http://www.ata.govt.nz/web/cms_ata.nsf
The first media comment about it in NZ Herald (28th Feb) began like this:
"...Wanaka has more decision-making powers than what is planned for local boards in the Auckland Super City, says Queenstown Lakes District councillor Lyal Cocks.
The Central Otago Community Board, population 6000, has been delegated the maximum functions legally possible by its political masters in Queenstown.
The seven board members have been able to build a new sports facility, come up with a new water system for the small town of Lake Hawea and decide what roads will be sealed.
About all they cannot do is buy and sell land and set rates.
Mr Cocks, who chairs the board and is a member of the New Zealand Community Boards' executive committee, is unimpressed with the plans for local boards in Auckland....
Fairly damming NZ Herald introduction, but the report goes on to give a more comprehensive account of what is envisaged in the ATA discussion document. Then, The Hon Rodney Hide swung into action and ran an opinion piece in the Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629699), containing large chunks of the ATA document, and which defended ATA's document.
These are strange days indeed. Normally a Minister is advised by Departmental officials (in this case Dept of Internal Affairs), but here in Auckland the Minister is being advised by this unusual beast called the Auckland Transition Agency. Which, by its own account: "...does not make public policy, it is here to implement legislation..."
I think there is quite a lot going for the ATA discussion document on local boards. It is at its most interesting when it strays way outside current legislation, and moves into submission mode. A large hunk of this discussion document is advocacy. It is effectively advocating legislative change. So, while ATA might not be "making public policy" in respect to Local Boards, it is very definitely making a public policy case for change.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. In this blog I'll just draw attention to salient aspects of the discussion document, and comment.
In terms of non-regulatory responsibilities the ATA document suggests:
They will make locally based decisions on, for example, location and design of new local facilities, local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure, and local centre branding and marketing. In doing so, they will develop and reflect the distinct characteristics and needs of their local communities.
In allocating the non-regulatory activities, rather than asking "Why should local boards undertake certain activities?" the ATA has asked "why not?".
What is especially interesting about this is the reference to: "...local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure..." this clearly would include matters relating to roads and to sewers and to relevant service levels. Today, Community Boards on the North Shore get some involvement in these matters, but it's not alway certain. And I am aware that this pattern is not repeated across Auckland where in some areas there are no Community Boards, and others which have extremely limited scope to engage with local infrastructure matters. However, the obvious question now is: how will local boards be able to make such decisions... what is the mechanism?
Then we have a very interesting contribution to the debate from ATA in respect to regulatory responsibilities, which goes like this:
The ATA is not authorised to delegate regulatory activities to local boards, but to complete the picture on the role of the local boards we have considered which decisions in these types of areas may be delegated to them. The delegations to local boards will be decided by the governing body, once elected.
This section of the report then goes into the matter of regulatory activities for local boards. This is encouraging.
But probably the most interesting section of the discussion report is one headed: "Working with Others", and which addresses the vexed and controversial matter of CCOs - Council Controlled Organisations. The Exec Summary of the report states:
Council-controlled organisations will need a direct relationship with local boards both in seeking input to their plans and around day-to-day matters in local board areas....
For example, the legislation establishes a transport agency, Auckland Transport, to manage Auckland’s local government transport network. Auckland Transport will be responsible for footpaths, street furniture, signage and lighting, all of which contribute to building a "sense of place" and will be of key interest to local boards. Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards on these sorts of activities....
Effective working relationships will be essential to the success of this governance model....
Amen to all this.
But what is interesting is the language used here. It's all about "need". "Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards..." This language is really a submission to Government. Because - as we all know - it's one thing to have words like this in a document like this - a sort of aspirational statement - but it's quite another to be certain that this sort of behaviour will actually happen magically.
Unless CCOs are required to work with local boards, unless there is a formal process specified for CCOs to engage with local boards on plans and service delivery levels, then the minimum will be the norm. Why? Because meaningful engagement comes at a cost, and if you're a CCO whose SOI objective is something like: "deliver infrastructure services at minimum cost consistent with meeting environmental, economic, cultural and social objectives...", then the cost driver will lead to reductionist, do-minimum approaches when it comes to dealing with local boards.
Then we have:
This discussion document contains our thinking on the initial allocation of decision-making responsibilities to local boards, and on how local boards will fulfil their role. Once we have received your feedback, we can then undertake the task of allocating specific and detailed responsibilities to each local board, and determine initial budgets for the local boards....
It is useful to note ATA's emphasis here on this being the "initial allocation" of roles. It is a reminder that Auckland Council will have the ability to allocate more roles and responsibilities. But before I end this blog with a warning note, a little more from ATA's discussion document:
...These responsibilities will be significant. The Local Government Commission has proposed 19 local boards, many of which will represent communities larger than many district councils in New Zealand. The budgets and allocation of responsibility will be commensurate with this. Local boards will need good support from the Auckland Council organisation.
The structure already approved by the ATA includes a Manager Local Board Services at a senior level in the organisation. We are proposing that this manager will have dedicated staff to provide strategic and policy advice, and consultation and administrative support to local boards.....
And here is my warning.
The ATA document is silent on how Local Boards will be administered and staffed and advised. There is no information on how Local Boards functions and services will be staffed and delivered locally, though the document is at pains to state: "...local boards will be effectively supported from day one...". The document appears to be suggesting that the staff available to support local boards will be located at offices of Auckland Council which will be located: "...across the region.." I read this to mean that Local Boards will share staff with other Local Boards. There appears to be no commitment to the establishment of locally managed and resourced Local Boards. There is nothing here about the building of Local Boards - and by that I mean as local institutions, housed locally, and with local staff, local resources, local relations and partnerships in the same buildings with - eg the library, CAB offices, and other locally specific services and agencies. This is both a missed opportunity, and a loss for the community.
There is no point having Local Boards that exist on paper, and on ballot papers, without also having Local Institutional structures including bricks and mortar and dedicated staff.
This is the big gap in the thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment