The details of the government’s decision to press ahead with a Super-City for Auckland are starting to emerge. It will be done in three separate Acts of Parliament.The first one, which is currently going through parliament under urgency (which means no public consultation) sets up the Auckland Council as a legal entity and also sets a date (November 1 next year) when the existing eight councils in Auckland will be dis-established. This first Act, once passed, will also establish a Transition Board to guide the restructuring of local government in Auckland over the next 18 months – so that once we do have elections in October next year we’ll actually have a functioning council structure beneath the politicians. Obviously that is important work.
I do have some issues with this first bill though. To start with, passing significant legislation under urgency is quite an anti-democratic step. The first bill may not seem like much – in that it doesn’t set out the structure of the future Auckland Council, what it will have power over and what the local boards will have power over – but what it does do is predicate that we will end up with a single Auckland Council and that the existing local bodies will be dissolved in November next year. Now, as I have said before I am a fan of a Super City, but with this approach it seems like we’re putting the cart before the horse – deciding the outcome of the more detailed bills to come before we’ve actually gone through the process of finalising what they’ll look like. What if public submissions on the details of a Super-City point out its flaws so well that we need to reconsider whether to establish one at all? The problem is that by then it will be too late to do so. The other issue I have is the enormous power the Transition Board is going to have, and also their lack of oversight. Any council spending of more than $20,000 will need their sign off, yet this super-powerful board will be pretty much accountable to nobody. What if they are of a political bent to not want councils to do anything much at all for the next 18 months?
Anyway, annoying as it is that the first stage of Auckland’s local government reorganisation is proceeding with these flaws, what is done is done. Therefore, in some respects we should focus on the second bill, which will define the structure of the council and also the local boards. This is where my biggest two issues are:
- I do not think there should be any ‘at large’ councillors. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, it will cause confusion for people voting in local government elections as one will need to choose eight people out of a list of potentially 40 or 50. Already when it comes to local elections (especially for community boards and District Health Boards) some of the voting can take on an “eeney meeney miney mo” appearance. Having to choose eight people while reading through 40 or 50 different candidates and their blurbs seems insane and will put people off voting in local body elections even more, or worse make them just vote randomly. Secondly, as ‘at large’ councillors will have to spend an awfully large amount of money to campaign to their entire electorate (the whole of Auckland) only those who are rich will get their message across – this will lead to an imbalance towards richer politicians and inevitably to the right-wing of politics.
- I think that the local boards need real power. Whilst infighting between councils is one of the main reasons having a Super City would be a good idea, it is worrying to see that these local boards appear to have little – if any – actual statutory power. It appears as though they will have their powers set by the Auckland Council and be not much more than a lobby group.
It will be important for people to understand what this bill means for Auckland, and to look at ways in which it could be amended for the Super City to be done better. Over the next few weeks I will be putting together my submission on this bill and I will share my thoughts on ways I think it can be improved. The third bill will involve more detail about how the Super City will operate (rather than how it’s structured). Importantly, it will include information about the Regional Transport Authority.
Suggestions are most welcome about ways in which you think the Super City bill could be improved.
Processing...
If I might comment as a Wellingtonian, as we might get some of this inflicted on us next..
I think the council should have rather more councillors. At national level, Auckland accounts for maybe 50 electorate and list MPs, so 50 councillors would not be too large a number. The cost of paying and supporting councillors is negligible in terms of overall budgets.
There should be a fair voting system for the council. Either MMP (with 25 list and 25 electorate councillors), or some sort of adjusted area list system.
Having elected a council fairly, they should elect a mayor, or leader, ensuring that (just as in national politics) the leadership had the support of members representing a majority of Aucklanders. Electing a “Lord Mayor” by FPP is frankly, a gerrymander that ensures that a candidate with the money and profile to start a media bandwagon will win.
I could go into a lot more detail on community councils, but I would consider briefly that:
– they should have control of their own funding, including both the level and type of taxation
– local and city council should be able to choose to fund themselves by a mixture of rates, business rates, local income tax, development land tax and tourist tax as they see fit.
– there should be an adjustment measure to balance revenues between richer and poorer communities
– community councils should have a charter setting out the services they provide, and this should be open to amendment by referendum
– the areas of community councils should equally be set by referendum with areas able to detach and attach themselves (e.g. Waiheke Island)
Thanks for the comments Rich, certainly some interesting thoughts there. In particular I think it is important for councils to have greater flexibility in the way they raise money – as rates can be quite unfair on asset rich, income poor people (generally elderly). A share of local income tax, or local GST, could be alternatives.