Auckland Governance - Hardening the Silos

Lots of people and organisations are putting the finishing touches now to their submissions to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. We dealt with ARC's submissions earlier this week. And of course we - and probably you reading this - are tigers for punishment and know the in's and out's of what's happening.

But consider this: it's my reckoning that 90% of Auckland ratepayers don't know what's happening. Yet. I've lost count of the conversations I had in January - you know - by the BBQ, over a beer, catching a fish - with professional Aucklanders - that go like this:

"You know the supercity thing...?"
"Yes..."
"Is it happening...?"
"Yep. This year."
"But you'll be all right. Won't affect the ARC will it...?"
"Too right. Everything's abolished. They're starting with a clean slate."
"Shit. I thought the whole thing had sort of died away. The Herald doesn't tell me a thing..."

Since going back to work at ARC I've had conversations with a lot of other local body politicans who echo this experience. I think the public have no real idea. But a lot of concerned people do, and there are going to be a lot of personal submissions. I think the Select Committee hearing submittors is going to get a painful wake-up call. National MPs will be surprised to get so many angry and concerned submissions from people and groups they would normally rank as supporters.

The thrust of a lot of informed submissions could go a bit like this:

....The changed governance arrangements set out in the Bill “aim to create one Auckland, which has strong regional governance, integrated decision making, greater community engagement and improved value for money.” (You can find these exact words in page 2 of the General policy statement that is embedded in the Bill's explanatory note).

. These laudable aims are presumably the desired outcome of the Bill’s provisions however there seems no chance they will be achieved given the contents of the Bill:

· There is no detail on five of the seven council-controlled entities (CCOs) that government’s high-level governance decisions provide for in Auckland’s new governance framework;

· The Bill fails to provide clear authority, control and accountability linkages between the Auckland Council, its role to develop a spatial plan and associated strategies, implementation of these plans, and the delegation and control of proposed CCOs to deliver the policies and strategies set by Council;

· There is no detail around how the Council will achieve alignment and integration among and between, and maintain control and accountability of the CCOs that Government has agreed be established to operate at ‘arms length’ from Council, even though suggestions for how this be achieved are set out in Cabinet papers and this is stated to be one of the Bill’s major aims;

· Also missing is important detail on the functions, powers and duties of the tier of local boards that will (presumably) deliver the ‘greater community engagement’ and community based decision making that the Bill claims is a major aim;

· It is difficult to see how integrated decision-making will be possible - either horizontally or vertically - given the strong structural separation that has been designed into the overall structure....

People have begun talking about the hardening of silos...

Councils are often criticised for "silo thinking". Council divisions and departments become laws unto themselves and challenge attempts at integrated decision-making. And this is the thing with the reforms - stronger regional governance was a key objective. And this has always required integrated decision-making. Across departments - ie across land use planning, transport, water, economic development, parks - the lot. Joined up decisions.

Place-making or place-shaping, usually done at local level, demands joined up decisions too. Integrated decisions.

Instead of silo removal in Auckland, we are getting hardened silos.

I remember talk of hardened silos when I was involved in the anti-nuclear movement in Europe. Nuclear missiles went into hardened silos. The silos were so hard and strong they could withstand a nearby nuclear strike. Seriously tough.

Perhaps that's the objective for Auckland governance: build service functions into hardened silos, tough enough to withstand attack. From ratepayers. From the little old lady down the street. And tough enough to withstand challenge and questions from councillors.

Now that's a recipe for successful local government.

In Albania.

But not Auckland, New Zealand.

Making Auckland Transport Decisions Democratic

Architects of the new Auckland need to provide the public with a reasonable ability to influence the shape of their city and the services they pay for. This ability needs to be at least as good as now – but it should be better.

Draft legislation currently in front of Parliament is the final opportunity to influence Government’s designs on Auckland governance, and to ensure that the current tradition of public involvement in local decision-making and local planning is enshrined in law.

Transport affects every citizen and fundamentally shapes the region’s future. Transport spending accounts for more than half the budget of Auckland Local Government. That explains the public interest in transport, and the public’s interest in being able to influence transport decisions that affect their lives and their properties.

Consider local streets for example. Today residents are able to deal direct with their Council – sometimes through a local Community Board – about local street works. Ratepayers are interested in whether their street is paved in smooth Hotmix or Chipseal. Residents want contractors to clean up tar stains in the event of messy roadworks. They want a say over berm and street tree maintenance; whether bluestone or concrete kerbing is constructed; whether chemical or hot water weed treatment is applied; and where bus shelters are placed. Residents have that influence today.

When the new Auckland kicks off later this year, all transport works and services will be undertaken by a separate corporate structure named Auckland Transport. It will be separate from the new Auckland Council, though it will be funded by rates raised by Auckland Council, and it will be under arms length control.

However, there is no provision in the draft legislation that will entitle the proposed Local Boards – let alone ratepayers - to information about, or influence over, or redress after, works in local streets. This backward step is a recipe for community outrage and must be addressed. At the very least Local Boards should have the ability to deal directly with Auckland Transport or any other Council Controlled Organisations where there is a local impact in respect of Council work being done. Local consultation by Auckland Transport should be mandatory.

