of paper pushers to do the same jobs that one council could do. the other great cities in the world can so why can't Auckland?
Waitakere
Absolutely terrible idea. You only need look at the temperaments and visions of the four central cities to understand there is no way they could be governed by one lot of people. Waitakere is the "green city" while Auckland seems determined to crush every inch of green for more apartments and stone pathways, North Shore would likely run bus lanes over the Waitakeres, and noone's entirely sure what Counties-Manakau would do but I can only imagine noone would like it. Just look at the people as well - there is no way any Auckland mayor would ever be able to adequately represent any of the other three cities. And to top it all off, any thought of amalgamating anything in an area with historical influence, and a track record of corruption is just stupid. We'd see Auckland granting resource consents to crush the Waitakere Ranges into sawdust in minutes. No thanks Rodney, you can keep Auckland.
Wellynian
As soon as this idea gets floated, thousands of people seem to jump on the bandwagon. In reality, rather than thinking Auckland - it should be thought, New Zealand. The population base in this country is far too small to have a lord mayor elect. All this talk about other cities and Brisbane etc, having lord mayors overlook a multitude of reasons behind these. I would rather stick with the current set up for mayors for each city, but expand the ARC powers, and to include at least 5 people from each district within the ARC councillors. This can be given a new name or similar. All funding to the ARC and because it's governed by people from various mayoral districts, all who have knowledge of their areas should be able to drum up a supporting business case for why that area should get that amount of funding. Goes to vote from the other councillors and we move on.
Paul H
A great idea that should provide economies of scale resulting better quality service and value for ratepayers. We would need a professional and high performing mayoral team running it though.
PCb (Auckland)
So long as the incumbent mayors and officials don't manage to build yet another layer of self interest and manage to keep a highly paid job simply because of their previous position in an extinct city. It's only a good idea if there are real savings and no dead wood
Northshoreite
Be afraid, be very afraid of a super city! The ARC could not organise itself out of a paper bag, what do you think a super-council would do! Imagine the years of chaos that would result amalgamating the building & planning areas of councils, for example. Rates for those not in Auckland City would rise, and who can afford their water bills! One positive thing to look forward to though, is using the Auckland City library for free!
Chieftain
Supercity? What's this "supercity" crap anyway? All of Auckland is smaller than metropolitan Chicago or greater London or even greater Vancouver. Supercity? Go on! What a load of crap! Tokyo is a Supercity. We could never in our wildest dreams aspire to being like Tokyo. Or Los Angeles. Or New York. Or Paris. Or Moscow. Or Beijing. *Those* are Supercities. There should be one mayor and no more than 12 councillors to run Auckland. And no more than 600 direct employees. Auckland should encompass all of the Rodney District, right the way south to Franklin and Thames-Coromandel. What a joke, that we have so many mayors! We don't even have an aggregate population of 2 million souls, yet we have umpteen mayors and umpteen local government bodies and many thousands of local government bureaucrats running our show? No wonder our rates are so high. Go on! Get serious! Not even the Americans are so wasteful.
Johnny Mac (Auckland)
At the end of the day we're (Auckland) is just a large village. If Brisbane can do it so can we, get rid of these bureaucrats and just have one chief!
Auckland City
This is a bad idea. City councils are supposed to make local decisions which suit the people in the area, not to be another central government. I think that we need to simplify the council structure (no need for Rodney District Council + ARC + ...) but we do not want to make it a second central government. Rodney Hide's proposal would create two central governments.
JR
Of course it should. And so should Wellington. Perhaps then central Government might also take the hint and amalgamate some of its hundreds of state departments, agencies, commissions, etc - thereby reducing the ever increasing number of state employees being funded by the decreasing number of genuine revenue earning companies. Sadly though it won't happen under a Labour watch because captive employees are far too important on election day.
Titirangi
This has got to be done and now! Not the usual snails pace as Rodney hide puts it. In fact that's the best thing I have heard him say for a while. The rest of the country sees us as Auckland and tourists see us as Auckland. The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) should be given more powers and the local councils have less power. Transparency of decisions should be improved by the regional council. More accountability by the ARC should be insisted upon the local councils to ensure the ratepayers money is being spent effectively and efficiently, I don't think we are getting that now. The only problem with a super city scenario is that over a million people will be railroaded rather than a couple of hundred thousand in the current system of local councils.
MS
Although Rodney Hide talks bollocks most times, this time he is absolutely on the mark. The problem with Auckland is there is too many bureaucrats - one mayor might have a progressive attitude and aim, but there will be 2 who will be opposed to the idea. Look what happened when building the stadium at the waterfront was floated. The upside will be that money currently paid to people who deserve the least respect and empathy will go towards a majority of people selecting a mayor who has the intentions of Auckland at heart. Yes, I agree that neither Barry Curtis and Hubbard should be elected as mayor of the super city. How did Barry Curtis get knighted? Must have been those dinner parties with MPs?
Geoff
Despite a beautiful setting, Auckland is so much less than it could be. The splintered leadership associated with multiple councils and trusts running disperate aspects of Auckland, does not provide a unified vision, and perhaps more importantly does not provide easily identifiable responsibility. At the moment its hard to know who to blame or who to vote for - a single more accountable governing structure would provide Aucklanders with a greater say over how their city is run.
Arvin Kumar
A great idea. Just think of the cost savings in administrative costs one mayor, ceo, secretary it will be in millions and maybe some of it will come back as reduced rates. The thought of a mayor standing for direct election by the people is also very tempting. But would the present mayors and councillors be willing to give up their perks.
Trev
Totally agree and the sooner the better. Auckland has been NZ's supercity by default. Now let's make it a reality.
Paul
Yes, I agree with a supercity - but this only should join the four main cities of Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau and North Shore. I'm not convinced that Rodney, Papakura and Franklin should be apart of this as they are overwhelming rural - and their needs are very different to the urban areas. If these areas were part of the supe city, you can bet your last dollar that within 50 years Auckland will have spread from over the Bombay's to Wellsford (and still no public transport!). To cater for these area, Northland and Waikato Regional Councils could be extended to look after the rural issues, eliminating the need for the ARC. Unfortunately, I agree, it's just a little too logical to see that happen in reality. And, while I'm here, to show how stupid the current local government boundaries are, why are Great Barrier Island and the rest of the Gulf Islands part of Auckland city? Whoever thought this made good sense, simply had no idea about rural/urban context, symptomatic of NZ planning quality in general, really.
Ron (Torbay)
Of course we should be governed as a "supercity". At present we have an over-abundance of local politicians, bureaucrats and consultants. The only city in the world with an "Octet of Kremlins". In fact, the whole country is over-governed. Our 120 MPs (per 4-million population) are under-worked, per capita, compared with the heavy work-load of UK's 635 MPs (per 60-million population). Lots of scope for heads-to-roll, both locally and nationally!
PD
I agree with Westward.
Derek
Yes. One city, one council. But who do you get the monster to cut itself up? Could we have a minister of "local councils" to lead the charge?
Harry L (Waitakere City)
Here's my fear. Currently out west we are under the mayoralty of Bob Harvey, who - with a succession of councillors - has quietly been getting on with trying to improve the severely lacking infrastructure out here. He has been in the role for, I don't know 16 years or so, and knows the community and issues very well. The same is also true in Manukau City under Sir Barry. Auckland City meanwhile has a succession of under-achieving, one-term populists whom the electorate seemingly votes for on a whim because they recognise their name and "want change". I would truly fear for such a supercity under the leadership of such a person, someone who has little idea of the major issues we are trying to tackle out here. I can imagine the Waitakere foothills being carved up for subdivisions for a start.
James
It's crazy that we have so many councils for what really is (in international terms) a tiny city. Imagine if the hundreds of cities in China of the same size had eight councils each. If New York and London can do it successfully, why can't little old Auckland?
Rosina
I tire of hearing of Auckland's woes and problems. It is crowded and unpleasant, filled with people who choose to live there. If you asked the average JAFFA how they felt about Eketahuna, Te Puke, Taumarunui for instance, they wouldnt give a toss so similarly, I don't care what Auckland does, so long as I don't have to pay.
