Mayor: Xmas Stocking or Sacking?

So. Tomorrow, at a full Council meeting, according to the media, the majority of Auckland City Councillors will vote for a motion to censure Mayor Len Brown for various misdemeanors. A minority of "right wing" councillors - apparently led by Dick Quax - are reported to be supporting a no-confidence motion.

It is unfortunate that this matter has so quickly split along party lines. Though not completely. For example Cllr Mike Lee was quoted in NZ Herald this morning expressing concerns: "there's an aura of sleaze starting to build around the mayor now and that's the problem"......

Conscience

I want to suggest in this post, that Councillors need to consider what or who they are casting their vote for on Thursday. I say this because I don't believe Councillors can vote according to promises they may have made in the election campaign. Nor can they vote according to their own personal interests (eg whether they are supported to be Chair of a committee by Mayor Brown or not) or political interests - whatever they may be. This issue was not canvassed before the election - so there was not an opportunity for councillors to develop a "position" on this matter before the election.

This is de novo. It is being considered for the first time.

In significant measure, because this matter is not provided for in statute, it is a conscience vote. Councillors need to examine their consciences, and in some way, take account of the conscience of the Auckland community.

Promises and Fiscal Responsibility

In 2010, when Len Brown stood for the Supercity mayoralty for the first time, his 150 word statement to the voters said this:

“…The region needs a mayor who believes in communities and people, so that together we can make the hard decisions to move our region forward….”

Good hard-hitting stuff. Note the emphasis on hard decisions. Then in 2013 he said this in his 150 words:

"....Ratepayers want a fiscally responsible mayor...."

When you say this, knowing it is the main piece of information that will definitely be provided to everybody who can vote, you have to think about what it means to the layperson voter. While it does not explicitly say: "I am a fiscally responsible person", it certainly implies it and suggests that if you vote for Len Brown you will get a fiscally responsible mayor.

The record that has been painfully revealed by the EY report does not paint a picture of a fiscally responsible mayor. The record, combined with other credit card irresponsibilities in his term as Mayor of Manukau City Council, suggests if anything a systematic lack of fiscal responsibility.

Unreserved Apologies and Censure Motions

If I had a dollar for every apology I've heard from a politician I'd be a rich man. It's just words.
And words come cheap for a politician. It's their stock-in-trade.
Goes with the territory.
Trying to win over support for an idea, for a vision, for a project, for a political reputation.
Whatever it takes.

A censure motion might feel good for councillors.
A whack. A rap over the knuckles. A momentary grimace.
Forcing someone to swallow the odd dead rat. In public.
But it goes with the territory too.
It's hot, but it's what happens in the political kitchen.

But it won't make any difference.
Len has done the mea culpa act before,
And he's showing he's more than ready to do it again.
Probably written tomorrow's apology speech already, rehearsed it with his closest allies
Those who stand to lose the most if he stops being mayor.

Is Len a bad man?

I don't think Len is a bad man. But he's probably too nice, too forgiving, too forgetful, to be a mayor we can have confidence in. If someone else - another councillor say - had a problem with an affair (using Council furniture after hours), being late to declare an expense, using the council cellphone a bit much, charging excessive travel expenses - I can see Mayor Brown finding it hard to confront that Councillor - finding the least confrontational way of dealing with it, being nice, being forgiving, and if all else fails just forgetting it.

Small beer anyway. Tiny amounts in the scale of things.

Problem is, this fiscal attitude seems to be behind Council's odd extra billion in debt. Just another billion.

Auckland may be a big little city, but it's a big bad city too - especially if Council is too nice, too forgiving and just plain forgetful. And unless the right attitudes are modelled top down, and enforced top down, the rot sets in. Len was right: Auckland does need a mayor who is a zealot about fiscal responsibility - and he has shown himself to be relaxed when it comes to his own fiscal responsibility.

It makes it very difficult for Auckland Council to be effective if its mayor preaches something which he does not personally practice.

Kingdom of Len

I couldn't really resist this. I imagined Len with his most trusted mayoral office aides and spin-doctors. He's frustrated with them, wanting some creativity, another brand....

"Look. When I got elected there were jokes. They talked about King Len - you know - Auckland is a Kingdom. Needs a King. I was Auckland's King. For a while...."

Perplexed looks. Len pressed on....

"Now I know Auckland's not an Empire, and it would be hard to make me look like an Emperor. But it could work I think. Empires need Emperors..."

One of the aides thought about trousers and emperors wearing no clothes but thought better of it. His job was on the line. Nothing in his Christmas Stocking if Len got the sack. Len, warming up...

"I've had a better idea. Auckland was the first supercity. We've forged ahead of the rest of New Zealand. We're different. We're like - another Country. Auckland's a Country, and just as Kingdoms need Kings, Countries need......"


What's the best thing to do?

Seriously now.

A Censure motion is a wet bus ticket - and Auckland has enough of them right now.

If Councillors pass a censure motion, what it really means is that Len is Mayor (along with his mayoral office and with the chairs and deputy mayor he wants) for three more years - with all of the difficulties and challenges that brings - and that is not what Auckland wants (if you believe the various polls as reflecting the will of the population).

Remember. This is de novo. Auckland has not been here before. There is no position statement that was developed before the election. This decision must be taken on the basis of facts and information that is now before councillors - and this information was not before the public when they cast their votes on October.

It is before them now. The information that is before the Auckland public now makes Len's statement: "ratepayers want a fiscally responsible mayor" a bit hard for them to swallow.

So. Councillors need to ask themselves this question:

  Are you going to vote so that Aucklanders have to swallow a rat?
  Or are you going to vote so that Len has to swallow that rat.

Note what the Local Government Electoral Act states:

4.   Principles 

(1) The principles that this Act is designed to implement are the following: 

    (a) fair and effective representation for individuals and communities: 

    (b) all qualified persons have a reasonable and equal opportunity to—

          (i) Cast an informed vote......

Were voters able to cast an informed vote when they voted Len Brown for Mayor?


My suggestion for a more useful motion tomorrow would be something like this: 

That, given the loss of public confidence in the office of mayor that has followed publicity and investigative reports relating to the mayor's conduct of his affair and his subsequent behaviour, and to avoid the risk of public confidence in Auckland Council being diminished by association and by the need to manage damaged relationships for the rest of the term, and to give the mayor the opportunity to properly redeem and rehabilitate himself, this council calls on the Mayor of Auckland to resign forthwith to enable a new mayoral election to take place.

This is difficult. Kia kaha.

OAG - Head Should Roll

I do not write this posting lightly.

At the Mangawhai Heads announcement of its Ecocare wastewater scheme enquiry, Lyn Provost, New Zealand's Auditor General was put under the microscope to an extent. You can read my recent posting about the Audit of the OAG's Audit New Zealand's role in the fiasco here.

The question I asked the Auditor General at the announcement, more or less went like this:

"You have unreservedly apologised here to the community for the problems in Audit New Zealand. You have told us that as a result Audit New Zealand is carrying out no further audits. You have told us that two people have been appointed to make changes to Audit New Zealand. Yet you appear to be taking no responsibility for what has happened.

This is Light Handed regulation. There are insufficient checks and balances. But you expect the community to carry the can. We have seen failures at Pike River with health and Safety Checks. We have seen failings in building safety in Christchurch because of inspection failures.

Where are the checks and balances?

As far as the community is concerned we rely on your office to check what was happening in KDC. No amount of LGOIMA and official information requests could reveal to members of the public what was happening "off balance sheet" (I didn't quite say that bit - but that's what I meant).

If you didn't check properly, then is it your failure, or is it the failure of Government because you didn't look hard enough?  It's one or the other.

Tell us what we can do about about this?"

I was struck by her answer, because it is not at all what I was expecting.

The Auditor General began with this remark....

"We must not act to discourage innovation...."

Man oh man. She went on about checks and balances a bit. But it was all pretty unsatisfactory. What did she mean? Was it innovative for KDC to build a wastewater treatment plant? Don't think so. Not rocket science. Ah. I get it. The innovation was the PPP scheme. A Public Private Partnership. That's the innovation that "must not be discouraged by the Auditor General...."

We read in the audit of Audit NZ (See quoted paras 35-40 and 339) that the loans for the scheme went "off balance sheet" from 2006 to 2009, which is while the scheme was built and funded through a PPP - though the loans were raised in KDC's name. This is the time when the OAG got no letters from the public. The ratepayers didn't know what was happening because there was no indication in Council's annual plans. It was Off Balance Sheet. And the Audit Office didn't revise its view of the project all the way through that time - 2006 to 2009.

Consider this. In 2006, the OAG prepared its own report entitled:  Achieving public sector outcomes with private sector partners. The OAG's 2006 report overview says this:

“Partnering” in its various forms is gaining in popularity in other countries as a means of building new infrastructure and delivering public services. There are also signs of increasing interest in this approach to procurement in the public sector in New Zealand, particularly in local government. Examples of partnering range from contracts where the private sector finances and owns public infrastructure to arrangements where public and private sector organisations work closely together as one team sharing risks and rewards....

The actual report contains these pearls:

It will be important throughout the process of making the decision to opt for a partnering arrangement, and during the partner selection process, to ensure that arrangements are in place for the involvement of internal and external audit. This involvement should provide assurance to the public entity and other stakeholders (such as Parliament) that the decision-making and selection processes stand up to public scrutiny.

and

(In relation to Papakura's PPP scheme) Water is seen as an essential commodity, and the control and supply of water and wastewater can arouse strong emotions. The Auditor-General identified a need for the Council to carry out sufficient consultation to assure itself that it had identified the needs, issues, and any concerns the community might have, to be used in the decision-making process. (ie - at this stage the OAG understood the consultation need).

And then in November 2011, the OAG went further and published its 2006-2011 enquiry entitled: Managing the implications of public private partnerships. Which includes this very interesting case study:

Case study: Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme Project 

In the early 1990s, the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme Project began when the water quality in the Mangawhai estuary, north of Auckland, became noticeably degraded because of the cumulative effect of sewage disposal, geographic features, the number of people in the area during peak seasonal periods, and the use of septic tanks and long drops.

After the 1998 local government elections, Kaipara District Council engaged project managers who had Australian expertise in PPPs. The initial plan envisioned a “Build Own Operate Transfer” PPP model, with the assets being transferred to the Council in 25 years. However, the initial plan was changed when the Local Government Act 2002 came into effect.

In late 2005, from a short list of three companies, tenderer Earthtech Engineering Limited (now Water Infrastructure Group) won the contract to provide wastewater services to Mangawhai for up to 15 years, including providing a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system.

In January 2007, work on the $65 million EcoCare Scheme began. In July 2009, the first house was connected. The scheme includes 21 kilometres of sewers, 15 pumping stations, six kilometres of rising mains, a small water-reclamation plant, an 11-kilometre reclaimed-water transfer pipeline and a 180 megalitre reclaimed-water storage facility and irrigation system. Today, more than 2000 properties are connected to the scheme, which has the capacity to service 4500 properties.

The Council sought innovation from the market, long-term certainty in wastewater treatment, affordability, and improved water quality in the Mangawhai estuary. A major achievement of the project was the ability to change the scope of the works during the project development and construction stages.

Some of the lessons learned from the project include:

•  there is a clear need for expertise and experience with PPP projects to ensure success; 
•  flexibility is important, particularly where changes in demand are expected; frequent and effective communication with the community and other stakeholders is essential; 
• and a PPP education programme throughout the Council’s organisation was needed. 

 The project has attracted much local comment. The last two lessons could have helped mitigate some public concerns that the Council faces.

This is salutory for a number of reasons, not least of which is a clear statement from the OAG that it knew and acknowledged that: "A major achievement of the project was the ability to change the scope of the works during the project development and construction stages..."

This change of scope has been at the heart of the cost blow out. The OAG knew about it long ago, and thought it was a great thing.Even though it happened "off balance sheet" and away from the public gaze.

In her overview to this 2011 report, Lyn Provost says this:

If more PPPs are entered into, careful attention is needed to ensure that innovation continues to be encouraged and the challenges and opportunities that these partnerships present are fully understood, managed, and accounted for. For the public sector, this means broadening oversight and control of the PPP programme to ensure that the public’s interest is effectively represented, supervised and, ultimately, satisfied.

and...

Along with managing the risks identified in my Office’s 2006 report, Achieving public sector outcomes with private sector partners, and informed by the observations of my Auditor-General colleagues from other jurisdictions,

I consider that: public entities (ie Councils) involved in PPPs must:

– properly understand and manage these partnerships strategically, tactically, and operationally; and
– establish and maintain good ongoing relationships and processes with stakeholder and community groups;

and central agencies (ie Office Auditor General, Government...) should consider how best to:

– provide more co-ordinated guidance and support throughout the public sector, particularly with monitoring and managing these partnerships when they become operational;
– build a co-ordinated reporting strategy that provides regular and transparent performance information on the portfolio of PPPs; and
– comment on, and manage if needed, the strategic, sector-wide, issues that could affect the PPP programme, such as perceived limitations in local funding markets and the lack of domestic private sector expertise.

So. Given this advice to itself, much of which was known in 2006, why has the OAG sat on its hands for so long, especially when it knew full well about the lack of expertise at Kaipara District Council, and the risks involved?

An unreserved apology does not cut it.

Your head is on the block.

Auckland Council - Worrying Signs

I'm writing this posting because I'm concerned about the political silence emanating from Auckland Council. I'm not worried about green or blue street signs especially - or about whether berms are mowed by Council or not.

Those are not the signs that are worrying...

I've started as Councillor on four occasions. Twice as a North Shore City Councillor, and twice as an Auckland Regional Councillor. Maybe I see the starts of those terms through rose tinted spectacles (with the exception of my last term at ARC - that was a bit of nightmare - but I won't go into that....)

Each three year term started with significant public debate and discussion about the term, and about the year ahead. There were opportunities for councillors - some new, some old timers - to share ideas and generally get the measure of each other. Testing times. But there was a genuine direction-setting process.

You will recall that the first term of the supercity there was a lot of this (2010 and 2011). NZ Herald covered those times comprehensively. There was a high degree of public interest and engagement.

What is worrying is that we are not seeing that this term.

Here's what the Mayor told a public meeting on the North Shore a few weeks ago:

"...One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget. I’ve talked to thousands of Aucklanders over the past few months. People want to be assured that we’re doing everything to keep rates low while keeping a close eye on debt and making thoughtful, strategic investment in infrastructure, which has been neglected and underfunded for so long. As Aucklanders, we need to have a discussion about funding – what funding mechanisms are acceptable to us for the infrastructure shortfall, how we could utilise public private partnerships, and possible sponsorship agreements for day-to-day operations, such as our swimming pools. Fairness is critical to the new Auckland, and I know some of the changes we have faced have not seemed fair to some communities. Berm mowing and rates are two examples. Auckland City was the only former council which mowed berms. We faced the decision between saving $3 million to cease mowing, bringing the area into line with the rest of Auckland or spending an additional $12-$15 million to mow all Auckland berms. We needed to consider what was fair practice and what was the fairest and best use of our finances. Moving to a single, region wide rating system was a challenge that would face the first Mayor and council of all Auckland, irrespective of the people in the hot seats. Properties of equal value being rated on an equal footing is the principle, but I acknowledge it hasn’t felt equitable for many people on the North Shore in the transition from a land-value based rating system to a capital value based rating system. Uneven impact of the change is why we asked the government to enable us to have a three-year transition period. The first term of Auckland Council has been a big step forward – never has there been so much debate about our future direction as well as so much real progress. The second term will be no less significant as we make real progress towards making Auckland the world’s most liveable city...."

There's not a lot in there that you might take exception to.
Not a lot in there to get excited about either. No mention of debt. But it starts with this line:

"One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget...."

Look more closely:

"One of my first tasks is setting out my priorities for the next annual budget...."

When Mai Chen delivered her Auckland Conversation a couple of weeks ago, she reported feedback from 50 or so conversations she'd had. What people liked and disliked about the supercity. Interestingly there were strong views expressed about the Mayor's Office. Strong likes and strong dislikes.

As an aside I note that Doug McKay did not agree with Mai Chen's assessment that all the foundational work stemming from amalgamation was done - and that now it's onward and upward. McKay considers that there is more foundational work to do....

In the first supercity term I my observation is that Councillors and Council and Mayor only really engaged with Auckland issues when they were forced to by public pressure. For example the Unitary Plan and density planning, and Ports expansion proposals. Public interest forced Council to function like a Council, councillors needed to inform themselves, understand local concerns, take considered positions, and then work together as a team to arrive at decisions. Local media were there to see the debate, report it, and keep the public informed as it progressed.

Democracy in action. Might not be perfect. But it's what we have to work with.

Imperfections in the Council process include councillors who make statements that are designed to attract media attention rather than contribute to a consensus decision. That's politics, part of the political process. Noisy and opinionated. When issues first arise, or begin to attract public attention, then councillors come from many points of view. Some are informed, but appear not to be, others are uninformed but act is if they know what they are talking about. Again, all part of the process, par for the course.

My worry about the Mayor's office is that unless there is evidence of public interest and pressure, the mayor's office will maintain a low profile, and will do only what it needs to do, to nurse decisions through the democratic process. There are all sorts of arguments for this - some felt, some stated, sometimes true, sometimes not true:

• Council meetings take time and waste time
• Councillors use the opportunity to make statements that might embarrass the Council
• Councillors add little to what skilled officers recommend
• Council meetings are organised chaos
• Council meetings are risky because they are hard to control and predict
• Councillors are a liability

So. What to do - if you agree with these arguments:

• Look for opportunities to delegate decision-making to officers. 
• Avoid collective decision-making if possible - by getting officers to work with key councillors on a one-one basis beforehand - so the decision is effectively made before the meeting. 
• Avoid public debate of contentious items. 
• Avoid contentious items.

Last term I tried to engage with the Mayor's office on a few occasions. Like many others. Most times that became an engagement with key people in the mayor's office. Now here's another worrying sign. Without exception the people I spoke with, or learned about, had previous roles in the Parliamentary Labour Party. This is a worry for a variety of reasons - not least of which is their lack of knowledge of, and feeling for local government. I appreciate that the Mayor's office is front of house for Auckland Council and its dealings with Central Government which has a clear agenda of economic growth in Auckland, and that as far as it's concerned no stone should be left unturned in pursuit of that objective.

The problem that I see emerging is that the Mayor's office is turning itself into the meat in the sandwich between Central Government and Council. It's neither one thing nor the other.

This was certainly the case toward the end of the last term. We see the fruits of that in the Ernst and Young paper on PPP's, and the Mayor talking about that idea, after the election, and before having a formative debate about that controversial issue with his new Council. What's going on here? Are we being treated to a kiwi version of Tony Blair's Third Way? Is that on the table? What's the purpose of having 20 councillors?

This challenge and process needs to be brought out into the open more. Transparency required.

And just as the Mayor needs to rebuild trust with the wider Auckland community, he needs to be building a political relationship with his new team of councillors, and in doing so, enabling them to build political relationships with each other. That takes work and effort and focus.

The benefits include more public understanding too.

That doesn't happen with a single one-on-one chat after the election and the allocation of Chair and Deputy Chair roles. I would like to see the emergence of a collective leadership approach at Auckland Council. This needs to be led and facilitated. A good start would be the formation of some sort of leadership team between the Mayor and his key Chairs.

It is not a happy sign that Mayoral papers, reports, agendas and suchlike descend into the attention of Councillors, and appear on their tables, at the very meeting they are to be debated and decided.

These worries need attention to avoid more questions about who/what really controls Council.

The time has passed when meaningless statements like...."making Auckland the world’s most liveable city...." will pass for leadership. Sure given recent events it might be hard to front up and show leadership. But it is not good enough to rely on faceless political bureaucrats to develop your leadership position and to write your leadership statements. Now is the time to work with your varied team of councillors, who do want the best for our city, who - given the chance and the space - can be encouraged to work as a team, and build the city's political leadership in public.

Auditing the OAG's Audit Arm

I was there, in the Golf Club at Mangawhai heads to hear Lyn Provost (The Auditor General) provide a community briefing about its enquiry into the Mangawhai community wastewater scheme. And I guess I have been "there" - involved - for the past 12 years and more in both the early planning that led to the scheme, and as bach owner, and lately as a member of the Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association.

Yesterday was a special moment for many. It was the first inkling we had of what was explored in the enquiry, (enquiries) that have been underway for 20 months.

In this posting I will concentrate on the review of the audit work done by the Audit Office of the Office of the Auditor General.

This was a separate enquiry.

It was conducted by Neil Cherry.  (According to Linkedin he is currently with: External Reporting Board (XRB), New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB), and Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB). And also/ previously with: Professional Standards Board, NZICA, Wellington City Council, New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants).

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference for the Review follow. These are quoted in full - to give you a good flavour. You will recognise some of these words in the enquiry findings, which I quote from selectively, later on in this posting:

Scope of the review of audit work

The Reviewer will assess and report on the sufficiency and appropriateness of the planning, performance and reporting of the audits by Audit New Zealand of Kaipara District Council’s:

• Long Term Community Council Plans (‘LTCCPs’) for 2006, 2009 and the Long Term Plan for 2012,
• Annual Reports for the years 2003 to 2012; and 
• Annual Plans for the years 2003 to 2012. 