Public accountability in regard to local transport activities is important, but so too is public accountability over the transport strategies and project priorities directing Auckland Transport’s expenditure right across the region.

For the past decade, Auckland’s transport decisions have all been taken by elected councillors in accordance with a regionally agreed transport strategy – which itself is the result of wide ranging public consultation and which was voted for by elected councillors representing Auckland ratepayers. During that decade Auckland’s development has changed direction. It has a Northern Busway; at-capacity rail services; fantastic new stations; and kilometres of new cycle infrastructure.

Government’s proposed legislation threatens to de-rail that success story by allowing the separate Auckland Transport organisation to ignore transport priorities determined by new Auckland Councillors, and to merely “consider” Auckland’s popular Regional Transport Strategy – rather than “give effect” to it.

While the legislation does provide for a Spatial Plan and thereby supports the idea of public participation and regional planning, there is no practical obligation on Auckland Transport to actually implement that Spatial Plan.

Unless Government makes changes to its Auckland transport legislation that provide for Local Board involvement and enable effective control of Auckland transport decisions by Auckland Councillors, Government can expect a storm of criticism deserved because it will have severely damaged Auckland democracy.

Local Government Commission Recommendations for SuperCity

I went along to the Hyatt Auckland on Friday - with keen interest - to hear the Local Government Commission (LGC) announce its recommendations for SuperCity Ward and Local Board structure plus boundaries. About a hundred of us gathered in the darkened room, which probably had room for a hundred more at the while cloth covered tables that awaited us. One table at the back groaned under the weight of copies of map books and reports that contained the LGC recommendations (these were handed out after the Commissioners presented their power point summary.)

Sue Piper, Chair of the LGC, emphasised at the beginning that Auckland Council, plus the Local Boards, would be involved in: "shared decision-making". And that set the scene. We also heard from Grant Kirby and Gwen Bull - the other two commissioners.

I won't summarise the recommendations here, because these are reasonably public, but you can get the report (a good read), and the maps, at this link:
http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Auckland-Governance-Proposals-for-Wards-Local-Boards-and-Boundaries-for-Auckland!OpenDocument

The very broad numbers in the recommendations are these:

- there will be eight 2-member wards
- there will be four single-member wards (Rodney, Franklin, Maungawhau - Auckland CBD and environs plus Hauraki Gulf Islands, New Lynn)
- there are 19 Local Boards, of these 13 will have Subdivisions (with specific numbers of Board Members elected from each Subdivision)
- the Local Boards vary considerably in size, with from 5 to 9 members

I published my view about what was needed from the LGC, in September, at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/supercity-boundaries-and-local.html

I argued there in support of Multi-Member Wards for Auckland City (ie not single member wards), and also in support of fewer and larger Local Boards - with no more than 3 for the present area of North Shore City.

The LGC recommendations are along these lines, and so I am relieved. I know that not everybody agrees with this approach, but in my view, provided Local Boards are delegated significant local responsibilities, duties, roles, powers, and commensurate funding tools - then the shared decision-making structure recommended by the LGC will make the best of the severe re-structuring of Auckland local government.

To conclude I quote a couple of chunks from the LGC report:

Re Multi-Member Wards:

...."Apart from the arrangements for the two single-member wards for rural
Rodney and Franklin, we have proposed two-member wards in most cases.
We have found that in Auckland, two-member wards provide greater
opportunities than single-member wards to combine like communities of
interest and in other cases to avoid splitting communities of interest. Two member
wards also provide potential for more diverse representation of
communities at the council table and will provide a choice for residents on
who to approach with local concerns following the election.

We also note that larger ward areas would not require the degree of boundary
changes over time, as smaller wards would, in order to comply with the ‘+/-
10% fair representation rule’. We see this as an important consideration in
our objective to establish an enduring representation structure.
On the other hand, wards larger than two members would mean that
councillors could be seen as that much more remote from local communities.

Large wards are also seen by many as likely to discourage independent
candidates from standing at elections given the resources required to
campaign in such wards. On balance we believe two-member wards are
generally an appropriate size for wards. We also noted a level of support for
two-member wards in the initial views we received....

On Local Boards:

...."we noted a number of other provisions in the
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act relevant to the establishment of
local boards. These provisions include the decision-making responsibilities of
the Auckland Council which are to be shared between the Council itself and
the local boards. Principles for the allocation of decision-making
responsibilities under the Act include that decision-making for non-regulatory
activities should be exercised by local boards unless, for particular prescribed
reasons, decisions should be made by the Auckland Council.

To us, this suggests that boards will need to be of a sufficient size to ensure
they can attract capable people to stand for the board and they have the
ability to generate sufficient resources to undertake effective local-decisionmaking.
For example, a local board may wish to request the Auckland
Council to levy a targeted rate in its area to fund a particular local service or
amenity. To ensure this is effective, the local board area will need to be an
appropriate size, have boundaries that relate to local service delivery, and
contain sufficient capacity to support decision-making on such local services.

We also noted other provisions in the Act which we believe should be taken
into account when establishing local boards. In particular, will the total
number of boards impact on the ability of the Auckland Council to meet its
responsibilities? These provisions include the powers of the mayor, which
include establishing processes and mechanisms for community engagement.

