Will We Be Listened To?
6th July 2009
Oral Submission on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill
Mr Chairman, committee members, Thank you for the opportunity to submit to you here today.
I have a PhD in Public Policy and am former MP and although a current North Shore City councillor these views are my own.
I stand by my written submission and wish the committee to take note of it in its entirety. In the interests of time I wish to highlight a few parts of my written submission.
But first, please don’t confuse low voting turnout in local bodies as a sign that people don’t care. They do.
Local democracy is different to central government. People are usually mindful that a change of government will affect their lives in dramatic ways. Government policies on education, health, employment law, defence, social security and so on often change considerably. And so voting turnout is higher than local bodies.
People love what councils do. Because it affects their community lives. Try not picking up the rubbish, selling a local park or allowing a pot hole to develop and see how people react. People love their place and their communities but they don’t really care about their councillors. This is because political parties are usually not involved, and the day after the election, no matter who is elected, the rubbish still gets picked up. Policies are hard to change and any change is long-term a sit is set for about ten years.
My point is that most problems in Auckland and local bodies cannot be fixed just by shuffling the pack. Many of the solutions actually lie at the door of central government.
But specifically to the Bill.
I oppose the intent of this Bill because it goes too far, too soon, in the reorganisation of the Auckland Region. The General policy statement suggests that changing the governance structure of Auckland will magically fix the unstated problems.
But the Bill does not define or describe the issues or why the arrangements have been a cause of concern.
I support the regionalisation of essential services such as transport, some planning and water.
Many of the reported issues of traffic congestion cannot be resolved by merely a change of governance arrangements.
But, local council services should be retained locally as local people can judge essential community services in a holistic sense and juggle expenditure appropriately. The proposed reorganisation should be modified to ensure the new format embraces the democratic principles with which local government is charged.
If, as under the LGA, the role of local government is to “enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities” then surely decisions that affect those communities should also be enacted at the lowest level possible certainly at a local level. The Bill as it stands appears to create an undemocratic governance system with centralised decision-making powers.
As such, I oppose the Executive status of the Mayor but that is in my written submission.
Clause 7 (1)
I oppose this clause because The most effective and efficient option would have been to strengthen the existing ARC with regional roles for transport, planning (district and strategic), water and wastewater and leave the rest of the structure to operate as it currently does. This could include retaining three tiers. However, if Parliament is of the mind to create a ‘super city’ then I offer the following.
Clause 8 (1) (2) & (3)
I support approximately twenty councillors elected from (the same number of) twenty wards. No councillors should be elected ‘at large’.
I suggest about twenty councillors elected from 20 wards that comprise the boundaries of the 20 boards.
It is as silly to think that ward councillors won’t develop a regional view as it is to think that at large councillors won’t think locally or parochially at times.
One representative, from each of the 20 (or more) wards, on the new Auckland Council plus a Mayor (and any proposed Maori representatives); a total of 21 members up to approximately 24 depending on final boundaries. Any additional Gulf-type community boards should only add another one representative and so the total structure would be less than 25 councillors.
Clause 11 (1) & (2) The Status of local boards
The Royal commission’s proposal had the new Boards close to the New Auckland Council but too far removed from local communities. The Bill has quite the other way around.
So, the proposed boards require a statutory status to be effective champions, advocates and facilitators in their local community,
I recommend a new clause be added into the Local Government Act that determines the position of a ‘Local Board’. Also, the term ‘local board’ should be changed to ‘community council’ to better reflect their role and powers.
Clauses 13 (1) & (2) The powers of local boards
I support these clauses but oppose in their isolation as more powers should be added because Local Boards should be empowered to focus on local community engagement and also be required to be consulted on regional issues and policies. Local Boards should be specifically empowered to make decisions about local issues and to carry them out.
In short, the Local Boards would carry out similar functions that the Royal Commission proposed for their Local Councils. If the Boards follow Ward boundaries then the Boards would be slightly less than half the size of the RC’s proposed Local Councils. They would still enjoy enough critical mass to function with wide ranging powers and yet be small enough to retain the local element. They also need to be empowered to enter into a community contract with the Auckland Council and receive their own budget. The powers and functions of both tiers should be enshrined in law to prevent the eroding of delegations as we have seen in some cities.
Clauses 19 (1) & (2)
I oppose these clauses because the ward boundaries should reflect the Local Board boundaries, in their totality. I also argue that there should be no ‘at large’ councillors and therefore there should be 20 to 25 wards not the 12 as in the Bill. If there are twenty wards then there should be twenty councillors and twenty Local Boards with the same boundaries. The Bill needs to guide the Local Government Commission with the boundaries taking into account population, geographic and community of interest boundaries.
The boundaries are not just critical to reflect local communities but must also be of a size to serve two functions: have enough critical mass to be able to function and make local decisions and also to retain a community closeness. So a mish-mash of numerous small boards designed solely to reflect local communities would disempower those communities as the functions would need to be delegated up to a larger body.
Section 24.
I propose a new clause that entrenches Watercare Services (or any body that provides water and wastewater services to Auckland) in public ownership.
