As per my post on North Shore City Council’s submission on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, here’s the Campaign for Better Transport‘s submission on the bill. Obviously, the CBT’s submission focuses on transport matters – and in particular the creation of “Auckland Transport” as a “Council-Controlled-Organisation” (CCO). The full submission (subject to minor tweaks potentially) is located in PDF format here.
Here’s the introduction:
It is interesting to see that this Bill has gone to such a great extent to ensure that Auckland Transport is distinct and separate to Auckland Council, and to ensure Auckland Council has as little power over it as possible. Is this because the government wishes to have greater control over the direction of Auckland Transport than it does over the direction of local and regional agencies in terms of their transport policies at the moment I wonder?
Auckland Transport will certainly have many benefits for the management and planning of transport matters in Auckland, as we will have significantly fewer agencies involved and chances are it will be easier to “get stuff done” than it is at the moment. Furthermore, if Auckland Transport has a strong public transport focus then there certainly will be a much bigger pool of funds for it to tap into than what ARTA has at the moment. I think the big issue though it “what happens of Auckland transport starts doing stupid stuff?” As pointed out in the CBT submission, Auckland Transport is being set up so that it has very very few political accountabilities to Auckland Council, and therefore to the people of Auckland.
The conclusion to the CBT’s submission really focuses on this issue, and I agree that it is critical for the agency to be properly accountable – for when/if things go off the rails.
It also seems like a missed opportunity to not end up with better integration between NZTA, KiwiRail and Auckland Transport. I’m guessing that when there’s the first rail meltdown once Auckland Transport has been created they will continue to play “pass the buck” with KiwiRail in terms of working out who’s actually responsible for ensuring our rail system is of a 21st century, and not 19th century, quality. Which does undermine most of the whole point of creating this organisation in the first place.
Remember submissions on this Bill are due on Friday. You can make your submission here.
Processing...
As I’m just writing my own submission for IPENZ Transportation Group’s Branch, I would like it if people could clarify some issues for me:
“It is interesting to see that this Bill has gone to such a great extent to ensure that Auckland Transport is distinct and separate to Auckland Council, and to ensure Auckland Council has as little power over it as possible.”
True in some ways, but then Auckland Council holds the purse strings, AND appoints all the directors. Is there any reason why any Council cannot simply stack the board of directors with who it wants to? I’d really like to get people’s take of why that isn’t enough control – or what I am missing. Are appointed directors fixed for their 3-4 year terms (need to check)? I don’t believe so.
Also, I think they should have a non-voting director from KiwiRail sit on the board.
Max, yes it is true that the Auckland Council will hold the purse strings and will also appoint the board of directors for Auckland Transport. However, in terms of day to day running there is still a huge disconnect – and various little parts of the legislation seem keen to enshrine that disconnect as much as possible, which is quite strange.
In many ways submission point 3 is one of the most worrying, simply because it seems so strange for Auckland Transport to be exempted from those requirements. Why would you bother doing that unless you really did want Auckland Council to have as little control over Auckland Transport as possible?
“In many ways submission point 3 is one of the most worrying”
Did you read the bill in whole (I haven’t either, but …)? There is a section called “Schedule 2
Provisions relating to Auckland Transport” – among other things it (and other parts of the bill) contain:
– the “good employer” clauses
– the “exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility” clause (though interestingly, they added “economic responsibility” to the list too)
– the “statement of intent” clause, with an added “statement not to be inconsistent with this act”
– For the Ombudsman Act, the new clause appears to be exactly the same as the one in the LGA 2002
So it seems to me that Point 3 is actually at least a bit overblown – most of it is in there, right in the bill, rather than in a separate act.
Whoever reads bills in their entirety? LOL!
That schedule does ease a few of my worries… though I still think the over-arching concern of too much disconnect between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport rings true.
The reason it is important to have a disconnect between the council and the transport agency is that to date there have been numerous costly decisions made on a political basis. If someone has connections and screams loud enough their wishes are followed despite it being to the detriment of the overall population.
Many of the decisions for transport need to be made over the long term and having people who get elected every three years making these means that hard decisions for the long term will not be made.
Perhaps the only reason that ARTA is increasing fares for the first time in three years is because the NZTA a non-elected body is requiring them to. If it was up to the politicians there would be no fare increase, how then would you fund ongoing costs which have risen 11% or any of the number of improvements that need to be made?
Councilors are not experts in anything nor should they be. They should only be making sure that common sense is applied on behalf of their ratepayers and that wider policy is being followed. Transport is too complex and too important to leave day to day decisions to their individual whims.
“Transport is too complex and too important to leave day to day decisions to their individual whims.”
They never made the day to day decisions anyway – and they will still be able to appoint the people who run Auckland Transport.
The most important thing may become that Auckland Transport is required (rather than just kindly requested, if they would like to…) to give effect to the RLTS. Like any political decision such a document can be changed (and in fact, will have to be updated every six years), but then that is only proper – ffor in the end, I do NOT believe in letting the experts make the final, big issue calls. That needs to be left with the politicans and voters, as much as it aggravates us (being an “expert” myself) sometimes. Otherwise we would be a technocracy, not a democracy.
You make some very valid points Lance, and I agree that less political interference could be good, IF Auckland Transport doesn’t start doing stupid stuff. However, if they do then the lack of accountability will mean it’s difficult to stop them.