There is also a requirement for the Auckland Council to have an agreement
between it and each of the local boards and for these agreements to be
included in the Council’s long-term council community plan. Clearly a
particularly large number of boards will affect the Council’s ability to carry out
these tasks efficiently and effectively....

You can see more in the very readable LGC report, accessible at the link above. Submissions are due by 11th December. These will be considered by the LGC, and their final determination must be completed by 1st March 2010.

Rogernomes make their grab for Auckland’s planning tiller…

I don’t say this lightly, and I don’t have concrete evidence, but you have to admire the clinical purity of the Government’s deconstruction of Auckland planning institutions. First there was RMA stream-lining, now it’s Local Government stream-lining, state imposed infrastructure (SH20 at Waterview), and who knows what’s next….

The context couldn’t be more perfect, just as it couldn’t have been more perfect in the 1980’s where New Zealand’s financial crisis helped push aside opposition to a draconian cluster of reforms.

The context today includes: General Election, Royal Commission, Global Recession. That’s quite a triumvirate. Hard enough for Aucklanders to deal with one at a time, let alone all together. The uncertainty caused by these factors creates the perfect climate for an organised Government to make transforming changes.

And Auckland is like a possum in the headlights. Most Aucklanders get on with their business and lives vaguely disquieted or excited by talk of a super-city. Be great to live in a Super City – but what is it – really? Many citizens are sharply aware of what’s coming to them, what’s going to be changed or abolished, and are revolting in their own individual ways. Meanwhile Auckland’s Councillors sit at their meetings across Auckland trying to get on with their busy agendas, but there’s an enormous distraction, an enormous elephant in the room.

Some rather like it, and are cuddling up to it, hoping perhaps to influence its manners, tendencies and toilet habits. They don’t want to be shat on from a great height. Others are highly sceptical and worried, and would like to kick it out, but haven’t the collective strength and are not sure which end has the tusks. These councillors and mayors are easily criticised of course: “just protecting their jobs, out for themselves, don’t trust what they say…”

And then there’s the by-election. Top list MPs fight it out at Mt Albert where Government is testing its mettle by dabbling with the SH20 Waterview Connection. Stephen Joyce made a good impression on TV last night, debating with a local Community Board Chair and the redoubtable Michael Tritt. Good on you Michael, for being there, we liked your work making that DVD: “Auckland - City of Cars”. How did you manage to get in there on TVNZ as a local homeowner and citizen? Well done, boy. Well said.

But it was Stephen’s show. He sat there on the screen in the background smiling benignly, telling Auckland why that road has to happen and how it has to happen. I find politicians are at their most certain and convincing when they are actually at their most ignorant. Mr Joyce has been an MP and Minister of Transport for about 6 months now. He’ll have learned a few things in that time, but I know how little I knew about transport when I got elected as Chair of Infrastructure at North Shore City Council in 2001. And I’d been deputy chair 3 years before that.

Transport and Land Use and Community Development and Land Economics are all entwined. It’s hard to get your head around. It takes time and experience. When you’re a newby to Auckland transport and land use, you don’t know what you don’t know. And that makes it easy to appear convincing on TV. As he was.

Completing the SH network has always been a reasonable policy objective. Most cities have incomplete state highway networks. Like Auckland’s most were planned in the 1960’s. Just because something is incomplete doesn’t mean the world falls apart. When I chaired Auckland’s Land Trsnsport Strategy in 2005 I was advised the waterciew connection of SH20 didn’t even have a Benefit Cost ratio of 1. But it needed to hit “3” to cross the funding threshold. It has never been a high priority.

Of course it will deliver benefits and reduce congestion. Every road does. But that logic alone would suggest roads everywhere. So now Auckland faces a Government determined to build this bit of motorway. A Government that has stream-lined RMA processes, and yesterday passed an Act establishing a Transition Agency for Auckland with statutory powers to by-pass Council decision-making.

Guess what it’s first job will be. To get Waterview motorway planning decisions done. To cut throught the red tape. Get that project underway.

I wonder whether every Cabinet Minister is in the know. Probably not. But there’s a strategy of steel behind what is happening. In a calculated and clinical way, Government is rolling back the soft, delicate and inclusive fabric of Auckland civil society, environmental care and public participation. It’s rolling back the thin layers of civilisation that have tentatively developed across Auckland since 1989.

Reacting then against the social destruction of 1980’s Rogernomics, Auckland knew it could do better for itself, its people and its communities.

Reforms since then included the RMA in 1991, which provides for environmental damage fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for seriously bad behaviour against the environment. But it also provided for much greater involvement by people and community groups in shaping their towns, places and cities. Through District Plans, through public plan change hearings and resource consent hearings. And all of these at local level.

In addition, after local government amalgamation in 1989, Auckland’s city councils embarked on a program of social and recreational infrastructure building and investment that Auckland had never seen before.