 The Reviewer will assess whether the work of Audit New Zealand was carried out in accordance with New Zealand auditing and assurance standards (including those issued by the Auditor-General), that applied at the time the audits were performed. In particular the Reviewer will assess and report on the following matters:

Planning and performance of the audit engagement 

• Whether the auditors sufficiently and appropriately planned and performed the audits, including whether they had a sufficient and appropriate focus on significant material risks or financial matters, including in relation to the Mangawhai scheme;
• Whether the auditors planned the audits so that they identified the key legislative matters that needed to be addressed in the audit and whether they appropriately performed the audits to ensure that these matters were addressed; 
• Whether the auditors planned the audits with due care, competence, independence and with sufficient professional judgement and scepticism; 
• Whether the auditors had and applied sufficient and appropriate quality control mechanisms in planning and performing the audits; 
• Whether the auditors in planning and performing the audits sufficiently and appropriately took into account key issues affecting the financial management of the Council; 
• Whether the auditors sufficiently and appropriately communicated with Kaipara District Council staff in planning and performing the audits; 
• Whether the auditors used adequate and appropriate resources in planning and performing the audits, including the use of appropriately skilled staff or experts; 

 Audit reporting and conclusions

Whether the auditors’ conclusions were supported by sufficient and appropriate evidence;
Whether the auditors’ conclusions were appropriately reported both in the audit report and management letters;

Audit documentation

Whether the audit files contained sufficient and appropriate documentation of the audits;
Whether the audit files contained evidence to show that the auditors had obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support their conclusions;

Audit methodology

Whether the Audit New Zealand audit methodology adequately supported the planning and performance of the audits of Kaipara District Council;

Audit communications 

Whether the audit opinions in the audits were appropriate;
Whether the management letters were appropriate.

 So. That's what Neil Cherry was asked to do. His report is presented in full as Appendix 6 of the 427 page report. It is about 100 pages in length. It is quite separate from the enquiry conducted by the Office of Auditor General into the wastewater scheme itself.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW: AUDIT SERVICES ON KDC

In this part of the posting, I will simply cut and paste, sometimes with comment, the sections of this very detailed and comprehensive review, that - to me - are the most salient.

I present these in the order they are contained in the review - which begins with an Exec Summary....

Summary: The auditor’s knowledge and understanding of the wastewater project....

Summary:  2003 - 2005....

Summary:  2006 - 2009

Summary:  Audits performed 2006-2009....

Key Findings and Observations (Selection)....

The auditor’s assessment of KDC's financial management control environment....

Other general findings and observations...

Various other selections..(You will note here an italicised quote from Audit NZ that was obtained in answer to questions posed to Audit NZ by Neil Cherry in the course of his review...)

Assumptions and financial prudence....

Engagement Quality Control Review (bombshell)....

The Council's accounting treatment of the wastewater project....

(and so on...)

My Wrap Up...

What is interesting is that the OAG has organised its enquiry - and so has Neil Cherry - into specific special periods of time. 2002-2005, and 2006-2009, and 2010-2012.

When defending herself from attacks at the public meeting, the Auditor General (Lyn Provost) emphasised the fact that no letters or complaints had been received from residents in the period 2006-2009, which is (you will see above) the period when the most critical failings of Audit NZ happened. Provost did acknowledge the complaints that were received in the period 2002-2005 (and upon which the OAG acted), and also the complaints received in the period 2010-2012 (when the OAG commenced this enquiry).

It seems to me that this is a thin attempt by the OAG to avoid any responsibility for what happened (or didn't happen) in the most problematic period which was 2006-2009.

I ask you this Ms Provost: why apologise unreservedly to the Mangawhai community (which you did  - it was an unqualified apology), if you seriously believe that it is all down to failings of Audit NZ only, and that your office holds no responsibility for the audit failings of Audit NZ - your own arms-length audit entity?

And did you have anything to do with, or knowledge of, the dispensation of the Audit Quality Review referred to in 267 and 268 above?

Who Is Council Amalgamation Good for?

My attention to this topic is several-fold. First of all there is the proposal to re-organise local government in Northland. Then there is the end of the first term of the new Auckland Council and the associated reviews of how it's all gone - including the one held with the Public Policy Unit of the AUT on the 29th of August. And last night we heard from Mai Chen at an Auckland Conversation event held in the NZI room of the Aotea....

This blog posting covers this ground:

• it explores the Local Government Act and some of what it says about the re-organisation of Local Government
• it briefly reports on the AUT event
• it reports the Auckland Conversation event

This week I have provided an update on where things are at in Mangawhai. As I see it. Part of my posting covers the Local Government Commission's recommendation re the re-organisation of Northland local government.

Role of Local Govt Commission and Re-Organisation

A quick refresher to this starts with a look at the new Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act after the government inspired amendments of 2012. In short, anyone can make an application to the Local Government Commission to re-organise local councils, regional council, community boards:

5 Contents of reorganisation application
 (1) A reorganisation application must include the following:
 (a) the name and address of the person making the application; and
 (b) if more than 1 person is making the application, the name and address of the person who is the representative of the applicants; and
 (c) a description of the proposed changes, including (but not limited to)—
 (i) which of the matters listed in section 24(1) is being sought; and
 (ii) a plan or other description sufficient to identify the affected area or affected areas concerned; and
 (d) a full and detailed explanation of what the proposed changes are seeking to achieve and how the changes would be achieved by the approach proposed in the application; and
 (e) a description of the potential improvements that would result from the proposed changes and how they would promote good local government as described in clause 12; and
 (f) information that demonstrates that the application has community support in the district of each affected territorial authority.
etc.

 This asks a whole lot of questions, but I want to focus here on (e). This requires an application to state: "how they would promote good local government as described in clause 12..."

12 Promotion of good local government
For the purposes of clause 11(8), the Commission must be satisfied that its preferred option—
(a) will best promote, in the affected area, the purpose of local government as specified in section 10; and
(b) will facilitate, in the affected area, improved economic performance, which may (without limitation) include—
(i) efficiencies and cost savings; and
(ii) productivity improvements, both within the local authorities and for the businesses and households that interact with those local authorities; and
(iii) simplified planning processes within and across the affected area through, for example, the integration of statutory plans or a reduction in the number of plans to be prepared or approved by a local authority. 

 If you stare at this requirement you will see that the Commission must be satisfied the preferred option: "will facilitate, in the affected area, improved economic performance...". No ifs, buts or maybes. A clear statement that re-organised Local Government "will facilitate improved economic performance" but only "promote" the purpose of local government.

AUT Event - The SuperCity Project

This event was run in association with Radio New Zealand. A number of commentators got together who had considered the AUT's report. I attended. One of 300 in the audience. It was supposed to be a little more interactive than it became. But the commentators held the floor. You can get the report and hear the Radio NZ program at the SuperCity Project website.

I took some notes at the event. Suffice to say it seemed uninformed. Preliminary verdicts were given on a scorecard assessment ranging from B, B+ and A-  (I noted at the time that the structure got a C-, but that staff and councillors and board members had made the best of it....)

There was some useful discussion about democracy, diversity and participation, but the high point seemed to be a discussion about ethnic diversity and representation. This was a bit of a lightning rod for dissent. Advocates talked about needing to be "governed with" rather "governed to...".

I quietly cheered when David Wilson argued that there was little being done by Auckland Council about social development, and a lot for economic development - this was in the context of comments about ATEED.

However when the discussion drifted into transport (New Lynn, Busway etc) of water (three waters, Watercare), I was embarrassed at the state of knowledge that existed. Perhaps I have been immersed in these issues for too long - but I don't think it is helpful that this sort of event is conducted in an environment where recent history and facts around projects is largely absent.

The chestnut of costs and debt was raised and CEO Doug McKay was there to defend Council's achievements. He said that Council had saved $140 million, that Watercare had saved $100 million. And when asked why rates hadn't dropped - because of the savings - he talked about the infrastructure deficit.

This was the first time I'd heard Mai Chen of Chen Palmer Public Law Specialists. She spoke cheeringly of the re-organisation:  "we have the platform, now it's blast off". But it was bit thin. And then when the panel's Judy McGregor suggested that Watercare was  "the lone ranger" when it comes to CCO's, Mai Chen jumped on her comments. In my notes: "Mai Chen - Watercare apologist..."

I asked someone afterward over the nibbles where Chen's comment might have come from, and was told, "she's looking for work in Auckland..."

Auckland Conversation - Mai Chen on Amalgamation

I have to say this was a weird event. We'd all heard earlier in NZ Herald that Chen had been engaged by Ports of Auckland in a legal challenge with Auckland Council over the Unitary Plan provisions for port expansion and reclamation. Not a very good starting point for an Auckland Conversation about Auckland Amalgamation.

Roger Blakely introduced Mai Chen. Best buddies it seems from Wellington days. We learned that Mai had come to live in Auckland in 2012, and that "Doug and I got her to document the Auckland council reforms and present her findings...."

And then we heard from Mai. Paraphrased:   "It's all about the angle of the narrative... Auckland is a role model for the rest of New Zealand... I have conclusive proof... discovered yesterday... this is what is happening right across New Zealand.... imitation is the most sincere form of flattery... success has many friends...   failure does not...."

Mai talked up the example of the Northland local government re-organisation proposals that have been notified by the Local Government Commission (LGC). She quoted, at length, the summary of these proposals as notified by LGC (which you can see about 2/3 of the way through this posting.) In her view these proposals "look a lot like Auckland." Mai also read out sections of the Local Government Act that I have quoted above.

But there was no reflection here. No reflection about the 2012 changes in the Local Government Act that now force the LGC to support re-organisation changes that prioritise economic development over other objectives.

This is not imitation. This is not flattery. This is a careful Government initiative to force local government amalgamation. And it doesn't take a close reading of these new provisions of the LGA. All it takes is ONE person to write an application to the Local Govt Commission calling for amalgamation. That triggers the new re-organisation provisions of the LGA, which REQUIRE the LGC to prioritise options that "facilitate economic performance....". In other words to restructure local government in the interests of the economy. Environmental, social and cultural objectives all take a back seat.

And then later Mai talked about Infrastructure Funding: "We will see Government move on infrastructure funding.... rates won't pay for it... elections are next year... it is likely new tools will be put in place... fuel taxes etc..."  And drew a link between re-organisation and Government funding support. Conditional. You prioritise economic development through re-organisation, and we will give you the funding tools....

Mai was hot on innovation that had emerged from re-organisation, citing the Auckland Investment Office that has come from ATEED (wondering aloud how that would intersect with the CCO review and ensure coordination with central government finance), and the Housing Project Office that has emerged from the Housing Accord.

Then we had 41 separate deliverables read out, from the Mayor's Office, one at a time. That was a gap filler. Man oh man. Give us an original idea.

Local Board democracy was one of her key points. This was worrying: "There was 30% turnover in the election...". She referred to the LGC's recommendation about community boards in Northland: "Do we need 6...?"  This was code for "Do we need 21 in Auckland...".  And began to argue against rigid boundaries between board areas suggesting that having different signage policies in different parts of Auckland was problematic (is Devonport different from Botany, is Mt Eden different from New Lynn - when it comes to signs?)  There was an edge of mockery in this part of Mai's presentation which clearly irked the audience.

It was helpful to have someone in attendance from McKinlay Douglas Ltd because after Mai cited work that had been done by them about local government re-organisation in NSW Australia, someone stood up and corrected her, pointing out the concerns there that governance at local level, where people actually live, was very different from what was needed at regional level. Mai replied, "my job is to start a conversation..."

Well. Yes. That's right. But these conversations require more than a glib, cheerful, once-over lightly. Auckland deserves better. (You can see the full video and Mai's presentation here.)

1989 Local Government Amalgamation Review

Those with memories or an interest in learning from history will recall what happened to local government in 1989. In a major reform of local government in New Zealand (population four million), over 230 units of local government were restructured.... into 74 territorial local authorities (TLAs).

P. Rouse and M. Putterill of the Department of Accounting and Finance, School of Business and Economics, The University of Auckland, looked into what happened: 

Our investigation focuses on highway maintenance, the largest of the range of service activities undertaken by each TLA. It should be noted that the process of public sector reform began in 1984 with widespread changes in central government organisational structure, financial management and accountability.

You can see this paper here, if you want to read it for yourself, but here are some key summary paragraphs:

The results of this study of highway maintenance show no evidence that amalgamation was justified in terms of diseconomies arising from smallness of TLA size....

And: 

no evidence was forthcoming that amalgamation per se improved performance

That might be a bit on the terse side, so here's a bit more detail from the research:

Not everyone was convinced that the changes were appropriate. “Local government structure is not amenable to scientifically verifiable universal laws. While certain criteria might be endorsed, there is no agreement on relative weighting, nor whether they translate into local bodies of any particular size or capacity. Rather, political preferences and political judgements permeate the issue. There is for instance, an interminable yet fruitless quest for revealed truth about the optimum size of a local body. Vaunted economies of scale have proved to be a mirage, but no ex post facto review of any New Zealand urban amalgamation has ever been conducted”   (Bush)

In other countries, various arguments are used to support or oppose amalgamation. In the UK, Dearlove (1979) provides an excellent discussion of howpotential economies of scale were used (without supporting argument) to justify an increased scale of local authority. He notes a long tradition of arguments against the smallness of local authorities as illustrated by the UK Poor Law Report of 1834. Citing a number of authors, Dearlove (1979) continues: “The orthodoxy which explained the inefficiency of the established system by pointing to the weakness of the small authorities carries within itself a number of ideas. First, there is the idea that the provision of services and the size of areas are interdependent; second, there is the idea that within the established system functions bear little or no relation to area; and third, all this leads smoothly into a rule of reform which points to the need for larger areas in order to increase efficiency” (ibid., p. 64). Dearlove describes a number of studies carried out in the 1960s that did not show improvements in performance associated with increasing size.

A closer relationship between representatives and their constituency makes for effective information flows and consequently greater efficiency. This theory posits that citizens’ satisfaction will decrease with increasing size. Boyne (1992) defines ‘fragmentation’ as the number of separate units in a local government system and ‘concentration’ as the distribution of responsibilities and revenues. Both concepts can be applied to either vertical or horizontal structures of local government. “In sum, the broad pattern of the evidence suggests that lower spending is a feature of fragmented and deconcentrated local government systems. By contrast, consolidated and concentrated structures tend to be associated with higher spending. This implies that the technical benefits of large units with big market share, such as economies of scale and scope, are outweighed by competitive and political costs, such as disincentives towards fiscal migration and problems of public scrutiny” (Boyne, 1992, p. 354).

