On May 24th (delayed from an original report back date of May 4th) the select committee analysing submissions on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, more commonly known as “the 3rd Super City bill” will report back to parliament, with any suggested alterations that have arisen from the submissions process. Given the extremely negative public response that the bill has generally had, particularly on the subject of “Council Controlled Organisations”, it would be surprising if there weren’t some fairly substantial changes made to the bill. This was hinted at in a NZ Herald article last week, which said this:
Concerns that council accountability and transparency will be reduced in the new Auckland’s Super City will be addressed when relevant legislation is finalised, the parliamentary committee considering the law has told Local Government NZ…
…Committee chairman and National MP John Carter told Mr Yule, LGNZ chief executive Eugene Bowen and governance manager Mike Reid the committee had “taken on board your submissions along with others about the issue of accountability and transparency”.
“Those points that you have raised will be addressed as we move forward.”
Mr Carter said the committee accepted “there has to be cohesion, there has to be transparency, there is also the need for the Auckland Council to be the final decision maker”.
However, he was unable to go into further detail “because of confidentiality of the parliamentary system”.
These are promising words. As I outlined in an earlier post, a lack of transparency about the workings of Auckland Transport is one of my biggest objections to the structure of this organisation as currently proposed, with their meetings (and their agendas & minutes) being held in secret – effectively killing off the public’s knowledge of what is happening around the decisions being made about our transport system. Hints that further changes will be made to ensure that Auckland Council is the final decision maker are also promising, as hopefully this will mean that Auckland Transport will have to act in accordance with its Statement of Intent and the wishes of its shareholder – the Auckland Council. Hopefully this will also clarify the ability of Auckland Council to replace Auckland Transport’s board members when and where it sees fit – after all this agency is meant to be Auckland Transport, not the Steven Joyce Transport Agency.
However, debates in parliament yesterday suggest that more fundamental changes to the structure of Auckland Transport (such as doing away with it altogether) won’t happen:
Hon Phil Goff: Why is he imposing on Auckland the requirement to have council-controlled organisations, when every other council in this country is able to make that decision for itself?
Hon JOHN KEY: Because we believe that that is the right structure for Auckland. Council-controlled organisations have been in operation for quite come time and have widespread support, including from the Opposition.
Of course it was always very unlikely that the government would completely back-track on the idea of establishing Auckland Transport as a CCO, so this is no surprise. This ultimate decision to establish a separate agency in charge of everything to do with transport, right down to the colour of your footpaths has the fundamental problem, in my opinion, of creating further separation between land-use planning and transport planning – when what we actually need is better integration. Unless Auckland Transport and the Council become extremely good at communicating with each other, I very much worry that the result will be both poorer land-use and poorer transport outcomes for Auckland as a result of this split.
Even with these hints about what changes we can and can’t expect, there are still a number of unanswered questions that I await with interest to find out more about:
- Will KiwiRail get a non-voting seat on the board of Auckland Transport? If not, how come NZTA do?
- Will Auckland Council get to choose the chairperson of Auckland Transport’s Board?
- Will there be further clarification on the ability of Auckland Council to replace members of the board it does not want?
- Will any changes me made to ensure the mayor and council really can achieve their transport goals, if elected? What might those changes be?
- Will the local boards have any say whatsoever over what Auckland Transport does?
I’m also curious about any changes/clarifications made surrounding the part of the bill that refers to the creation of an Auckland Spatial Plan. It will certainly be interesting to see the select committee’s report, and then to follow the various debates that follow before this bill finally becomes law.
Processing...
The thing is it wouldn’t take much of a change to most people happy so they would be silly not to make a few concessions. I personally think that having transport as a CCO is fine providing the transparency and accountability are there. At the end of the day we need to have a body that is independent enough to get the job done with out the pork barreling that goes on but still has to listen to the councils overall plans as after all the council is elected by the people to represent them.
I originally had no problem with a CCO until I saw thew structure and lack of accountability, I still think a CCO can work better if:
– It must give effect to the RLTS, SOI and Spatial Plan
– The Council elects all board members including the chairman
– Transparency is total
– AT is restructured to give more than a passing mention to PT while unwinding it’s structure as the new road building arm of the NZTA
– PTMA is retained and used quickly
AT will essentially be the Auckland roads board. The highest level pt manager will be at the third tier down in the organisation. This is the biggest single problem and I doubt it will be fixed.
I absolutely agree that’s a huge problem Cam, but surely the organisation can change its internal structure if directed to by the board. I think the lack of integration between AT and the council is more fundamental because only legislation can fix it.
I agree with Jarbury – the initial structure is a huge disappointment, but can be changed a lot easier.
Surely they don’t need to be sticking their noses into local streetscapes, town centre improvements and every pedestrian crossing? As is it there will barely be any part of the public realm that they will not control.
One would thought that was the perfect thing for the local boards to be legislated to control with the AT just setting the goals and budget…
Agreed. Never underestimate the capacity of traffic engineers to stuff up the street environment.
Jeremy – I do think the planning and implementation needs to come from a central body as having the decision making dispersed is part of the problem we have now e.g. A bridge from Rosebank Rd to Mcleod Rd or Hepburn Rd would make a massive difference to many of the areas in West Auckland making it quicker to get to places like Henderson. As this crosses the boundary between Auckland and Waitakere neither council will look at it. If they do Auckland isn’t interested as there is no benefit for them in having it so wont pay any money towards them.
I think it should be one agency that plans, funds and implements the work but does so openly and in consultation with the local boards.
What I am meaning is for example:
The AT will state we need a bus stop interchange on this corner, with these requirements and you have X budget… After that it is up the local board to consult with the public, design and contract the construction of said bus stop… It leads to unique neighbours that reflect their inhabitants rather than one bus stop interchange type Auckland wide, these things are important to liveability…
AT should be doing the design and contracting, it would be a more efficient use of resources otherwise each local board would need staff to do those things and through consultation it still allows for unique stations.
There is also something to be said for having the same basic design, especially for the train stations (with the exception of the feature ones like Newmarket and New Lynn