Anyway, here it is. Remember, this was my oral submission - it is written as I spoke it:
So, there you have it. The most obviously engaged members of the Select Committee were Shane Jones and Simon Power, and its Chair - Tau Henare. They appeared very interested in the idea of Maori seats being allocated, and appropriate Maori members appointed.1. Introduction to Oral Submission
Kia ora, and thank you and your staff for the opportunity of presenting my submission in this special place, Orakei Marae, Bastion Point.
This submission is in support of my written submission, which you will have.
But first of all a brief introduction to where I’m coming from, and where I come from.
I am from the Mainland. Went to school in Oamaru, university in Christchurch, and after becoming vastly over-qualified, went to live and work in England for 14 years.
There I had a spectacular time as a rocket scientist on military projects, as a systems analyst for Shell International working on oil price modelling and crude oil depletion, then for IBM designing interactive multimedia resources used when they introduced the first IBM PC into UK and European dealerships for personal and business use.
When I returned to New Zealand, I didn’t need to go into Local Government. But I did because – like most committed politicians – I wanted to make a difference.
I’ve been an elected independent councillor in Auckland for the past 11 years. Including 6 years on North Shore City Council from 1998 where I chaired the Works Ctte during the Northern Busway design and North Shore’s major sewer network cleanup program. I served on Devonport Community Board through those years also. In 2004 I stood for ARC. In my first term I chaired its Transport Committee and the Regional Land Transport Ctte that shifted $1 billion from state highway spending to public transport. Since then I have focussed on the waterfront, regional development, and – of course – governance.
Like most local government politicians I have a love/hate relationship with local government. I love it when it’s good, and I hate it when it’s bad. And after eleven years total immersion I have some understanding of the difference.
It’s easy to hate something you don’t understand. Unfortunately – many of those who have the power to decide what happens to Auckland’s governance have publicly demonstrated a poor understanding of local government. And they hate it. Superficial criticisms and simplistic solutions will not deliver good governance for Auckland.
I am advised that this is not the place for me to state my opinions about the broad supercity proposals that have been proposed by Government – many of which I oppose - so I won’t say any more about those opinions, unless asked.
The rest of what I’m going to say now, addresses the specifics of the Bill that is in front of you. My objective is to get the best outcomes from a flawed process.
2. Maori Representation on Auckland Council
ARC has a Maori Liaison unit with good staff. People like Tipa Compain and Johnny Freeland. But their contribution to ARC decision-making is mediated by other staff, by committee chairs, and by statute. Consequent decision-making is Treaty of Waitangi driven. There is no room for the broader Maori world view to be expressed.
To get a free and independent Maori voice around the Auckland Council table there needs to be 2 or 3 Maori seats at Council and key committees.
Forgive me if what I say now is a bit ignorant. I have some understanding of the Ngati Whatua AIP. I have had informal discussions with individual Maori - not all from Ngati Whatua - because I saw opportunities for Auckland Maori at Auckland’s waterfront development. Through those discussions I understand some reasons why there has not been a coordinated and collective Maori voice in Auckland. Pending the resolution of individual iwi claims, it is difficult to speak with a collective voice. The Hikoi was an exception. I have learned a little of the negotiations that are occurring now between Government and Auckland iwi. I understand that the aim is for these negotiations to be with the broader collective, not just with specific iwi.
With that understanding in mind, I don’t believe the best solution to Maori representation on Auckland Council is through 2 or 3 Maori candidates being elected.
I think Maori representatives would be better being appointed to Auckland Council, and relevant committees, to allocated seats, by the Auckland maori collective leadership, rather than being elected at large or from large wards.
This process would also mean that the most appropriate or informed maori voices can be appointed to take those seats at Council and its committees for specific decisions.
3. Auckland Council Elections – 9 multi-member wards
Most Councils appear to be supporting 20 wards, with one member/ward. This will lead to 20 First Past the Post elections (though the STV voting system would improve outcomes). I think there is a better option, which is supported by a significant number of ARC councillors.
Presently the ARC's 13 members are elected from 6 wards. Rodney and Papakura/Franklin are single member wards; Manukau is a 3 member ward; Auckland is a 4 member ward; and Waitakere and North Shore are each 2 member wards. In the multi-member wards, voters get to choose ALL of the members from that ward. So in Auckland - for example - voters get to cast 4 votes.
I think this approach is better than 1 member/ward, because:
· Councillors are less inclined to be parochial (they will represent a broader area, and not just their "personal" seat);
· councillors from the same ward can support each other (sharing local meetings, and with local boards);
· ratepayers have choices who to make representation to;
· councillors can allocate ward responsibilities better;
· greater likelihood of Auckland Council concentrating on regional issues and regional decision-making;
· parallels the different structural roles of Auckland Council Vs Community Council – the one being regional, the others being local
An option for Auckland Council would be: Rodney remains a 1 member ward; North Shore becomes a 3 member ward; Auckland is split into two 3 member wards (say); Waitakere becomes a 3 member ward; Franklin and Papakura are each 1 member wards; and Manukau becomes a 2 and a 3 member ward. (20 in total).
This structure – which echoes the ARC’s present workable arrangement - offers an effective balance between at-large representation, and 20 single-member wards.
4. Community Council (Board) Functions, Candidate Quality, Numbers
Community Councils should be required to produce a Local/Community Plan annually, which would cover:
· the community vision;
· outline of community priorities, projects and activities;
· key assets and values that need to be protected by Auckland Council;
· balanced budget for 3 years to fund these priorities;
· how the plan delivers on regional plans and strategies;
· performance measures.
In addition, Community Councils should have clearly defined local planning responsibilities - such as the ability to process local resource consent applications. There is good reason for the Bill to statutorily provide for this sort of process and role.
Community Councils will be the local eyes and ears of Auckland Council. They will bear the brunt of community concerns should these arise. It is appropriate therefore, that their responsibilities are clear cut. Auckland Council should be accountable for its decisions, while Community Councils are accountable for local decisions.
The current bill provides for Auckland Council to delegate other functions to Community Councils. Such as local parks maintenance and management, local roading repairs. This is appropriate. This discretion is hard to prescribe in statute.
Community Board members need to be paid appropriately. If you give local members the job of peeling bananas and pay them peanuts – you’ll get monkeys. There is dead wood in Auckland community boards now. This is a consequence of lack of power and low pay. Ensuring a typical Community Council workload translates into something like 3 days a week/member, would justify remuneration in the $35,000 to $45,000. Candidates of quality will be attracted by a combination of personally satisfying and publicly meaningful decision-making, and worthwhile remuneration.
How many Community Boards? Most North Shore Community Boards are col-located with Area Offices in buildings which also house the local library and community services such as the CAB. These combined community facilities are local institutions, but they have depended on North Shore City Council which acts as the anchor tenant. I would invite Select Ctte members to visit – for example – East Coast Bays, Glenfield and Devonport Area Offices to gain a better understanding of what I am talking about.
If any of the associated Community Boards (local Council) are abolished then it will be difficult to justify retention of the related Area Office. Like a house of cards. Whole communities will suffer.
Institutional losses on a huge scale are implicit in Government’s reform proposals. It is my submission that – to ensure some community continuity – then Community Councils be built broadly along the lines of existing Community Boards.
Summing up: The legislation needs to deliver Community Councils that are appreciated as important, valuable and significant by the local community, and which will attract candidates of quality, and which can be established without destroying institutional community development infrastructure and networks that exist now.
5. Three Water Management & Watercare Vertical Integration
It is essential that if vertical integration is the objective (merging Watercare as wholesaler of services, with the local water service functions of the current city and district councils), then that integration needs to be horizontal and include stormwater.
Throughout my experience of Auckland local government I have observed lobbying from those keen to gain control of piped and metered infrastructure. Water and wastewater are piped. They are also metered (wastewater is metered using “water-in” as a proxy for “wastewater-out”). A nice neat business.
The Bill at the moment is silent on stormwater – though some say that the word “wastewater” includes “stormwater”. First time I’ve heard that one. To avoid uncertainty, the Bill needs to explicitly state that this vertically integrated entity will, also, manage stormwater and be responsible for stormwater infrastructure – soft and hard – and for managing and maintaining it. Regional stormwater infrastructure consists of detention & settling ponds, natural streams, and some piping.
Much of Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau stormwater infrastructure is currently run in an integrated way with the other 2 waters. Stormwater is the biggest problem for wastewater (infiltration causes overflows at pump stations); and rainwater is increasingly used as local supply (for washing water and irrigation). Stormwater is inextricably intermingled with water and wastewater. That is why related infrastructure needs to be managed as part of a 3-water approach.ENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment