Super City Reforms - Stirred but Unshaken

The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that was reported back from the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee yesterday makes for an interesting - and long - read. There are 60 pages of explanation from the Select Committee - most of these pages are taken up with the "majority" view (of National and Act members presumably), while some are dedicated to the "minority" views of the Labour, Green and Maori Parties. And there are 320 pages of the Bill complete with cross-outs (deletions from the first draft) and new sections.

The majority recommendation introduction conveys the tone of the Select Committee's thinking:

"...In our consideration of the bill we faced the challenge of finding the appropriate balance between specifying in the legislation the details of the governance structure and allowing Auckland Council appropriate flexibility to decide its own structure and processes. In finding this balance we have been mindful of Auckland's long-standing difficulties in providing integrated governance of the region. We have tried to devise a governance structure and legislative framework that can help the region progress. We are confident the new Auckland Council will take up this challenge, that it will listen to and represent its many diverse communities, and that it will overcome factionalised interests and work for the good of all Aucklanders..."

The key words to note in the above introduction are: "appropriate balance" and "integrated governance of the region" and "overcome factionalised interests".

The Good Bits

There are some good bits in the Bill. The Select Committee did listen to the tonnage of submissions that were made to this Bill. But remember, this is the third bill. There have been two other Bills that more or less set the course for these reforms. I was one of many submitters who tackled the specifics of Bill 3, rather than the fundamentals of the Government's reforms of Auckland governance. The last few sentences of my submission were these:

"....Throughout the process of Auckland Governance reform I have expressed strong concerns about both the process and the direction of these reforms. For the purposes of this submission I have set aside my broader concerns, and concentrated on the specific provisions in the Bill which I submit need to change in order to deliver the Government’s stated purpose of the Bill, namely: “…to create one Auckland, which has strong regional governance, integrated decision making, greater community engagement and improved value for money…....”
(You can see my submission at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-submission-on-auckland-supercity.html)

Many people and groups made submissions to the Bill with this caveat. We were trying to make the best out of a bad design. Trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. And there have been improvements made by the Select Ctte. To this sow's ear of a SuperCity governance structure.

These include:

* Auckland Council being able to hire and fire directors of any of the CCOs. (Though in my experience of CCO's and Council owned entities - which includes Watercare, ARTA, ARH, Sea + City, POAL - we have never actually fired a director. A few didn't get their terms renewed after 2 or 3 years service. The major effort is in the initial appointments.)

* Auckland Council NOT being able to appoint councillors as directors to CCO's - except it can appoint 2 councillors onto the Board of the Auckland Transport CCO. (I agree that if Auckland Council must have CCOs then governance becomes problematic if you have councillors on CCO boards. The reason Select Ctte accepts having councillors on the board of Auckland Transport is because of the amount of money spent by that CCO, and the need - therefore - for increased accountability. This is tacit acceptance of the lack of accountability that goes with any CCO structure).

* Auckland Council being able to appoint the Chair and Deputy Chair of all CCO's.

* The Select Ctte setting out a comprehensive example of the non-regulatory activities that it recommends Local Boards should be empowered to decide and determine. (I am inclined to accept the view that the Select Ctte did not have the expertise to decide in detail what Local Boards should and should not be enabled to have power over. However the Auckland Transition Agency - which has been empowered to make this call - will have its work cut out in making these jurisdictional allocations in time for would-be candidates to know what Local Boards will be tasked with after elections later this year.) It is also appropriate to set a minimum timeframe of 18 months after the election before Auckland Council can reduce any powers that are allocated to Local Boards by the ATA, noting also that at any time - subject to consultation -Auckland Council can delegate additional powers and responsibilities to Local Boards.

* included in the list of activities for Local Board are economic development activities related to town centre upgrades, and where those "affect the Auckland transport system" then the local board would need to "work with Auckland Transport". The interaction with Auckland Transport specified in this exemplar includes decisions about: "Local policy positions on draft statements of intent for CCO's" - which presumably include Auckland Transport. (These are significant roles. However they may just be proxies for consultation that may be ignored. ATA's work now becomes critical. That is what Auckland council will inherit on day 1 - and can be in place for at least 18 months.)

* new accountability policy power for Auckland council over its CCOs. "This policy would allow the Auckland Council to articulate more clearly its day-to-day accountability expectations regarding its substantive CCOs..." (By the way, note the Bill sets up TWO types of CCOs - substantive CCOs - including Auckland Transport - and smaller ones.) The accountability policy specifies Auckland Council's wants re: "CCOs contribution to, and alignment with, the Council's and the Government's objectives and priorities; planning requirements of Auckland Council; requirements that CCOs operate according to LGOIMA; management of strategic assets....". The ctte suggest this accountability policy goes into Auckland Council's LTCCP.

* the Select Ctte recommends a new clause (45/75A) requiring "all substantive CCOs to give effect to all relevant aspects of the Auckland Council's LTCCP and to act consistently with all relevant aspects of other strategies and plans of Auckland Council, including its local boards, as specified by the governing body..." (This is significant. It pust the onus on Auckland Council to adopt relevant strategies that will influence the decisions of CCOs.)

* the Select Ctte has dabbled a bit with the spatial plan provisions. More below about these. But what is interesting is that there is explicit inclusion of "social and cultural infrastructure", and a new section dealing with spatial plan implementation.

* there is also a new provision allowing Auckland Council to set the "rules" for each CCO, but these appear to largely relate to the constitution for each CCO, and appear to be more administrative. (For example I don't think a rule would be allowed for Auckland Transport's CCO constitution requiring its directors to give effect to the Regional Land Transport Strategy!)

The Media's handling so far

NZ Herald has fallen at the first hurdle on this. Their coverage headlined: "U-Turn" is a complete misrepresentation of what the Select Ctte has delivered. The Select Ctte has improved what is fundamentally flawed, but the reforms are resolutely in the same direction. And of course the incoming council will work hard to get the best out of these reforms. That is its duty. But talk about being handed some pretty poorly designed tools to get the job done.

Also the Herald's editorial suggested all was well and we can all wait happily till November 1. Well. The news is that the transition work has really only just got properly started. The ATA must allocate the jurisdictional responsibilities and decision-making responsibilities - along the lines suggested by the Select Committee - to each and every board in the next few months. And each one is different. Not to forget "diverse". Much focussing of media microscopes will continue to be needed to ensure the best outcome. No washing of hands just yet please.

Back to the fundamentals

What is really happening with transport? The Select Ctte's explanation is helpful. It recommends: "...inserting a new section 41(eb) to specify that Auckland Transport is also repsonsible for undertaking any functions or exercising any powers in relation to the management of the State Highway system that the New Zealand Transport Authority has delegated to it.... " It is also clear from briefing papers prior to the first version of this Bill that the purpose of the spatial plan (which was closely linked with the National Infrastructure Plan) was to ensure that Auckland would be ready to receive infrastructure projects that had been centrally planning and funded.

Now, under Select Ctte recommendations, the spatial plan is to include social and cultural infrastructure that is being funded by central government. That could mean schools or prisons. And normally that would be good and appropriate for Auckland planning if there was a fully integrated approach to planning here. But that is not what is proposed. The integration that is proposed and argued for is all about vertical integration. It is about Auckland Council decisions being integrated with central government infrastructure decisions. And that is where the government's ideas about integration begin and end.

The spatial plan and Auckland's governance structure could become tools for rolling out Government economic growth policies. Not only will there be reduced red tape for private sector developments, But potentially central government's development plans for Auckland are also to be smoothly rolled out, the way smoothed by a nationally driven spatial plan, delivered by a super Transport CCO, with a side-lined Auckland Council tut-tutting noisily but ineffectually.

We all need to remember the importance of local place-making in all of the argument and discussion that led to the Royal Commission. Those discussions recognised the importance of horizontal integration, as well as vertical integration. Yes there needed to be better integration between Council and central government, but yes, there also needed to be much more joined up thinking at local level around local place-making plans.