Oral Submission on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill
Mr Chairman, committee members, Thank you for the opportunity to submit to you here today.
I have a PhD in Public Policy and am former MP and although a current North Shore City councillor these views are my own.
I stand by my written submission and wish the committee to take note of it in its entirety. In the interests of time I wish to highlight a few parts of my written submission.
But first, please don’t confuse low voting turnout in local bodies as a sign that people don’t care. They do.
Local democracy is different to central government. People are usually mindful that a change of government will affect their lives in dramatic ways. Government policies on education, health, employment law, defence, social security and so on often change considerably. And so voting turnout is higher than local bodies.
People love what councils do. Because it affects their community lives. Try not picking up the rubbish, selling a local park or allowing a pot hole to develop and see how people react. People love their place and their communities but they don’t really care about their councillors. This is because political parties are usually not involved, and the day after the election, no matter who is elected, the rubbish still gets picked up. Policies are hard to change and any change is long-term a sit is set for about ten years.
My point is that most problems in Auckland and local bodies cannot be fixed just by shuffling the pack. Many of the solutions actually lie at the door of central government.
But specifically to the Bill.
I oppose the intent of this Bill because it goes too far, too soon, in the reorganisation of the Auckland Region. The General policy statement suggests that changing the governance structure of Auckland will magically fix the unstated problems.
But the Bill does not define or describe the issues or why the arrangements have been a cause of concern.
I support the regionalisation of essential services such as transport, some planning and water.
Many of the reported issues of traffic congestion cannot be resolved by merely a change of governance arrangements.
But, local council services should be retained locally as local people can judge essential community services in a holistic sense and juggle expenditure appropriately. The proposed reorganisation should be modified to ensure the new format embraces the democratic principles with which local government is charged.
If, as under the LGA, the role of local government is to “enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities” then surely decisions that affect those communities should also be enacted at the lowest level possible certainly at a local level. The Bill as it stands appears to create an undemocratic governance system with centralised decision-making powers.
As such, I oppose the Executive status of the Mayor but that is in my written submission.
Clause 7 (1)
I oppose this clause because The most effective and efficient option would have been to strengthen the existing ARC with regional roles for transport, planning (district and strategic), water and wastewater and leave the rest of the structure to operate as it currently does. This could include retaining three tiers. However, if Parliament is of the mind to create a ‘super city’ then I offer the following.
Clause 8 (1) (2) & (3)
I support approximately twenty councillors elected from (the same number of) twenty wards. No councillors should be elected ‘at large’.
I suggest about twenty councillors elected from 20 wards that comprise the boundaries of the 20 boards.
It is as silly to think that ward councillors won’t develop a regional view as it is to think that at large councillors won’t think locally or parochially at times.
One representative, from each of the 20 (or more) wards, on the new Auckland Council plus a Mayor (and any proposed Maori representatives); a total of 21 members up to approximately 24 depending on final boundaries. Any additional Gulf-type community boards should only add another one representative and so the total structure would be less than 25 councillors.
Clause 11 (1) & (2) The Status of local boards
The Royal commission’s proposal had the new Boards close to the New Auckland Council but too far removed from local communities. The Bill has quite the other way around.
So, the proposed boards require a statutory status to be effective champions, advocates and facilitators in their local community,
I recommend a new clause be added into the Local Government Act that determines the position of a ‘Local Board’. Also, the term ‘local board’ should be changed to ‘community council’ to better reflect their role and powers.
Clauses 13 (1) & (2) The powers of local boards
I support these clauses but oppose in their isolation as more powers should be added because Local Boards should be empowered to focus on local community engagement and also be required to be consulted on regional issues and policies. Local Boards should be specifically empowered to make decisions about local issues and to carry them out.
In short, the Local Boards would carry out similar functions that the Royal Commission proposed for their Local Councils. If the Boards follow Ward boundaries then the Boards would be slightly less than half the size of the RC’s proposed Local Councils. They would still enjoy enough critical mass to function with wide ranging powers and yet be small enough to retain the local element. They also need to be empowered to enter into a community contract with the Auckland Council and receive their own budget. The powers and functions of both tiers should be enshrined in law to prevent the eroding of delegations as we have seen in some cities.
Clauses 19 (1) & (2)
I oppose these clauses because the ward boundaries should reflect the Local Board boundaries, in their totality. I also argue that there should be no ‘at large’ councillors and therefore there should be 20 to 25 wards not the 12 as in the Bill. If there are twenty wards then there should be twenty councillors and twenty Local Boards with the same boundaries. The Bill needs to guide the Local Government Commission with the boundaries taking into account population, geographic and community of interest boundaries.
The boundaries are not just critical to reflect local communities but must also be of a size to serve two functions: have enough critical mass to be able to function and make local decisions and also to retain a community closeness. So a mish-mash of numerous small boards designed solely to reflect local communities would disempower those communities as the functions would need to be delegated up to a larger body.
Section 24.
I propose a new clause that entrenches Watercare Services (or any body that provides water and wastewater services to Auckland) in public ownership.
posted by Grant Gillon 4 Shore @ 5:08 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home