If this tickles your taste buds, then have a look at the paper.

Before we all rush into amalgamation - and Mai Chen suggests that other areas that have applied to the LGC with reorganisation proposals include: Masterton, Hawkes Bay and Wellington - then I would suggest there is a much cooler assessment of Auckland's situation - especially the cost of it all and the loss of democracy and the reduction in citizen satisfaction - before rushing headlong into more of the same.

And ask yourself this question: Who Is Local Government Re-Organisation REALLY good for?

Ngati Whatua Devonport Density Done Well?

This GIS image shows a piece of undeveloped Devonport, North Shore, Auckland.....

A leaflet/letter dropped into the letterbox of a Devonport neighbour the other day. He'd already told me he'd seen some drilling for core samples going on a couple of weeks before that....

This is on land known as "Wakakura". A big piece of land that used to house low cost two storey homes used by Navy ratings and their families. On the corner of Ngataringa Road and Lake Road. Great views out over Ngataringa Bay, Stanley Bay to the City of Auckland.

It's been used as a local park for the past 10 years or so. Since the Navy housing was demolished. The land is part of the settlement that was done with Ngati Whatua.

The leaflet describes plans for development of the land. One side of the leaflet (carrying the Auckland Council's logo) shows 3 different "Areas".

The other side of the leaflet contains a concerned letter for local residents. It was likely prepared by a local resident who's done a bit of research. It describes apparent plans for site development, and indicates that the land owner is seeking changes to the Unitary Plan provisions for the site which would permit heights between 4 and 2 storeys in the 3 areas.

Now - without going into the rights and wrongs of the proposals - which I understand are for a mix of retirement homes, affordable housing, and I imagine high amenity penthouse apartments - I question the process that is unfolding.

I am aware that Devonport and much of the North Shore lacks diversity in housing types. There is a shortage of smaller homes - for retired people, for individuals, for young people. Their housing needs would be met in a more "complete" community.

Pieces of land like Wakakura, and others like it on Bayswater present an exceptional opportunity to provide a diversity of housing types which are smaller than the typical North Shore detached home which comes with private lawn and garden (a hassle for many), and which are therefore more expensive because of land costs.

So there is a real local demand for affordable and smaller homes.

However, existing residents are concerned that they may lose out. Their worries include traffic, views, noise, new neighbours. These worries are understandeable - especially when the process that is unfolding appears "secret" and does not include them or involve them. Now - I am not saying that the land owner is acting "secretly". The land owner is following the rules. The draft unitary plan has been notified and submissions have been called for. The land owner is making a submission. A local resident has learned about that submission, and is suggesting that locals should put in submissions - presumably counter-submissions. To protect their own interests.

This is probably counter-productive. But it is totally human and understandable. And predictable.

Appropriate implementation strategies and processes are key to the success of density done well.

It may be that the developer of this land has ideas and proposals that include a local park (which can be enjoyed by the local community - not just those who live in the new housing units). It may be that there will be a children's playground - with equipment for example (there are a lot of children in Ngataringa Road and locally). It may be that the developer proposes some commercial activity like a cafe or equivalent. (Amenity that can be enjoyed by existing community.) Perhaps there will be a cyclepath and walkway through the development that everybody can use (there is a well used informal pathway through the land now).

Interestingly - the plan seems to have eliminated all of the trees that presently grace Wakakura. Perhaps that is a mistake. But you see what I'm getting at.

Unless the developer's proposals are seen in whole - and show how the local community can all benefit - how the new homes will meet local needs as well - then there is likely to be opposition. It will look like a gated community. Something separate. Something that's not very neighbourly.

Not good process. We can do better. We need to do better.

Mangawhai Vs Kaipara Council Update

Great cartoon....

This is a sketchy  update on what's been going on recently, in regard to the campaign between Mangawhai Heads residents and ratepayers and the Kaipara District Council over its spending and planning for the EcoCare sewage scheme...

Three things have happened:
*  the Parliamentary Select Committee has reported back after hearing submissions and deliberations over the Validation Bill that was put up by appointed commissioners to deal with many of the issues that had arisen over the past 5 years or so;
*  AND the Office of the Auditor General has announced it has completed its report and investigation and will be reporting to Parliament and the local community in early December;
*  AND the Local Government Commission has considered various matters relating to local government in Northland and has recommended amalgamation into a single Council.....

Here is more detail....

Validation Bill Second Reading

When the Validation Bill had its first reading I was struck by the insight of many of the MPs who spoke. And these were all on the Select Ctte. Almost to an MP they referred to the apparent failure of the Audit Office in giving Kaipara District Council a clean bill of financial health.

My submission to the Select Ctte included this material:

Part I (Cayford submission)

2. I understand the KDC commissioners believe that to fulfil the terms of reference set out in the gazette notice promulgated upon their appointment, that a validation bill is the best course of action for them to pursue with the support of Parliament. However, their terms of reference do not specifically allow or require them to investigate the broader issues that have led to the situation that now exists. Select Committee members will be aware that several investigations are underway into the events and processes surrounding historical KDC decisions that relate to the Ecocare Sewage Scheme.
3. It is my submission that while the Select Committee is required to consider the Validation Bill, members cannot do justice to that consideration unless they are informed about the broader issues. I submit therefore that Committee Members should be provided the relevant report of the Office of Auditor General and the report which investigates the role of the Audit Office. Members need to read and understood those reports if they are to make sense of the submissions of many citizens who will inevitably raise broader concerns – alongside specific concerns relating to the Validation Bill itself.
4. In support of this submission I would draw attention to the statements made by Members in the House of Parliament when the Validation Bill was introduced and had its first reading. I watched this session of Parliament on TV and was struck by the depth of understanding shown by MPs into the broader issues – and by their public calls for submitters to come to the Select Committee and explain the whole story. In my submission, Select Ctte Members and Chair will need to be in a position to respond to those broader submissions.
5. In my submission giving consideration only to submissions that specifically address the validation would be like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is essential for the Select Ctte to be informed about the broader issues and be in a position to act in the round.

Part II (Cayford Submission)

6. I have been doing some research on how the provisions in the legislation that has been relied upon to justify the loans and the ability of KDC to rate ratepayers for them, came about. The following bullet points are a very simple (probably too simple) summary of what happened.