It is at local level that the most sustained and sustainable economic development can occur. It should be through local master plans that infrastructure needs are identified - including for local roads and new allocations of existing road space. That is also the level for good integrated decisions around land use, and land use changes, and transport. Let alone transport energy use.

I have much more to say about this. But in later blogs.

I will end this by drawing attention to the new provisions for spatial planning in the Bill:

66A. Development, adoption, and implementation of spatial plan.
(1) The Auckland Council must involve central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, and other parties (as appropriate) throughout the preparation and development of the spatial plan.
....
(5) The Auckland Council must endeavour to secure and maintain the support and co-operation of central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, and other parties (as appropriate) in the implementation of the spatial plan.

This includes most people, I guess, but not Local Boards explicitly - though they are part of Auckland council. But a key purpose, probably THE key purpose of the spatial plan is to:

(c) enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by Auckland Council (as the spatial planning agency) and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland in accordance with the strategy; and
(d) provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council

Despite the sprinkled inclusion by the Select Ctte of the four well-beings throughout its recommendations, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the broad quadruple bottom-line goals that informed the commencement of Auckland local government reforms have been transformed into a political restructuring that supports an economic growth oriented infrastructure program driven by central government.

The contest of ideas and ideologies that have led to Auckland governance reform will continue to influence its implementation. The proposed Spatial Plan could become a tool to be used solely to support a narrow economic growth program, or it could be used to assist Auckland’s economic development more broadly. But to do that it must be enabled to act locally, and to integrate horizontally, not just vertically to satisfy central government appetites for infrastructure led economic growth.

Best practice spatial planning in Europe and Britain suggests a process that needs to be followed in Auckland to deliver the best planning framework for the future, and also to make a decisive break with Auckland’s bad planning habits of the past.

* Select the issues: Public process of identifying and defining a limited number of strategic issues; build public confidence through involvement and perception that the real issues are being addressed

* Develop a long term plan: Take account of power structures (including land owners, businesses, local boards, central government); develop decision-making structures and processes (to enable implementation to happen); develop conflict solving processes and structures that enable and ensure action and implementation

* Build consensus: Ensure vertical integration in planning process through effective involvement of central government in regional decisions; ensure horizontal integration in planning process through effective involvement of local boards and local stakeholders in local decisions

* Sustainable development: Ensure compliance with four well-being principles of Local Government Act and public consultation requirements; address issues of social exclusion in decision-making; respect and emphasise priority of local place-making alongside regional development objectives

Modern spatial planning is about much more than a map of new infrastructure projects. It is also not about "overcoming factionalised interests" as the Select Ctte appears to want.

It is about changing the way Auckland goes about implementing its strategic economic development plan. Unless these process changes are made in Auckland, then old problems will remain and history will repeat.

Spatial Plan - Proposal Problems and Better Practice

Introduction

On Monday Auckland gets to find out how Bill 3 relating to new Auckland Governance structures has been changed after the Select Committee processes. This will include how the Government now considers how spatial plannning should be carried out by Auckland Council, and for what purpose. So we are all ears.

In the meantime my research into spatial planning has been conducted. This has emphasised looking at international best practice, and the use of indicators as a means of measuring how the implementation of the spatial plan is proceeding, as well as a means of getting stakeholder buy in and participation into the planning process itself. I will be putting up the whole of the research on this blog in the fulness of time. But I thought it timely to put up my research conclusions here. Now.....

Preliminary Research Conclusion

"....While there are many differences in detail, there is clear consensus across National Government, and Regional and Local government in Auckland, that Auckland needs a spatial plan. There also appears to be clear direction in law that the spatial plan should be consistent with the purposes of the Local Government Act which includes that:

….local authorities play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach.

However the contest of ideas and ideologies that have led to Auckland governance reform will continue to influence its implementation. The broad quadruple bottom-line goals that informed the commencement of Auckland local government reforms have been transformed into a political restructuring that supports an economic growth oriented infrastructure program driven by central government. The proposed Spatial Plan is a tool that could be used solely to support that program, or it could be used to assist Auckland’s development more broadly.

