Submissions on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill are open until the 26th of June. This is the bill that will establish the structure of Auckland’s future Super-City. It decides whether or not there should be Maori seats, whether or not there should be ‘at-large’ councillors, what the powers of the local boards should be and how they should be structured. In short, it is an extremely important piece of legislation that will guide the future of local government in Auckland.
I am putting together a fairly lengthy submission on this, and I thought it would be useful for me to share what I’ve done so far. Most of what is below links back to previous thoughts that I’ve had on this Bill, but some things are new ideas. Hopefully this will both gives people ideas about what they might want to include in their own submissions, but also some feedback would be great so that I can make adjustments to what I’ve included. There will be a second part to this post once I complete my submission.
So here goes with Part One:
1. Introduction
My submission supports, in principle, the idea of a single council for the Auckland area. As the Royal Commission’s report on Auckland’s governance reported, the current local government situation in Auckland has many flaws which hold back Auckland’s development and the delivery of key community services. Better regional integration of governance, combined with better local democracy and engagement should be the aim of any reworking of local government structure within the Auckland region.
The fundamental concept proposed by the government in the Auckland Council Bill does have the potential to create a better future for Auckland. However, there are many critical flaws in the Bill that need to be fixed in order for the Bill to achieve it purpose.
My submission will work through the Bill clause by clause, stating where I support aspects of the Bill and why; and also stating where I do not support aspects of the Bill, and why. Where I do not support aspects of the Bill I will attempt to provide an alternative that is better, and to justify why my suggested alternative will provide a better outcome than what has been proposed by the government.
To start with, I will make some comments on the overall structure of what is proposed in the Bill, and also the process of the local government restructuring in Auckland that is taking place.
2. Overall Structure & Process
My submission to the Royal Commission sought the creation of two District Councils for Auckland – one for areas inside the metropolitan urban limits and one for areas outside the MUL – and the retention of the Regional Council. Whilst I accept that it is now too late for such a system to be created, there are some useful aspects of my proposal that should be kept in mind when analysing the current Bill.
Firstly, the issues facing rural parts of the Auckland region are very different to those facing the metropolitan area. The response of Rodney District and Franklin District to the proposition of them being incorporated into a single Council has been less than enthusiastic as they do see themselves as quite separate. In my opinion it would not necessarily be advantageous to split off the urban part of Rodney District from the Auckland Council – as Orewa, Silverdale and the Whangaparaoa Peninsula are very much a part of Auckland. However, there may be some merit in the rural parts of Franklin District and Rodney District merging into adjacent District Councils and Regional Councils if that is what the people of those areas wish for.
I am also concerned that the removal of the Auckland Regional Council will result in long-term adverse effects for Auckland. The ARC has played a critical role in guiding Auckland towards a more sustainable development path over the last 20 years – through the Regional Growth Strategy, the imposition of the urban limits and by funding public transport. The ARC also plays an important “environmental advocacy” role when making submissions on District Plans, District Plan Changes and resource consents throughout the region. It is a great worry as to who will pick up this work once the ARC no longer exists, as there will be no overarching regional body to provide checks or balances on the planning undertaken by the Auckland Council.
The way in which the reorganisation of Auckland’s local government has been rushed through since the release of the Royal Commission’s report is of great concern to me. There have been significant changes to what was proposed by the Royal Commission, in particular the level of power and size proposed to be given to the second-tier of local government. A lot of time and effort went into the Royal Commission’s recommendations and they should not be left aside so quickly.
3. Part 1 – Preliminary Provisions
I generally do not have any concerns with Part 1 of the Bill, as it is largely about technical details.
4. Section 8 – Governing body of Auckland Council
Comment:
I consider that this section of the Bill is critically flawed. Having eight members of the Auckland Council elected at large is not a politically fair move, as it will favour candidates who have a lot of financial backing (the often stated example of it costing $250,000 to merely pay for postage sending a letter to all the households in the Auckland Region). I believe that this will lead to a political bias among the eight at large councillors and will not fairly represent the viewpoints of Aucklanders.
