A Right Royal Report
It is three volumes and nearly 1800 pages long, took 17 months to produce and is perhaps the most important report on Auckland in a generation. Now the debate swirls around the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance’s multiple recommendations and draft Bill. It appears inevitable that there is going to be a ‘super city’ and a ‘super mayor’. The Royal commission have addressed the regional issues raised in submissions, however the democratic accountability issues have not been given the same level of attention.
It also appears inevitable that government will be comfortable with a number of proposals including that “A new Regional Transport Authority ("RTA") for Auckland” and that “The Auckland Council should have overall responsibility for setting policy in relation to the three waters” and so on with regards broadband, electricity and planning etc. The community must be given assurances that the new structures are not merely Trojan horses for privatisation further stripping away Auckland’s ability to control its infrastructure and reducing potential revenue sources other than rates.
But the issue that most concerns me and others in the community is that of democratic accountability.
In this respect, the important aspects of the Commission’s Terms of Reference are:-
“(e) what governance and representation arrangements will best—(i) enable effective responses to the different communities of interest and reflect andnurture the cultural diversity within the Auckland region; and(ii) provide leadership for the Auckland region and its communities, while facilitatingappropriate participation by citizens and other groups and stakeholders in decision-making processes; ”
I am not convinced that the Royal Commission’s recommendations “enable effective responses to the different communities” nor do they “nurture the cultural diversity” nor do they adequately “facilitate appropriate participation by citizens”.
In addition, the RC was specifically prohibited from inquiring into section 10 of the Local Government Act and so one can safely assume that this section stands un-debated by the Government. Section 10 of the LGA states that the purpose of local government is:-
a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.
It is hard to be convinced that the Commission’s ‘Local Council’ proposal adequately conforms to the requirements of Act. A total city area such as North Shore City or Manukau or Waitakere could not realistically be considered one community. For example Botany Downs can hardly be seen as the same community as Otara or Glenfield lumped in with Devonport. The differences can not be easily accommodated nor the communities represented through mere committees. In addition, the boundary changes appear flawed. For example, one travelling from the North to the South of the proposed Waitemata Council has to do so through Rodney.
It is obvious that the proposal fails to meet the RC’s own principles for restructuring governance particularly that “The structure should respect and accommodate diversity and be responsive to the needs and preferences of different groups and local communities”.
An illustration of communities’ concerns about possible democratic erosion were exhibited in the 400 submitters that sought retention of community boards (although most wanted them bestowed with more powers) as they ‘fulfil a vital democratic function’ (Royal commission p. 93). North Shore City argued in its submission that “we support community boards with some additional funding and delegations,” (p6.) and supports the continuation of robust democratic territorial authorities representing their communities of interest supported by engaged and empowered community boards (p 39). North shore further argued for these Boards to be located at the neighbourhood level (p. 42). There is no question that most submitters supported the current format, highly localised form of community board rather than a ‘city-wide’ community board.
The Royal Commission rejected the smaller local community boards because of the cost. The only economics focused paper in the report lacks detail and so it is difficult to gauge the Commission’s reasoning. However, the cost argument is flawed. The twenty community council alternative was rejected on the basis of additional costs for 14 chairs (and additional councillors), 14 local managers and 14 additional service centres (RC, part 1, p. 775). As Taylor Barry note in their report (p. 775) “The calculation does not take into account possible gains in accountability and local decision making that…would be achieved by …(this) option.” Nor does it take into account the loss of democratic accountability by closing those area offices.
The managers and service centres exist already and most current area offices are in libraries or on reserve status land. Also, the area managers and staff are anticipated, by the RC, to retain their employment and so staff savings are not planned for in the immediate future. If the RC is anticipating extra costs from establishing them, then it must have calculated on savings from disestablishing the current area offices and operating solely from the main centres. This approach does not contribute to effective local democracy as outlined in the RC report (p. 5).
Currently, there are 30 community boards in the region but Rodney and Papakura do not have any. If the new structure incorporated community boards at ward level rather than at City level and allowing for two wards in Rodney and one in Papakura then there could be 18 Community Councils. Of course, the current proposal includes three community boards anyway. The costs of this would be little more than the proposed arrangement. I would anticipate that 7 members per community council would be a workable number.
If each community Council were to have one representative on the new Auckland Council plus a Mayor plus three Maori then the total would be 21 members. This would be instead of the 23 proposed. The two members saved could contribute to the extra cost of the additional community councils (if any) or be used for adjusting the demographic equity in the final arrangement.
Directly elected members from each ward would alleviate the issues raised by electing ten ‘at large’ councillors. The concept of ‘at large’ councillors would inevitably contribute to the party political activism of Auckland’s local government. It appears that once elected these councillors would have few duties and just be required to sign off the Mayor’s budget. ‘At Large’ councillors appointed to committee chairs would find that they would have little choice but to agree to the Mayor’s dictates or relinquish their positions. It makes greater democratic sense to discard the ‘at large’ proposal and instead appoint more councillors from the communities that they should be representing.
The flow chart of committees and boards belies the Commission‘s claim that the Mayor will not be a executive mayor, in fact the proposed position is just as if the executive status is given to the mayor. The Commission’s proposal indicates 11 committees. Therefore, almost half of the current council would be a committee chair (assuming one member per chair). With the mayor appointing the Deputy and all the Committee chairs, then the mayor would gain total control over the Auckland Council. This is a central government caucus/cabinet arrangement and along with an ‘at large’ list of councillors would almost certainly lead to a party contest in Auckland City.
The Commission’s report rightly points out the historical difficulties that Auckland has faced determining a governing structure with several attempts dramatically failing in the 19th century. 160 years later, things might not be much different. There is no need to rush. The Commission’s report is lengthy and needs to be carefully considered in light of the complexities it has exposed. Although, changes can commence this year, there is no imperative to have a new structure in place by the 2011 election. Instead, a transition committee could be established with the mandate to introduce transformation at a steady rate that ensures that the end result is a carefully considered one rather than a rushed decision.
The issues of structure and democratic accountability and representation are important and the final decision well considered, ensuring communities’ needs are adequately addressed. The final format can be modified to ensure it embraces the democratic principles with which local government is charged. It is better to take a deep breath get it right than ram through a flawed proposal.
Grant Gillon is a North Shore City councillor and Chair of the Strategy and Finance Committee. He has a Masters degree and a PhD in Public Policy.
. ..
