What started as a strategy of strengthening regional government under the Labour Government has been transformed into a program of local government abolition by the incoming National Government. Plans to streamline the Resource Management Act are now being extended to Auckland itself. But the Government desire to streamline Auckland governance carries huge risks. And the sleeping giant of Auckland is slowly waking up to this.
When “Making Auckland Greater” was announced just weeks ago it had the appearance of being a Government response to the Royal Commission’s recommendations. But I now understand that Department of Internal Affairs officials had been working closely with incoming Government Ministers for months before its strategy for Auckland was revealed.
Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, fronted government decisions on NZ Herald’s perspectives page (29 April), stating: “Auckland cannot become a world-class city without change.”
These words are sophistry because as many letters to ththe NZ Herald have atested, Auckland is already world-class, sharing top-rankings in several world-class city surveys despite issues that led to the Royal Commission.
Many of these issues focussed on the Auckland Regional Council. Most City Councils opposed the ARC’s commitment to the Metropolitan Urban Limit claiming there was a shortage of land. This opposition has persisted despite evidence of land banking by developers and support for the Regional Growth Strategy to limit sprawl and promote selective intensification. Others criticised the ARC for not being tough enough on city councils, and not using its statutory powers to require District Plan changes that would lead to progressive redevelopment of specific urban areas. And there has been continuous lobbying by those calling for institutional changes that will enable faster development of motorways and public transport systems.
 | Early morning at Mangawhai Heads. I go here to escape Auckland and the disappointment and concern I feel about Government's poorly conceived plans for Auckland. |
During my eleven years serving the public as a local government representative I have witnessed considerable improvement and change. Exemplary regeneration projects in the past few years include Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; FlatBush development at Manukau managed by that council’s professional land development CCO; and North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.
There is room for improvement in Auckland governance arrangements. We can do better, but these exemplars are projects of scale that could not be delivered by a Community Board. Yet they are local projects. Each embodies significant character elements and connections that are locally authentic. Future projects like these will become impossible to implement without appropriate local government arrangements.
The Government has neither explained nor justified the fundamentals that lie behind its plan for Auckland, and big questions are being asked.
Questions like: Who, with the Rugby World Cup event coming in 2011, would knowingly abolish on the 30th of October 2010 almost all public organisations responsible for its successful delivery, and invite Rugby World Cup event service managers to re-apply for their jobs?
Rodney Hide writes: “Instead of eight rating authorities, eight long-term council plans, eight data systems, eight local transport entities, eight water and wastewater providers, there will be one of each. Instead of seven district plans there will be one. Instead of 109 councillors there will be 20.” However in fire-fighting criticisms over the loss of local democracy, Government is now facing pressure to establish 30 Borough-Council-strength Community Boards, each with its own plan and budget, and requiring the election of around 200 Community Board members on significantly higher remuneration than now.
Does Government really want to take Auckland back to that future? I don't think so.
Nobody speaks of savings now. The Prime Minister and the Royal Commission have been careful to down-play the likelihood of significant savings. This is not surprising because what is emerging are stories of increasing costs: new data systems; increased water charges and huge staff layoffs; re-organisation costs.
Government should front up to Auckland with a proper explanation of what its strategy actually is, what policy assumptions underpin that strategy, what its Auckland vision actually looks like, and how it will be implemented in practice. Auckland does not need another strategy that fails to recognise the implementation imperative. Auckland needs to get things done. And it needs to be allowed to develop as a multi-cultural city, with diverse places to live, work, play and grow up. It does not need the blandness that is a significant risk of excessive centralisation and institutional destruction.
Auckland needs the institutional tools and structure to get on with the job of city building and place shaping. Auckland has already grown in diversity and difference over the past twenty years.
Parts of Manukau provide places of choice for many Polynesian peoples. Some may criticise those communities, but speak to the locals, look at their tidy properties, local schools, and markets, and recognise it is their choice. Same for West Auckland. There is a distinctly West-Auckland character in the development and feel of Henderson and environs that is enshrined in Outrageous Fortune on TV. And North Shore, with its cleaned up beaches and emphasis on recreation and elite sporting provision is Auckland’s “Life Style City”.
Auckland has grown up in the past decade of development. Its communities have been shaped by the governance structures that have been in place.
And the future shape of Auckland will continue to be determined by the shape of its governance. Auckland needs some fixing. But don’t fix what ain’t broken.
2 comments:
Paragraph 27 of the Royal Commission's executive summary explains quite clearly why they didn't choose the 20-30 local board option:
27. At the same time, the Commission was concerned not to create an organisational monolith, unconnected to the people it serves. With this in mind, the Commission considered carefully a number of variations of a two-tier model comprising a unitary authority with additional representation at a local level. The Commission concluded that having up to 20 community councils, as a number of submitters proposed, would be costly to establish and run, and disruptive to existing staff and services. The conclusion was borne out by independent financial analysis undertaken for the Commission by experts Taylor Duignan Barry.
Fair enough. But my criticism of the Royal Commission's report (the full report - not the Exec Summary), is its very sparse examination of this matter. It is dealt with in less than a page of text. and while noting the cost matters (above), it states that the local participation and consultation duties presently carried out by community boards will be done by the councillors of their proposed city council bodies. And that's it. By comparison for example 30 or 40 pages are allocated to social issues (which are not local government responsibilities). The Royal Commission states that it "carefully considered" a range of structural options. This consideration is not reflected in the full report. In hindsight it appears to me that a large chunk of the final report was cut out by the Royal Commission when it had time to appreciate the intent of the incoming government - no pressure, mind you, just reality.
Post a Comment