Super City Submission – part two

Well I have finally got around to finishing my submission on the Super City legislation. I posted part one of my submission a while back, and here’s the rest of it:

Section 11 – Status of Local Boards

Comment:

This section of the proposed Bill highlights the complete lack of power that the local boards are proposed to have. With such a large over-arching ‘Super-City’ council, I consider it essential that the local boards have a level of power that sits somewhere between that of current Community Boards and City/District Councils. However, the legislation – by stating that a local board is not (even) a Community Board – clearly views the local boards as having little, if any, role to play in Auckland’s local government. In my opinion this is unacceptable and needs to be altered.

Section 11(3) further removes any power from the local boards, as they will be unable to employ staff or have permanent facilities in which to operate. This further confines them to the status of “lobby group”.
Much of what I have outlined in response to Section 10 of the proposed Bill is also valid with regards to Section 11, in that I believe it is crucial the local boards are given greater powers to provide local services and to influence the decision making process of the Auckland Council.

Suggested Alterations:

1) Local boards should not simply be unincorporated bodies with no legal standing. They should have a level of power that sits between current Community Boards and City/District Councils and this could be reflected in their legal standing. An update to the Local Government Act to reflect their standing is likely to be necessary.
2) The local boards should be allowed (and encouraged) to own property and appoint staff. This is the only way that these local boards will have the ability to effectively carry out their functions and to develop priorities for their area that the Auckland Council should be required to give effect to.

Section 12 – Membership of Local Boards

Comment:

The only comment that I have with regards to this section of the Bill is that it should reflect the alterations to Section 8 that I have suggested above. In particular, the local board boundaries should be matched with council ward boundaries. Therefore, in my opinion, the councillor representing the area of the local board should be considered a member of the local board too. This would encourage better integration between the local boards and the Auckland Council, and help ensure the Auckland Council gives effect to the priorities of the local boards for their respective areas.

Suggested Alterations:

1) The councillor representing the area of the local board should be considered a member of that local board too.

Section 13 – Functions, Duties and Powers of Local Boards

Comment:

Like Sections 10 and 11 of the Bill, this section outlines how powerless the local boards are. All parts of Section 13(1) merely outline that the local boards should be a lobby group to the Auckland Council on behalf of their area – and not an effective part of the local government structure delivering services to local communities or having any power to make decisions that affect their local communities.

It is essential that the local boards have powers that are enshrined in this legislation, and also that they have the capability to carry out those powers. This means that they must be able to employ staff and own property where those staff will be located.

There are some obvious council services that should be provided by the local boards, rather than by the Auckland Council. These include footpath upgrades, parks management, rubbish collection and specific local projects such as the development of new swimming pools or libraries. Local boards should also have the ability to apply a targeted rate to their area to fund projects that have not been prioritised by the Auckland Council.

It must be emphasised that the local boards will require the resources and staff to effectively undertake these services. Local boards should therefore be able to set their own budgets within a funding cap agreed upon with the Auckland Council.

Suggested alterations:

1) Local boards must have their functions, duties and powers clearly outlined in the legislation, and not just at the whim of what the Auckland Council delegates to them.
2) Local boards should have the ability to apply a targeted rate for a local project.
3) Local boards should be able to set their own budgets, within a funding cap agreed upon with the Auckland Council.

Section 15 – Delegations

Comment:

This section outlines what can and cannot be delegated from the Auckland Council to the local boards. As outlined in previous parts to my submission in my opinion council services and functions should be undertaken at the local level unless there is a good reason to undertake them at the regional level. This is the opposite assumption to what is outlined in the legislation.

I do consider that it is critical for Auckland to have strong local communities and to have local boards that actually have power and resources representing the local communities. The problem with this section of the bill is that it only talks about what the Auckland Council cannot delegate, and does not make any mention of what it must delegate to the local boards. This is one of the main justifications for calling the local boards, as they are outlined in this Bill, powerless.

Sections of this bill also outline how local boards are able to subcontract out all their responsibilities, thereby making it even more likely that the boards may become non-entities. This further erodes their power.

Suggested alterations:

1) There should be an assumption that services are carried out by the local board, unless there is good reason for the Auckland Council to carry out the service.
2) Services that the Auckland Council must delegate to the local boards should be outlined.
3) There should be some restrictions on what the local boards can subcontract.

Section 17 – Expenses of Local Boards

Comment:

In my opinion, this section should be altered to allow local boards to apply a targeted rate to their area that would fund a local project that the local board considers to be a priority, but which has not been prioritised by the Auckland Council.

I also consider that the local boards should be left to decide, to as great an extent as is practicable, how they spend the money allocated to them by the Auckland Council. This should be outlined in this section of the legislation.

Suggested Alterations:
1) Local boards should be allowed to apply targeted rates
2) The local boards should be allowed to decide how they spend the money allocated to them by the Auckland Council.

Conclusions

Overall, I do believe that the basic structure of local government that is proposed by the government has its merits. In my opinion, having two levels of council: a more powerful overarching regional body and a more localised community focused body, is the right approach for Auckland.

However, as my submission outlines, I have a number of concerns that relate to the specific details of the proposed legislation. In particular, I am concerned that the legislation – as currently worded – will not actually achieve the objectives of creating stronger regional governance while keeping the local in local government. I have proposed alterations to the legislation that, in my opinion, will assist in creating a more effective structure for Auckland’s local government. In particular, my changes relate to giving the local boards more power, eliminating at-large councillors from the Auckland Council and ensuring that ward boundaries align with both local board boundaries and electorate boundaries.

Finally, I would like to restate that I do believe the changes to Auckland’s local government the government eventually decides upon – the outcome of all three pieces of legislation – should be put to the people of Auckland as a referendum. The options on the referendum would simply be whether a voter wishes for Auckland to change to the proposed system or whether they wish to retain the current system. If voters wish to retain the current system then the legislation should provide for another referendum to be held in three years time on the issue, with changes made to the legislation in the meanwhile to respond to any changes sought by the people of Auckland.

Share this