Community activities like: bowling clubs; swimming pools; ethnic support units; youth centres; meals on wheel support; environmental enhancement and protection groups; RSA Anzac Day Service funding; heritage building protection; life saving training; and Enviro-Schools were supported and funded. (You might now understand what the pictures are about. I was invited to Takapuna Normal Intermediate School to present their Silver Award. NSCC's Monique Zwaan and Cllr Ken McKay also attended.) And there are many, many more, such organisations and community partnerships with social infrastructure to match. All supported by ratepayers and regularly consulted over. And relied on by many.

This social and community fabric is thin in Auckland. It’s a thin veneer that links people, and is the safety net for many and also for an increasingly beleagured environment. It’s very much thinner in Auckland than it is in older, mopre civilised and exemplary European cities like Stockholm. It’s thinner than in Sydney and Vancouver. It doesn’t really get measured in those surveys that put Auckland right up there as a place to live. Statistics New Zealand is still figuring out how to measure social capital, even though other cities do it regularly. But whether we measure it or not - it’s an important part of a modern city.

And all of it is put at risk by Government’s planned and clinical approach to the de-construction of Auckland’s institutional arrangements for its environmental, social and infrastructural planning. These institutions – Acts of previous Parliaments and long established councils and community groups - are what underpin Auckland civil society and civilisation.

You can hear behind closed Government doors the calls to: “get rid of that red tape”… and …. “we’ve got to make it easier to get things done in Auckland…”. I sat beside a new Cabinet Minister on a plane to Auckland. He knew who I was. This was before the election. Before he was a Minister. He was convinced it was the right thing to get rid of the ARC and the MUL and “all that red tape…”.

As an aside here, I note in the Herald this morning that Government is looking at changing the way Councils can control the MUL. Something to do with low cost housing, the Minister said. Dr Nick Smith. Now that would be consistent with building more motorways. Let’s have some more sprawl. Get that land development engine going again….

You could never build a Waterview SH20 connection in Stockholm. Or London. Or Vancouver. But it wouldn’t be “red tape” that would be blamed. It would simply be the local community having the power to control its local destiny, and everyone appreciating that was the right way of doing things. Part of living in a civil society where continuity, social fabric, local environment was of greater importance than a motorway.

Public participation and engagement in community planning and local infrastructure planning is a pre-requisite for civil society. Its existence is a key sign of a healthy democracy. Public participation is actually measured in modern cities. But here in Auckland, the fact that public interest groups are partially funded – in some cases – by local councils, the fact their access to process is enshrined in the RMA, is seen as a bad thing. Again, you can hear some say: “..surely they’ve got better things to do with their time… they should be more productive… they’re just holding up progress… just a bunch of nimbys… time we cut off their water…”.

I don’t think all Government Ministers are bad people. But I do think there is a blissful ignorance about what this Government plans doing to Auckland. And it’s extremely destructive and risky. And it will roll back Auckland’s potential for a decade or more. And that is why it must be resisted strenuously.

Those of us who can do something – write, speak, oppose, support - will have failed Auckland if we don’t act now. This is not the 1980’s. It is 2009. Yes there’s a recession and it’s all a bit hard, but it is essential that we open our eyes and our minds to what can happen to Auckland and its communities through a combination of draconian changes to the RMA, Auckland Governance, and infrastructure planning.

Enviroschools have been growing in significance and importance across Auckland for the past 10 years. They would not happen without the support of City Councils and absolutely dedicated City Council staff. Students learn about the simple things: recycling, worm-bins, picking up rubbish. They do things: plant herb gardens and vegetable gardens and native bush areas for native birds. They extend their thinking into the community: travel plans to school safe safe-cycling routes and wys to improve local roads and footpaths. They bring their ideas home to the family: electricity conservation and recycling and composting. Some of this education is linked to National curriculum requirements.

Enviroschools are likely to fall through the cracks as Government changes Auckland.

In some countries Enviroschool stuff is called civics. It’s a big part of the curriculum. It’s valued. Students are taught skills to help them work together, and develop a sense of community spirit. Other countries have a constitution. We could do with something like that here in New Zealand. A consitution that would enshrine certain public participation rights and certain pieces of legislation. Like the principles of local government. Like the bottom line for public participation.

Until then. Revolt and resist.

Auckland Governance: Risks to Transparency, Implementation, Cost

Auckland is revolting. Whole communities and populations are mobilising against Government’s “Making Auckland Greater” proposals for local government. At the heart of these concerns are: the lack of transparency and honesty in the Government approach; risks that proposed reforms will threaten the implementation and delivery of Auckland projects and the Rugby World Cup; burgeoning costs of the new structure.

What started as a strategy of strengthening regional government under the Labour Government has been transformed into a program of local government abolition by the incoming National Government. Plans to streamline the Resource Management Act are now being extended to Auckland itself. But the Government desire to streamline Auckland governance carries huge risks. And the sleeping giant of Auckland is slowly waking up to this.

When “Making Auckland Greater” was announced just weeks ago it had the appearance of being a Government response to the Royal Commission’s recommendations. But I now understand that Department of Internal Affairs officials had been working closely with incoming Government Ministers for months before its strategy for Auckland was revealed.

Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, fronted government decisions on NZ Herald’s perspectives page (29 April), stating: “Auckland cannot become a world-class city without change.”

These words are sophistry because as many letters to ththe NZ Herald have atested, Auckland is already world-class, sharing top-rankings in several world-class city surveys despite issues that led to the Royal Commission.

Many of these issues focussed on the Auckland Regional Council. Most City Councils opposed the ARC’s commitment to the Metropolitan Urban Limit claiming there was a shortage of land. This opposition has persisted despite evidence of land banking by developers and support for the Regional Growth Strategy to limit sprawl and promote selective intensification. Others criticised the ARC for not being tough enough on city councils, and not using its statutory powers to require District Plan changes that would lead to progressive redevelopment of specific urban areas. And there has been continuous lobbying by those calling for institutional changes that will enable faster development of motorways and public transport systems.

Early morning at Mangawhai Heads. I go here to escape Auckland and the disappointment and concern I feel about Government's poorly conceived plans for Auckland.

During my eleven years serving the public as a local government representative I have witnessed considerable improvement and change. Exemplary regeneration projects in the past few years include Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; FlatBush development at Manukau managed by that council’s professional land development CCO; and North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.

There is room for improvement in Auckland governance arrangements. We can do better, but these exemplars are projects of scale that could not be delivered by a Community Board. Yet they are local projects. Each embodies significant character elements and connections that are locally authentic. Future projects like these will become impossible to implement without appropriate local government arrangements.

The Government has neither explained nor justified the fundamentals that lie behind its plan for Auckland, and big questions are being asked.

Questions like: Who, with the Rugby World Cup event coming in 2011, would knowingly abolish on the 30th of October 2010 almost all public organisations responsible for its successful delivery, and invite Rugby World Cup event service managers to re-apply for their jobs?

Rodney Hide writes: “Instead of eight rating authorities, eight long-term council plans, eight data systems, eight local transport entities, eight water and wastewater providers, there will be one of each. Instead of seven district plans there will be one. Instead of 109 councillors there will be 20.” However in fire-fighting criticisms over the loss of local democracy, Government is now facing pressure to establish 30 Borough-Council-strength Community Boards, each with its own plan and budget, and requiring the election of around 200 Community Board members on significantly higher remuneration than now.

Does Government really want to take Auckland back to that future? I don't think so.

Nobody speaks of savings now. The Prime Minister and the Royal Commission have been careful to down-play the likelihood of significant savings. This is not surprising because what is emerging are stories of increasing costs: new data systems; increased water charges and huge staff layoffs; re-organisation costs.

Government should front up to Auckland with a proper explanation of what its strategy actually is, what policy assumptions underpin that strategy, what its Auckland vision actually looks like, and how it will be implemented in practice. Auckland does not need another strategy that fails to recognise the implementation imperative. Auckland needs to get things done. And it needs to be allowed to develop as a multi-cultural city, with diverse places to live, work, play and grow up. It does not need the blandness that is a significant risk of excessive centralisation and institutional destruction.

Auckland needs the institutional tools and structure to get on with the job of city building and place shaping. Auckland has already grown in diversity and difference over the past twenty years.

Parts of Manukau provide places of choice for many Polynesian peoples. Some may criticise those communities, but speak to the locals, look at their tidy properties, local schools, and markets, and recognise it is their choice. Same for West Auckland. There is a distinctly West-Auckland character in the development and feel of Henderson and environs that is enshrined in Outrageous Fortune on TV. And North Shore, with its cleaned up beaches and emphasis on recreation and elite sporting provision is Auckland’s “Life Style City”.

Auckland has grown up in the past decade of development. Its communities have been shaped by the governance structures that have been in place.

And the future shape of Auckland will continue to be determined by the shape of its governance. Auckland needs some fixing. But don’t fix what ain’t broken.

Auckland Restructure - where's the "thought leadership"...?

I am struggling to find any “thought-leadership” that supports Government restructuring proposals for Auckland local governance. That makes it very hard to accept, and difficult to engage with.

The “Making Auckland Greater” document which accompanied Cabinet decisions two or three weeks ago, had been worked on for a good while longer than appearances suggested. It looked as if Cabinet had cooked up its “response” to the Royal Commission’s reports in a week. But now I hear through the grapevine that senior officials in the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) had working on a Government response for much longer.

So. The Government’s response is not a reaction to the Royal Commission at all. It is its own decision. There have been enough statements from enough politicians to the effect that restructuring will not produce savings of any consequence. Some may still be arguing that there will be savings, but the consensus is that savings will be minimal. The consensus is also that Auckland governance restructuring will cost money. So the question has to be asked: what are we doing, and why.

Summer sunset at Timaru. I liked the triangle. And I'm fascinated how mature gum trees in silhouette can look exactly like a handful of dry weeds held closeup.

I have to assume that what is being proposed is based on Government’s strategy for Auckland. It is intended to give effect to an incoming Government’s principles.

But what are they? What is Government’s plan for Auckland?

It is always difficult to second guess this stuff, but if – as seems likely – there I serious policy work being done in the DIA – then they will have considered what is happening around the world on this. How cities need to be governed, or self-governed, to best engage with and respond to global forces.

So I had a bit of hunt through Google on this.