This research into the Auckland strategic planning documents that will form the building blocks of the new spatial plan, and their associated indicator sets, highlights deficiencies that are endemic in Auckland local government planning. These deficiencies include:

* the absence of integration in policy, strategy and implementation;
* the avoidance of accountable cause and effect approaches to planning and outcomes; and
* the impoverished engagement with stakeholders and the community.

This new research serves to confirm the long standing regional criticisms of ‘what is wrong with Auckland’ that are recorded in the body of the research document, and which include:

* Long term strategy needs: refined classification for Auckland’s centres, corridors and business areas, in order to provide greater certainty as to the location and sequencing of growth; strengthened alignment of land use, transport and economic development
* Implementation issues: difficulties in implementation; mis-located activities, responsibilities or decisions and a lack of regional control; slow plan changes that enable quality centres-based development; the lack of approaches to encourage quality intensification and redevelopment in centres and corridors
* Integrated planning gaps: Unclear or poorly defined roles, responsibilities or mandates; lack of alignment between national and regional priorities; the need to broaden the partnership around social objectives, at both the strategic planning level, and at the local implementation level (using place-based, master planning and ‘whole-of-government’ approaches)

Best practice spatial planning in Europe and Britain suggests a process that needs to be followed in Auckland to deliver the best planning framework for the future, but also to make a decisive break with Auckland’s bad planning habits of the past.

* Select the issues: Public process of identifying and defining a limited number of strategic issues; build public confidence through involvement and perception that the real issues are being addressed
* Develop long term plan: Take account of power structures (including land owners, businesses, local boards, central government); develop decision-making structures and processes (to enable implementation to happen); develop conflict solving processes and structures that enable and ensure action and implementation
* Build consensus: Ensure vertical integration in planning process through effective involvement of central government in regional decisions; ensure horizontal integration in planning process through effective involvement of local boards and local stakeholders in local decisions
* Sustainable development: Ensure compliance with four well-being principles of Local Government Act and public consultation requirements; address issues of social exclusion in decision-making; respect and emphasise priority of local place-making alongside regional development objectives

Modern spatial planning is about much more than a map of new infrastructure projects. It is about changing the way Auckland goes about implementing its strategic economic development plan. Unless these process changes are made in Auckland, then old problems will remain and history will repeat.

Auckland’s planning failure is an issue. It must be addressed. Such changes in process must become part of the spatial plan. As such these processes need their own indicators and their own measures of success.

The indicators that are adopted do not need to be perfect nor complete. Nor does the spatial plan. But it does need to include the issues to be addressed. It does not need to be comprehensive, but it does need to be integrated. And it needs to be based upon a set of indicators that are reasonable rather than perfect measures of the outcomes that spatial planning is designed to influence...."

My Submission on Auckland SuperCity Bill 3

Submission on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. February 2010

1. Introduction

This submission is from Joel Cayford, Auckland Regional Councillor

Joel Cayford
94 Ngataringa Road
Devonport
North Shore City
09 445 2763 / 0274 978 123 / joel.cayford@arc.govt.nz

The information presented herein derives from my long interest in Auckland and Auckland Local Government, and twelve years as an elected representative during which time I have served on Devonport Community Board, North Shore City Council and Auckland Regional Council.
I would appreciate the opportunity to speak to my submission.

2. Summary

The purpose of the changed governance arrangements provided for in the Bill are described in the General policy statement that is embedded in the Bill's explanatory note as follows:

“…to create one Auckland, which has strong regional governance, integrated decision making, greater community engagement and improved value for money….” There seems little likelihood this purpose will be achieved given the problems inherent in the Bill as drafted:

· The Bill fails to provide clear authority, control and accountability linkages between the Auckland Council and the proposed CCOs;
· The Bill fails to adequately define Auckland Council’s role to develop either a spatial plan and associated strategies, or other strategies, priorities and policies, and the delegation and control by Auckland Council of proposed CCOs to ensure delivery and implementation of such 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;
· Also missing is important detail on the functions, powers and duties of the tier of local boards that one imagines are intended to deliver the ‘greater community engagement’ and community based decision making that the Bill aims for, and there is no mechanism provided whereby Local Boards can influence or be consulted about, works or services that are planned in their areas by any of the CCOs;
· 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;
· It is also difficult to see how the Bill will ensure that “improved value for money” is delivered under the new arrangements, given the deep layers of management and bureaucracy that appear to be required, and the number of independent management, financial and control systems that are certain to be associated with the number of separate entities.