Alan Wilkinson
The bigger the organisation, the greater the waste. All of these fallacious efficiency arguments for amalgamation were trotted out in 1989 when the small councils were amalgamated. What happened? Rates, service charges and council debt all rose substantially. Absolutely nothing was done to improve transport and other infrastructure. Small councils such as Devonport Borough which were claimed to be on the brink of horrendous costs for sewage system replacements turned out to be the least affected when the pigeons came home to roost. The devastating costs were elsewhere and mostly in the biggest former councils. So it will be again. Bigger electorates mean empty political posturing to voters who don't know the candidates with inevitable unaccountability and gross waste to follow.
Trev
Totally agree and the sooner the better. Auckland has been NZ's supercity by default, now let's make it a reality.
Dick (Waiheke Island)
Without exception; 'Diminishment of bureaucracy' is advanced as the primary reason to amalgamate Local Authority assets! Oxymoronic reasoning is, "Larger asset governance produces greater economy of scale" which has not worked for ACC ratepayers, in reality. Larger "local authority" merely permits 'leadership corruption' on a greater scale than ever before! Auckland ratepayers must resist "Supercity" concepts until 'Fuller accountability' for 'economic outcome' is absolutely guaranteed? Too late, after the event. There are far too many 'bureaucratic' dictatorships in NZ currently, to risk our 'public assets' to!
Michael Paterson (UK)
Ex-Aucklander over here in the UK. What a great idea one city. Dealing with the one authority will reduce the level of government and savings can be introduced into projects city-wide. In the 70s-80s the dream of Auckland as the city it is today has lived up to those great standards. The world can only look on and dream of better things.
Matt J Ex-pat Aucklander (UK)
I could never see the value or justification of having separate and at times quite parochial city councils managing a population of just over 1 million citizens between them. It seems to be a wider Kiwi problem, not just a problem for Auckland. We end up making a nonsense of valid issues in our country due to parochial infighting. The separate city councils operating on Auckland's tiny isthmus have in the past often squandered or totally mismanaged opportunities to improve the greater region due to petty regional points scoring. This small mindedness means that things, such as public transport or building state of the art new stadiums, take years to be decided or just don't happen at all. In the end it's your average Aucklander who misses out. A Greater Regional Auckland City Council with answerable local authorities is a better more effective way forward.
A Titirangi opinion
The Auckland region as whole is too large and complex to rely upon one central council to govern the whole area. However two councils, one north and one south of the bridge could well handle the complexities of the regions whilst ensuring the interests of each are safeguarded. The question of whether to eliminate some of the existing councils is, without question, a no-brainer. Eight councils is just rank stupidity and a waste of money - ratepayers money.
Monty (Whangarei)
Something needs to be done to sort out Auckland's problems. Too many councils and council officials. Maybe not a single unitary council, but some amalgamations makes real sense. Another option would be to put in a Unitary Council, but for it to operate more like the old provincial parliaments did. This would mean that all electors in the Auckland Region could vote for their representatives as well as for a mayor.
Concerned Westie
No there should not be a supercity. Too much decentralisation of power is not desirable. Will lead to less representation of the people. Just makes it easier to privatise services and resources. More monument building and less essential services. We already have too much of that.
Peter
Absolutely one city is enough! Auckland is a small city by international standards. Most of the world's true "supercities" are managed by one council and one mayor, so why on earth do we need eight? It just doesn't make sense. Streamline the decisions, improve the overall focus and planning, save on overheads, the list goes on. Let's make it happen.
Jeff H (Mission Bay)
If the level of vindictiveness on some issues towards Auckland City residents is maintained, particularly those negatively affecting lifestyle and environment, such as more motorways, the idea will find little support on the isthmus. We already have a super city thanks Rodney. Many writers seem blind to the incredible amount of public work already happening in road construction, railway stations, electrification, double tracking, cycleways, parks, stadiums, urban renewal, down to footpath repairs and bus shelters. Mike Lee and Dick Hubbard don't have easy jobs catering to diverse interests, but both should be congratulated for their achievements in making Auckland a more liveable 21st century city. Dick Hubbard may one day be remembered as one of the great Auckland mayors with a statue alongside Robbie (not Rodney).
Adam
Auckland is one city.