From this we can glean that for centuries the world economy has shaped the life and development of cities. Now we seem to be in an age where this effect is more profound than it has been. Or at least that is the case in the age of globalisation. This was the age of global flows: flows of money, flows of information, flows of technology. We can see case studies of cities that have very deliberately positioned themselves to benefit from these flows.

Dubai is an extreme example.

On the other hand, every country, and every city has its own history and its own geo-political position. Google wisdom suggests that there is a very clear need to manage these two realities. Also there is a need to recognise that local realities, or local differences, have a strategic value and add edge to what a city has to offer. The converse of this is that the city that sells its soul as it strives to be all things to all global investors, can profoundly damage that city’s future.

A couple of approaches to local government organisation:

Community Choice Political fragmentation is not an especially positive word for what others would describe as local decision-making, local accountability, democracy. Theorists describe it is as public choice. They argue that a modern metropolitan area should contain multiple political jurisdictions, and that these will enhance choice (people choosing where they live in a city based on the character and the cost of an area), and they will enhance efficiency in service delivery (because not everybody wants the same services delivered to the same quality in all areas.) There is a market of local governments where mobile ‘citizens’ shop around for ‘communities’ that best fit their preferences.

Regionalism The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to regionalism. Political theorists argue that political fragmentation of a metropolitan area makes it difficult to streamline economic development, to provide regional services, or to enable the expression of a regional voice. These theorists advocate for one single voice. Consolidationists therefore argue that regional government is the solution. That is what Government is arguing, without being clear what it’s doing and why. Getting a city on board globalisation - and the global investment trail - is often associated with moves to regionalise local government.

This is also a conversation about centralisation vs de-centralisation. Some thinkers argue that decentralisation can work as long as there is a constant dialogue across jurisdictions regarding the urban problems that affect everyone in a metropolitan area. The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to extreme decentralisation – in the form of an all powerful Auckland Council, with a fig-leaf of local government - in the form of community boards which are actually a functional part of Auckland Council. A very big and muscular right arm, and a small and weak left arm, but both driven by one body corporate. It’s all about regionalism. It is not about local government.

The economic thinking that underpins the drive to regionalism is interesting. According to the writings of Bob Jessop – one of the thinkers about all this (my comments are in brackets) writes: “Post-war macroeconomic and microeconomic policies designed to facilitate full employment, price stability, economic growth, and the distribution of social welfare are no longer feasible through the national-state. (This fact has been intensified by the financial recession and the collapse of cheap fossil fuelled land speculation.) So, cities must increasingly use new, entrepreneurial modes of production and governance to secure competitiveness (and attract global investment). Likewise, the state must exploit the competitive advantages created by successful entrepreneurial cities, to secure an advantage internationally. This strategy can only be carried out through long-term organizational coordination coupled with effective performance assessment and accountability standards….”

He goes on to lay out the policy groundwork: “Several general trends are pivotal to the contextualization of the entrepreneurial city: 1) the de-nationalization of statehood, including the abdication of de jure sovereignty to supranational institutions and the devolution of authority to the city/regional level; 2) the transformation from government to governance in the form of partnerships between state agencies and non-governmental organizations; 3) the internationalization of the national state and a subsequent magnification of the transnational implications of domestic behaviour; …all of these processes contribute to the rise of the entrepreneurial city. The transformation of urban economics toward entrepreneurialism is driven by globalization, resulting in local activities such as new governance methods of public/private networking….”

This is all a bit disturbing. Suggesting that Government's plan for Auckland governance is driven by Auckland becoming much more entrepreneur/developer friendly. Of course we still don’t know who has actaually provided the basic policy thinking behind what Government is doing. I don’t know anyway.

But the above does give a flavour. Rings true. It is the sort of thing that might appeal to Rodney.

The problem with it all though, is that the collapse of the global property and real estate development finance industry, has destroyed much of the drive for globalisation. It was a house of cards. Look at Dubai. Fast sinking below the desert sands. And there are many other such projects. Look at the IMF - wondering where its future might best lie now.

So why should Auckland’s governance be re-shaped for a future that is no longer credible, by thinking that has passed its sell-by date?

And if there are other economic theories that underpin Governments’ project for Auckland, let us all share in their wisdom. C'mon Rodney, open that kimono, show us what you've got!

Royal Commissars or Royal Commissioners?

This blog was inspired, among other things, by comments made by Margaret Bazley when she was interviewed on National Radio last week. She spoke long and hard about pre-school service provision in South Auckland. She passionately advocated for the whole of the Royal Commission's recommendations to be implemented. Every one. That all of the commissioners had agreed 100% with every one of its over 100 recommendations....

Didn't sound that credible. Bit over the top. Not very practical. Alarm bells went off....

So I had a quick read of its 788 pages. Not every word you understand, but enough to form an opinion that this whole thing is a bugger's muddle, that it's a stuff up. So this blog is a bit of a reprise on how we got here, but mostly it's about what the commissioners have done. First a bit of background....

How we got a Royal Commission

Several quite different political initiatives have led to the New Zealand Government decision that a Royal Commission was needed to: "receive representation upon, inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms, and processes) that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future…"

For example, since 2005, Manukau and Waitakere City Councils have sought to have the powers of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) reduced in regard to the ARC’s ability to set the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). Frustration at not being able to act independently and rezone rural land for Greenfield development partly inspired the so-called "Auckland Mayoral Coup" in 2006 which was led by all four city mayors, and which sought to replace the elected ARC with themselves, selected businessmen, govt officials and the Minister for Auckland Issues. The mayors proposed a 'Lord Mayor' who was to be elected from across the whole region.