Furthermore, I also believe that having eight at-large councillors to elect will be very confusing for voters – as it is likely there will be a great long list of candidates. Choosing eight people from a list of potentially 40 to 50 is not a very rigorous way of ensuring that people actually make an informed choice. I know that in existing local government elections one can be overwhelmed by the choices available and eventually get tired of reading through all the information – and just start ticking boxes randomly. Minimising the number of decisions that voters have to make is surely the most rigorous system – with national elections only requiring two ticks.
I also consider that 20 councillors is not a sufficient number to represent the whole of Auckland. Auckland has more than 20 members of parliament, so having one’s electorate MP representing fewer people than one’s local councillor seems truly bizarre.
It also seems bizarre to have ward boundaries that do not match with the boundaries of the local boards. Having different boundaries for wards, local boards and electorates would completely undermine any sense of creating an obvious local community and also cause great confusion amongst residents. Ward boundaries should match local board boundaries, and these should also match up with electorate boundaries, as close as is possible given that some electorates would extend into adjacent regions.
Maori seats should also be provided, to ensure that the Auckland Council is in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The number of councillors representing Maori should be in accordance with the number of people registered on the Maori electoral role.
Suggested Alterations:
1) All councillors should be elected from wards
2) Ward boundaries, and the number of wards, should match with the boundaries of local boards and the number of local boards.
3) The boundaries for wards and local boards should match, as near as practicable, the boundaries of electorates.
4) Maori seats on the council should be provided for in accordance with the number of registered voters on the Maori electoral role.
5. Section 10 – Local Boards
Comment:
This section outlines the purpose and role of the local boards, but appears to define them as being little more than elected lobby groups.
Enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities within the local board area – as outlined in Section 10(1)(a) is a worthy purpose, however there is nothing in either this Section of the bill or in other sections that appears to actually make it possible for the local boards to fulfil this purpose. Sections 10(1)(b) and 10(1)(c) detail how the local boards should act as lobby groups to the main Auckland Council, which in my opinion is inadequate for keeping the ‘local’ in local government.
In terms of the role of the local boards, Sections 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(b) are clearly no more than saying that local boards should be lobby groups. Regarding Section 10(2)(c), I will address Section 13 of the Bill separately.
In my opinion local boards should play a significant role in local government. While there are advantages in having regional consistency for some things – like planning and transport – for many other local government activities there are large advantages in the provision of services at the most local level possible. Local boards should be far more than just lobby groups who are only allowed to do what the central Auckland Council allows them to do, they should have real power to provide services such as rubbish collection, footpath upgrades, parks maintenance and so forth.
While it would not necessarily be advantageous for the local boards to be standalone councils themselves, in my opinion a council service should be provided by the local board unless there is a good reason for it to be provided by the centralised Auckland Council. This is the opposite to the proposed assumption where a service is to be provided by the Auckland Council unless there is a good reason for that council to delegate it to the local board.
Planning, at least in terms of having a single District Plan, should be centralised in the Auckland Council – although in terms of policy development it would be advantageous for the Auckland Council to be guided by the local boards when making decisions on plan changes and the development of the single District Plan. Similarly for transport, the decision-making should be consistent and integrated across the region, but decisions for local roads and local improvements to public transport should reflect the priorities of the local boards. This ‘reflecting of priorities’ needs to go beyond simply ‘lobbying’ the Auckland Council.
Suggested Alterations:
1) There should be an assumption that a council service be provided by the local board unless there is good reason for it to be provided by the Auckland Council, rather than the reverse assumption in the current legislation.
2) The services to be provided by the local boards should be enshrined in this legislation, and not simply what the Auckland Council delegates to the local boards.
3) The plans and policies of the Auckland Council should be required to give effect to the priorities of the local boards for their areas.
4) Local boards should have dedicated staff and facilities to ensure they are able to carry out their functions.
More to come in the next day or so!
Processing...