• On or about 18 July 1996 Parliament made a suite of financial management changes to the Local Government Act. The then Minister of Local Govt Graeme Lee explained to Parliament: "The predominant objective is to require local authorities to identify explicitly the reasons for their funding proposals. In turn, this will engender public consultation, and will promote funding decisions that are more clearly representative of the wishes and the values of local communities....". This included a section about "protected transactions" and borrowings. Richard Northey - an opposition member told Parliament: "....Government members, and members of the other parties were happy to see the abolition of loan polls on the basis that the consultation and forward planning provisions for revenue raising and borrowing, in particular, that are provided in this Bill provide a fairer accountability and a level playing field in terms of revenue raising for local government...." The idea of a separate loan poll was dropped by Parliament on the basis that borrowing decisions would be accountable.
• Then in 2002 Parliament introduced a new Local Government Act. This included the idea of General Competence - that Councils could do what the community wanted (subject to consultation), rather than being constrained to provide specific services. When the new Bill was introduced to Parliament it did not contain any "protected transactions" provisions. Several Councils made submissions about this to the Select Committee. Parliament was persuaded to include the old 1996 Local Government Act Section 122ZG(3) (which protected bank transactions). This change was made seemingly at the last minute - and without properly integrating it into the consultation, transparency and democratic provisions of the new Act. Without that integration it is likely that it should have been included with a Loan Poll requirement. But it was not.
• On 24 August 2005 Kaipara District Council (KDC) resolved to accept an offer from EarthTech Consulting Limited (EarthTech) to design, construct and operate the proposed EcoCare Sewage system. The idea was to establish an arm's length company to do this. Local Authority Trading Enterprises and suchlike were envisaged in the new Local Government Act. This was a bit like a "Build, Own, Operate and Transfer" arrangement. (BOOT).
• On 21 March 2006 KDC publicly notified the statement of proposal for EcoCare (EcoCare SoP) and LTCCP 06-16 for consultation. The EcoCare SoP indicated that the capital cost for EcoCare was estimated as $35,600,000. (You can see the sequence - decision first, consultation later.)
• On 26 September 2007 KDC resolved in confidential to adopt Modification 1 (the expansion of the sewage scheme - doubling its size and cost), confirm the EcoCare Agreement and concluded negotiations with EarthTech and ABN Amro Bank to activate the necessary funding and borrowing arrangements. At this stage the public were none the wiser about the expansion.
• On 7 December 2007 KDC decided - in secret - to give effect to Modification 1. It also executed a term loan facility agreement with ABN Amro Bank for the amount of $53,000,000. Ultimately KDC borrowed $57,978,000.00 from ABN Amro Bank - including capitalised interest. This debt did not show on any public KDC balance sheet for several years. It stayed hidden from public knowledge - presumably on the accounts of EarthTech - despite the fact it was the Council that had negotiated the loan - and presumably offered rates revenue as security.
• In April 2011, ratepayers were consulted about KDC's changed Long Term Community Plan. For the first time KDC's Annual Plan showed the $57,978,000 loan - and the interest payments - and KDC's proposals for getting it paid off by ratepayers. (You can see that the decision to take the loan was totally disconnected from any public consultation - a million miles from what Parliament intended in 1996 when it first provided proper provisions for Councils to borrow from banks and protected those transactions.)

  7. The ratepayer revolt began. The rest is history. Ratepayers could NEVER have found out about the $57,978,000, until it was provided for in an Annual Plan. The borrowing was hidden in EarthTech and described in deals between KDC, ABN Amro and EarthTech. No amount of LGOIMA requests for information could dig deep enough. But ratepayers had good reason to be concerned. That was why they tried to alert the Office of the Auditor General and the Audit Office. These institutions - had they looked - would have seen what was happening and could have blown the whistle years ago. They could also have seen that the legislation lacked public interest safeguards requiring consultation PRIOR to taking out bank loans. 8. The validation Bill Select Committee is an opportunity for a good sized group of MPs to understand how the law has failed KDC ratepayers, and to learn about the consequences when Government's system of checks and balances (Audit Office) fails to do a decent job when alerted. Then the MPs need to act. Those actions need to extend beyond the narrow scope of the Validation Bill..

So. That was my submission. You might like to have a look at what others had to say. This is great material and recommended reading. You can see a list of all submissions to the Bill here, and then see that actual submissions.

Mike Sabin's media release after the Second Reading report includes these paragraphs:

Mike Sabin, MP for Northland, has called for the Office of the Auditor General to meet the cost of any failure if it is shown that Auditor at the time failed in their duties and responsibilities to the Kaipara Council, during in his second reading speech on the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill last night.

Mr Sabin, as the local MP, was asked by the Council’s Commissioners to sponsor the Bill into the House and it had its first reading in early June this year.

“No one is a fan of retrospective legislation. It is a last resort and reflects Council failure. Unfortunately, it is required, and is the only workable way to remedy failures and errors that were avoidable but, nonetheless, occurred,” says Mr Sabin.

“It has been vital that parliamentarians were given the chance to hear submissions from ratepayers and scrutinise this bill in every way.....

Mr Sabin was highly critical in his speech of the previous Council and their auditor, and questioned how, with such longstanding and deep-seated compliance and other fundamental financial mismanagement issues it could get clean audits year after year.

He outlined that his support for the bill in the first place was conditional on it validating only matters which could have been done lawfully, that wouldn’t impose any additional costs and would not absolve anyone of their culpability. He also pledged to leave no stone unturned in the on-going search for accountability wherever it can be shown that responsibility for wrong-doing lay....

“The committee were however very concerned about the penalties and I am also pleased that a compromise was able to be found which all, including the commissioners supported.

“Some ratepayers in Kaipara – about 1000 of the 13000 total - are withholding their rates, because they feel aggrieved that the Mangawhai Wastewater project blew out in cost, or simply because they believe the rates are not valid.

“This Bill validates the penalties on the rates that this Bill validates. However some Select Committee members felt that some of the penalties that had been applied to accounts should be remitted and worked hard with the chair of commissioners to find a way to accommodate these concerns.

“I am pleased we secured the Commissioners’ commitment to take to Council a proposal to forgive specific penalties that had already been applied in rates notices should this Bill be enacted this calendar year, says Mr Sabin......

Which sounds good, but the devil is in the detail. He states that"the Office of the Auditor General to meet the cost of any failure".....but wait for it "if it is shown that Auditor at the time failed in their duties and responsibilities to the Kaipara Council."  This is the devil. Shown by whom? My understanding is that the Audit Office is an unwelcome watchdog, but that is what it is. If it visits, and barks a bit, is that what its duty and responsibility amounts to?

I think there is a need here for Government to recognise that it has a moral duty here. The buck stopped with the OAG and the Audit Office on this. Perhaps the Minister of Local Government. However you look at it the failure is with governance at the highest level.

From where I sit the only real pressure on Government to do the right thing here is the Judicial Review proceedings initiated by the Mangawhai Ratepayers and  Residents Association. I believe this will lead to a High Court ruling along the lines that Kaipara District Council cannot legally require ratepayers to be liable for loans that were not raised in accordance with LGA provisions.

Investigation of Office of Auditor General

The Office of the Auditor-General has advised that it expects that the Speaker (of Parliament) will table the inquiry report into the Mangawhai community wastewater scheme on the afternoon of Tuesday 3 December 2013. AND that the Auditor-General will brief the community on the report at:

• 2pm – The Mangawhai Club, Molesworth Drive, Mangawhai Heads, Mangawhai 
• 6.30pm – Maungaturoto Country Club, Bickerstaffe Road, Maungaturoto. 

Both sessions will cover the same information. The full report and a summary of the key points will be published soon after 2pm on the internet at www.oag.govt.nz and copies of the summary will be available at the community briefings.

So that should be interesting. I hope and expect that the report into the role of the Audit Office (which is a separate report) will also be reported on.