Countering this initiative, elected councillors advocating for sustainable development, and seeking compact urban development and more energy efficient land use patterns, called for a stronger and more independent regional government, with the power to implement regional strategies such as the Growth Strategy, the Auckland Sustainability Framework, and the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

Business interests in Auckland, frustrated by matters including transport congestion, delays in the completion of the state highway network, and reports about shortages in land supply for commercial development, called for greater involvement in Auckland governance of business leaders. Some went so far as to suggest the whole of Auckland’s local governance should be in the hands of a Commission run by government appointed commissioners.

Also in 2006 the Metro Project, run from the ARC’s Auckland Regional Economic Development Office (AREDO), commissioned an International Review Team to undertake a visit and review of Auckland and to comment on a series of background papers prepared for the Metro Auckland Project team. The review partners included Auckland business interests, central government departments, academics, and local government representatives. The "Metro Report" made a number of recommendations relating to Auckland’s governance and other matters that attracted the interest of Central Government.

And for the past few years there have been numerous public debates about who should be responsible for the funding and political management of Auckland Philharmonic Orchestra, Motat, and other regional amenities.

These were among the most significant calls for change to Auckland’s governance arrangements. And so the previous Labour-led Government set up a Royal Commission to look into it. The Commission was also told to incorporate the findings of the Rating Review. David Shand was also on this. In my opinion, the Rating Review was a peculiar and unbalanced piece of work. You can read my analysis of it at: http://www.joelcayford.com/arc.htm#q6 (The Ups and Downs of the Rating Review)....

What the Royal Commission wrote

I'm not going into every last bit here. This is not a comprehensive analysis. But it is a strategic one. First thing that struck me was how wide-ranging the commissioners have gone with their review. Hardly a stone left unturned. For example they are even pulling Government into Auckland with an Auckland Cabinet Committee - apparently essential to the whole thing. The report's Part 3: Vision for Auckland, starts well enough with chapters on vision, economic development, environment, urban design & heritage. But then there's a doozey of a chapter - social wellbeing - that runs for 70 pages. Social well-being makes up half of the Royal Commission's vision for Auckland..... My bet is this is Margaret Bazley's chapter. It's the issue she really went into bat for on radio. I accept that Auckland has social issues, and that it's a tale of several cities, and that Manukau has different issues to deal with than North Shore. I also accept that these differences affect the priorities of each Council. But Central Government and taxation play the main role in health, education and social well-being matters and related service provision. While these matters need to be born in mind for Auckland local government, they are not core local government services. The line needs to be drawn - otherwise we'll all be trying to do everything.

Then we get into Part 4: Structural Reform. This part really shows up the weakness or inappropriateness of what the Royal Commission has done. This section sets out the Guiding Principles for Shaping Auckland Governance. These are said to be: common identity and purpose; effectiveness; transparency and accountability; responsiveness. Nowhere a mention of practicality or implementability. And this, I think, is at the heart of why this Royal Commission has served up a crock. Rather than follow the guidance and direction that underpinned its terms of reference, the Royal Commission has gone right back to first principles, it has thrown all of the local government toys out of the cot, and then - from scratch, a tabla rasa approach - tried to put it all back together. But they haven't gone the whole hog - which is what ARC was recommending (and which I strongly opposed, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater). They've gone part of the way.

The Royal Commission's recommendations fall between the perfect "start from scratch ideal", and the "quick and do-able dirty", and that's why it fail on many counts. Recommendations must pass the test of being practical and implementable. Because this is not a perfect world. That should have been a principle for the Royal Commission. It is astounding to me that it was not.

But then we have Part 5: Practical Solutions to Pressing Problems. Sounds good, but it's already too late. Royal Commission had already decided that being practical and putting forward recommendations that passed an implementation test - was not to be on of its principles. It's in Part 5 that we can find the Peter Salmon Chapter, and the David Shand Chapter. The Hon Peter Salmon had a lot to do with crafting the Resource Management Act. Chapter 24 - Planning for Auckland - is RMA specific. It makes no mention of the role of the Local Government Act - which is more about planning for what we do want. It introduces an extremely powerful planning tool called Development Levies. This chapter is written as if the LGA did not exist. It does not do the notion of integrated planning any favours.

Also in Part 5 we have what I regard as the David Shand chapter. Chapter 26, The Three Waters. To my eye, this chapter has been pretty much lifted out of his Rating Review report. At 43 pages, it is nearly twice as long as the chapter on transport. Sadly, I couldn't find a chapter that seriously dealt with the pressing issue of how to properly integrate land use and transport planning, and to deliver more sustainable and energy efficient land use development.