3. Specific Recommendations

I would like to highlight the following areas of particular concern, and submit that specific changes are required to the Bill to address them:

§ Auckland Council control over CCO’s

The term “Council Controlled Organisation” as defined in the Bill is a misnomer. The Bill’s provisions limit the control that Auckland Council can exercise over the CCOs that the Bill provides to deliver the bulk of local services to ratepayers. The CCO’s and their assets are owned on behalf of ratepayers by Auckland Council. Auckland Council raises rates from ratepayers to meet the costs incurred by the CCOs to deliver local services. The Bill’s provisions need to unequivocally define and describe the extent of control exercised by Auckland Council over the directions and priorities of each of its CCOs. Provisions in the current draft of the Bill leave that control in a blur of director appointments and highly qualified statements of intent. The Bill needs to clearly state that CCO’s – unless required otherwise by Auckland Council – must act consistently with the strategies and policies of Auckland Council.

§ Regional Strategic Planning and the Spatial Plan

While I agree that Auckland would benefit from a Spatial Plan approach to regional planning – one that is about planning for what Auckland wants, rather than the RMA approach which is about planning to avoid what we don’t want – I don’t believe the approach provided for in the Bill is appropriate. As I understand it, the Bill provides for a Statutory Spatial Plan which stands alone. As drafted the Bill’s Spatial Plan would have no effect on any of the CCO’s, and nor would it inter-relate with other Statutory Plans such as the LTCCP or the Regional Policy Statement. In effect the Bill would provide for a sort of Spatial Plan “play thing”. A distraction from what is needed. I am advised also that further changes envisaged to the RMA (further streamline changes etc which may deal with concepts such as the Metropolitan Urban Limit and the need for integrated planning and suchlike) can be expected to substantially change the legislative environment in which a Spatial Plan would be conceived and implemented. I am of the view that these legislative changes need to be dealt with prior to requiring Auckland Council to prepare a Spatial Plan. In addition there are significant practical impediments that would prevent an effective Spatial Plan being prepared in under three years – these include the fact that there are several different GIS (Geographic Information Systems) which need to be properly integrated to allow the detailed regional modelling and the coordination of different data sets needed to provide a credible evidence base to support Spatial Plan scenario development.

However, in the absence of a Spatial Plan, it is crucial that the incoming Auckland Council is provided with a regional strategic planning document resulting from the analytical work described in Schedule 1 of the Bill. At present the Bill requires this planning work to be carried out by ATA and includes the consolidation of existing TA LTCCPs, for each of the next 6 or 7 years. I submit that this work needs to also describe key infrastructure projects – not just activity classes. And set out the rationale and prioritisation policies used in those LTCCPs for such projects. For example the planning document should list, by year, and by area, infrastructure projects that cost in excess of $1,000,000, in each activity class, and provide an account of the policy basis for project prioritisation. This planning document would then form the starting point for Auckland Council.

I further submit that there is an omission in the consolidation process currently required of ATA in the Bill. The consolidation and planning process carried out by ATA should also include the next 6 or 7 years from Watercare’s current Long Term Planning documents. It is inappropriate for Auckland Council to commence business without a properly integrated and consolidated set of plans for the whole region and for all of its activity classes, assets and services.