Northland Amalgamation

Here is part of the undated Media Release from the Local Govt Commission:

The need for a single voice for Northland and for local communities to keep their special identities is reflected in a new model of local government proposed for the region.

The Local Government Commission has released its draft proposal for reorganisation in Northland, following applications by local authorities and extensive consultation since February. The highlights are:

• One council and one mayor to speak with a region-wide voice for Northland.
• A second tier of boards to represent diverse local communities.
• The name of the new local authority to be Northland Council.
• It replaces the Far North District Council, Whangarei District Council, Kaipara District Council and Northland Regional Council. The new council would be a unitary authority, combining the functions of the district councils and the regional council.
• Northland Council would have nine councillors elected from seven wards. The mayor would be elected by all Northland voters.
• Northland Council would have seven community boards with 42 elected members. The seven council wards and seven community boards would share the same boundaries.
• The proposed names of the wards and community boards are: Te Hiku (far north), Hokianga-Kaikohe (north-west), Coastal North (north-east), Coastal Central (east), Whangarei (south-east), Coastal South (south-east), and Kaipara (south-west). These names are open to public submission.
• Northland Council would have a standing committee to ensure the views of the large Māori population are heard. The Māori Board would include elected members of council and representatives of all local iwi. There would also be a Maori Advisory Committee to advise the council committee responsible for issues under the Resource Management Act.
• Northland Council administrative headquarters would be in the current Whangarei District. The council would also have offices in a further nine towns: Kaitaia, Rawene, Kaeo, Kerikeri, Kaikohe, Kawakawa, Ruakaka, Mangawhai and Dargaville.
• Existing council debt, rates and other financial arrangements would be ring-fenced to the communities which incurred them or benefit from them.

The Chair of the Local Government Commission, Basil Morrison, said Northland Council and its community boards would have a total of 52 elected representatives: approximately one for every 2,974 people. Current arrangements involve four councils, three mayors, one chair and 61 elected members: one representative for every 2,615 people.

“A whole of Northland approach is designed to bind together all communities to create a stronger strategic vision for the region,” Mr Morrison said.

This was always an opportunity here, for an opportunist, to seek amalgamation on the back of local discontent. To say that it is designed "to bind together all communities" is disingenuous and misleading. Local communities know they are different - and viva la difference - they would say. Amalgamation is a bind for locals because they can no longer determine locally their destiny.

"Beware what you wish for", was my way of expressing reluctance at amalgamation when I stood for the Exec Ctte of Mangahwai Ratepayers and Residents Association. I sensed that locals were quite happy to get shot of Kaipara District Council after what it had done. The trick is - though - what will it be replaced with? Sounds like - from the above - that it will be by a new "Whangarei Ward and Community Board"  (South East Ward of Northland.).

You can get the whole LGC document from its website. And submissions need to be made by 14th February 2014. My short term concern is that amalgamation could be used as a "catch-all" opportunity to sweep the EcoCare mess under the carpet. Not really deal with it. So, for the short term I would suggest submissions that call for EcoCare debt issues to be cleared up BEFORE any debate on amalgamation. Start with a clean slate at least.

But on the wider front, longer term, I understand that the supposed efficiencies that are claimed from amalgamation are not real. Certainly Auckland's debt has ballooned, senior managers and executive pay has sky-rocketed, and there is very limited accountability. Very hard now for anyone who works in Auckland Council - let alone ratepayers - to figure out who is responsible for what.

Interesting times.

Auckland's Waterfront needs Big Steps

On Wednesday 6th Nov I had the pleasure of introducing and moderating a lunchtime panel session for Trans-Tasman Business Circle members about Auckland's Waterfront Vision. It was hosted by Downer New Zealand and Kensington Swan in the KPMG building on the Viaduct.

The three big-picture planning issues for Auckland's waterfront development that I talked about concentrated on the downtown edge of our waterfront...

This graphic shows the area of the waterfront that is deemed public space. In fact my graphic is on the generous side, because an increasing amount of Queens Wharf is being taken by parking and traffic (see also), and Te Whero itself is mainly a carpark. So what you see here is an optimistic depiction of Auckland's current downtown public waterfront space...

This is Baltimore's inner harbour waterfront. Its equivalent of Auckland's downtown waterfront.

The difference is that Baltimore has been working on its downtown waterfront for more than 40 years. That's the typical duration for downtown city waterfront regeneration to occur.

This image is to the same scale as the one shown here for Auckland.

Here is the amount of public space that is provided on Baltimore's downtown waterfront. You can see the spaces that are used for parking. Some buildings that I have excluded are for public facilities such as a museum and an aquarium - but I have not included those in the public space area.

You can readily observe that Baltimore's waterfront space is more than double Auckland's in area - which is piecemeal and disconnected by comparison.

The second big picture was a Princes Wharf case study. 

This is one image that was used in early designs for Princes Wharf. It was published in local newspapers. It was an expression of the vision for Princes Wharf - and showed generous areas of connected public space. Other visions expressed around the same time advocated for the pedestrianisation of Quay Street all the way through to and onto Queens Wharf, and up Queen Elizabeth Square.

But Auckland ended up with a hotel, lots of apartments, and lots of car-parking on Princes Wharf. My point was that Auckland is good at visions - but woeful in their implementation.

Big Steps are needed. And the footprints need to be protected, not filled in later.

And my last big step. The green area shows the likely extent of Auckland's downtown waterfront (it includes Marsden and Captain Cook wharves, excludes the Port).

It also includes a transformed Quay Street from Princes Wharf to Marsden Wharf (this vision is in the Auckland Plan by the way - perhaps with part of Quay Street for light rail - but not as we see it now.)

And here we come to the problem that needs to be solved by the public will - not by Auckland's traffic engineers.

The yellow arrows show the challenges Auckland has in achieving good pedestrian connectivity North/South between waterfront areas and city. Fanshaw separates Victoria Park from Wynyard Quarter. This separation needs to be connected or bridged. Princes Wharf needs to be connected better into the city. And Auckland Council has let traffic take over the People's Wharf - Queens Wharf. The public don't like it. It's a hazard.

Traffic engineers are modelling what might happen if traffic that was on Quay Street was shifted onto Custom Street (shown here as the red line running through to Fanshaw). But because our traffic planners don't seem to get that Auckland and Aucklanders want to see their city and waterfront more walkable - they don't want to change traffic volumes. Status quo. In fact it's worse than that. In their dreams they would like to widen Custom Street and Fanshaw Street. Imagine how easy it would be to cross it as a pedestrian walking down Queen Street....

Sorry guys. No good. Big steps needed. Get un-necessary traffic out of the CBD - not through the CBD.

And to finish, here's what Boston did to connect its waterfront into the CBD. Sure Boston is a bigger city than Auckland - but not much bigger. If you look you can Boston's equivalent of the red line I drew above.

But it's a green line...

I've put this yellow line in so you can see the alignment I'm talking about. Basically it's a linear green park at street level. The big step that Boston took to deal with its waterfront traffic, and to connect its CBD into the waterfront for pedestrians and cyclists, was to underground the traffic corridor. Cost $14.6 billion. Big step.

Maybe Auckland can't afford that sized step - but big planning and council steps are needed to realise Auckland's waterfront vision. Take it to the next level. Don't let cars take over.