The Royal Commission's view of Community Engagement

At page 296 etc, the Royal Commission sweepingly states that "community engagement is poor...". In my experience the best community engagement that I have seen in my 12 years of local government has been driven by community boards. And it has been far from poor. I have written about this elsewhere. I also believe that North Shore City's engagement with its community over the need to clean up its wastewater network and systems, was exemplary. Indeed I am aware that this work has attracted international attention. And based on this sweeping incorrect generalisation, the Royal Commission abolishes Community Boards.

End Note

I'll leave you to make what you will of the plethora of recommendations made, and the extent to which they match up with the reason Auckland got into this. But I think the Royal Commission took far more rope than was given, Commissioners pursued their own hobby horses individually, and they did not produce a coherent and practical set of implementable recommendations. I just hope that Auckland, and Central Government, are wise enough to ensure that Auckland is not hanged by them.

So. What about the Royal Commision?

It's been an interesting day. Absorbing the Auckland Royal Commission's report - well - the Executive Summary, listening to comment, watching TVNZ's report, and we had an ARC Council briefing at 2:30 today. It's been enlightening. But there's still a few clouds over Auckland with these recommendations.

My first positive thoughts were these: good to see regional governance strengthened; good to see second level of local government retained with entities based around the existing North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau City structures, and Rodney District, and Papakura combined with Franklin.

And it was interesting to see the approach to Auckland City: separate Auckland CBD and Waterfront and give special treatment through direct governance by Auckland Council, and local input through an Auckland CBD and Waterfront Community Board. That would be a doozey of a community board to be on!

But I was disturbed to see Community Boards generally abolished - except for the obvious examples retained at Waiheke and Barrier Islands.

I was also disturbed to see the recommendations regarding Auckland City Council mayoral power. I don't think Auckland is ready for that sort of executive power at all.

The Commission has recommended that Auckland's elected-at-large mayor should have these additional powers and duties:

• power to appoint the deputy mayor (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to appoint the chairs of each committee of the Auckland Council (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to chair committees as he or she may determine;


• power to propose the draft LTCCP and the draft annual plan to Auckland Council;


• power to propose the budget;


• power to initiate and formulate major policy for consideration by council;


• power to establish and maintain an appropriately staffed office;


• power to obtain independent advice.

That's a lot of powers!

It also recommends interestingly - that the mayor should have four annual meetings with members of the public "mayors days"; and meet monthly with the chairs of the 6 local councils; and have quarterly plenary meetings with all councillors and chairs from across the region (around 70 would be in the chamber for those meetings.)

The degree of centralised decision-making, and the lack of grassroots local government is the main concern I have. This is not the same as the model advocated by ARC: "the one and the many". This is: "the one and the few", but without the truly local.

The functions of the local level of local government that have been proposed by the royal commission - essentially as the local delivery point of centrally governed services and policies, and with a strong responsibility for being Auckland Council's "ears and eyes" into the local community - means that it will be difficult for that role to be further decentralised.

It might make sense for Area Offices to be maintained throughout each Local Council Area. But that might be thought wasteful.

The challenge - I think - is for those supporting the abolition of community boards to demonstrate that the functions today of good and well-functioning community boards can be well provided by the proposed local councils. Conversely - those wanting some form of community board - or equivalent function - to be retained need to argue why, and also how that might happen. Difficult. But unless this is done well and responsibly, there is real risk here of the local baby being thrown out with the regional governance bathwater.

On a detailed front, things I like about the Royal Commission recommendations, in no particular order, include:

• stuff about the waterfront like: an emphasis on urban design, management and planning; that future waterfront development be done by an agency with a masterplan - "as opposed to the present piecemeal approach" - hooray!


• integration of water and wastewater especially that water and wastewater will be charged volumetrically and that there is to be an independent services performance auditor and that Watercare will be required by legislation to promote demand management. Boy. Watercare has long needed that....


• that Auckland council is to appoint a parks ranger responsible for volcanic cones!


• that the 6 local councils (4 urban, 2 district) won't have elected mayors, they'll appoint chairs.


• that North Shore City will become Waitemata and include the urban developed Hibiscus Coast part of Rodney (basically Whangapaoroa (sp?) and Orewa, and encompass the Busway from Takapuna through to Silverdale).


• that elected councillors will be prohibited from being appointed to CCOs (like Auckland Regional Holdings, Watercare, RTA (made from ARTA), the proposed Urban Development Agency etc).


• that local roads will still be controlled by Local Councils as they exercise their "place making" or "place shaping" roles.


• particular recognition is given that stormwater management need to be shared between Watercare and the Local Councils. This is a complex issue.


• that Auckland Council should develop a regional waste management strategy, including for organic waste, and integration of waste management with other encironmental programmes. About time I say.

Anyway. While I can get excited about this stuff, at the moment it's only a set of recommendations. Though the Royal Commission has also gone to the trouble of drafting legislation to implement its recommendations. But it won't happen until Government enacts the required legislation.

Do you think Government will want an Auckland Mayor as powerful as London's Mayor of Greater London Council? Depends which Party puts him/her in there I guess. But that's a political lottery. When I was in Curitiba Brazil I met Jaime Lerner - the famous ex-mayor of that city. Did some amazing stuff. Had huge personal power. But that was South America. And London is very established. Auckland is in between. I don't think it's ready for the sort of individual mayoral power that the commissioners would like.

But I could be persuaded.