One mayor for one city -just think of the saving in wages.New York has one city / one mayor & they are much bigger than little old Auckland.
Mark
I think we have all had bad experiences and totally varying experiences in dealing with different councils, Aucklanders in general seem to despise the ARC and the white elephants they have been responsible for in the past. Of course it would be sensible to operate on a grander uniform operational basis with massively diminished cost to the ratepayers and the experienced key councilors and key functions for each area respected and maintained to a smaller degree.Best practice does not only apply to business!
Barry
Yes, Auckland have the potential to be a supercity. The problem is there are too many councils whose objectives are diverse with too many missions and visions. These red tape Aucklanders are experiencing have caused us hardship in terms of increased rates, water bills and poor service!! These just got to stop. Have one Council and streamline its objectives and we will see rates going down considering the savings Aucklanders will have. More investment will flow to the city and that's where Auckland will start to be a supercity.
Westward
Good plan and we can not have Dick Hubbard or Barry Curtis as mayor of the 'super city'.
Robbie
Of course there should only be one city, Look at what we would save on, councillors salaries for a starter, dead wood would be culled, The ARC gone, thank God. Less BS and more work one manager the list goes on.It could only be good for New Zealander but while we are about it lets get rid of MMP as well and make the North Shore the Capital.
Why Not
The simplification of fees structures for a whole host of council permits is tempting. The thought of a unanimous view of structural changes to roads and transport issues across the isthmus is also extremely tempting. The drawback is the assumption that big is necessarily better. There will be a loss of personal knowledge of people and their concerns and the possibility that ratepayers will only be pawns rather than movers and shakers of council policy. Why not declare Auckland the seat of central government and let all of the back water be looked after by their own provincial and borough councils? Less distance for Helen to travel then and since most of NZ lives in greater Auckland it seem silly to indulge in more diversification.
Dennis
Absolutely agree with Rodney, but it would hardly be ranked a "super city". Cull the bureaucracy and get rid of the dead wood that sucks ratepayers dry and yet offer no service or solutions in return.
litehaus
Yes there should be a supercity created with one mayor and one council who can be held accountable for the development of the Auckland region.This would allow the cost of running the city to spread over the whole community. Planning costs, and requirements, at least could be standardized. Time and again you see any progress to solving the Auckland's problems stopped by bickering Councilors, Mayors, and City managers. Often just because they can, or are piqued that no one has consulted them. Get over it and get on with the job today, and give us the best value for the money you demand off us.
Chris (Green Bay)
Establishing an Auckland supercity mayoralty and overarching infrastructure support body is way overdue. I can't understand why it wasn't done when the first round of amalgamations took place. It makes absolutely no sense to persist with several civic bodies all with overlapping responsibilities and boundaries - not to mention the duplication of staff and resultant expense to the occupants of the 8 local council areas in greater Auckland.
Bruce
There should be. Auckland is not such a big city to have so many councils. There should also be amalgamations in Wellington as well. In fact I'm convinced that Provincial governments ought to be bought back to provide strategic and tactical solutions on a wider scale for regional areas in place of councils. Wards would centre on specific towns and suburbs to ensure their needs are highlighted and advanced. Getting this country moving again demands more integrated infrastructure projects and facilities are delivered in more efficiently and effectively than they are currently. It's no coincidence that many public works have not been delivered in our largest metropolitan areas all of which are teeming with councils and associated power plays; whether roads, interchanges, stadiums, the list goes on.....
Aucklander
There is no need to re invent the wheel - all cities of Aucklands size around the world use the one mayor system and it works well to move those cities ahead both economically and socially. We need to have one mayor with a vision for Auckland shared by all - not the hotch potch of self interest orientated bureaucracy we currently deal with. It's time we Aucklanders banded together for the governance we deserve not the governance we are lumbered with....good on you Mr Hyde.
Simon
Rowdy Roddy is dead on. Auckland should no longer be crippled by its multitude of bureaucracies and anal-retentive, pedantic councillors with small-city visions. Maybe then we could have decent sports stadiums, an eastern corridor, a second harbour crossing, a V8 Race, and a public transport system.
Kim Hutcheson (Sydney)
Yes of course there should be a supercity, that will pav