§ Subsidiarity and Local Boards

In order for the Local Boards to have a truly “placeshaping” role it is crucial that their functions should be clearly defined, substantive and meaningful. I understand that ATA (The Auckland Transition Agency) is required to develop a plan setting out functions of each Local Board, based on an assessment of the various LTCCPs that exist across the region. That will be a useful baseline. However, I believe it would assist the conduct of this activity, if the Bill were to provide direction requiring all parties to ensure that decisions are taken at the lowest level affected. The purpose of this direction is to ensure to the best extent possible, that regional decisions are taken at regional level, and that local decisions are taken at local level.

§ Local Board relationship with CCOs

Under the Bill, the Local Boards will not have the ability to input into any strategies or plans made by the CCOs nor will the CCOs be accountable to the Local Boards for work done in a local area. This makes a nonsense of the stated intention to retain the “local” in local government. I would like to see some provision in the Bill for Local Boards to have the ability to deal directly with the transport organisation or any of the other CCO’s where there is a local impact in respect of the work they are doing. I believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board Agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the 2 bodies by 30 April of the year following an election. Some sort of statutory mechanism needs to be established in respect to works in local roads and streets, and local water and wastewater services, whereby the relevant CCO must consistently conduct effective engagement with all Local Boards.

§ One Rates & Services Bill

There is a risk of proliferation of systems, databases and structures with the emergence of a number of more or less separate CCOs.

Similarly there are cost risks associated with the establishment of layers of management required to control very large corporate entities – which themselves are not subject to self regulation through market forces, nor are there parallel structures enabling comparative benchmarking measures to be used to force management disciplines. Auckland Council will have its hands full controlling a burgeoning culture of middle-management, and staffing its own CCO monitoring and control structures.

The Bill can assist in protecting against some of the worst excesses of corporate separatism by requiring – for example – that, after the transitionary phase, there be a single rates and services bill. Thus ratepayers would receive a single Bill, quarterly or every two months, that would itemise their local government service costs for that period. These would – for example – include land rates; water charges based on metered water use; wastewater charges based on volumetric measures; and local targeted rates where these exist.

4. Concluding remarks

Throughout the process of Auckland Governance reform I have expressed strong concerns about both the process and the direction of these reforms. For the purposes of this submission I have set aside my broader concerns, and concentrated on the specific provisions in the Bill which I submit need to change in order to deliver the Government’s stated purpose of the Bill, namely:

“…to create one Auckland, which has strong regional governance, integrated decision making, greater community engagement and improved value for money….”

End

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.

Should Auckland Council have a Spatial Plan?

My preliminary planner's answer to this question is an overwhelming yes.
But there is a debate here, in Auckland, across Auckland, within the existing councils, the ARC, and within the Auckland Transition Authority. I will be writing much more about this as the discussion unfolds.

Several major points:
- The present wholesale restructuring of Auckland local government was originally (at any rate) driven by a perceived need to improve and empower regional planning (ie not to weaken it).
- Auckland's current planning environment - largely driven by RMA - is an effects based planning environment. We plan for what we don't want (want to avoid, remedy, mitigate). We don't plan for what we do want - and we need to. Now.
- It took several years for Auckland to adopt the Auckland Region Growth Strategy, and a decade later, Auckland is still finding it a challenge to implement it. Regional planning frameworks and priorities take a while to develop, gain acceptance, and get implemented.
- Government decisions to incorporate major infrastructure services (water, wastewater, transport, waterfront development, stadia, property development etc) into arms length entities requires Auckland Council to plan for Auckland's future, in a way that sets the priorities and directions for those entities

Bill 3 contains a suite of provisions for a Spatial Plan which range from the sublime ("...to state policies, priorities, programmes, and land allocations that will implement the strategic direction and to specify resources that will be provided to implement the strategic direction....") to the even more sublime ("...to visually illustrate how Auckland may develop in the future, including how growth may be sequenced and how infrastructure may be provided...").

But the Bill does not require Auckland Council's substantive entities (Watercare and Auckland Transport), to "give effect" to this Spatial Plan. Nor does the Bill say when the Spatial Plan should be built. Nor does it indicate how frequently it should be updated.

To say that these Spatial Plan provisions is "disconnected" would be an understatement. Clearly they are disconnected from what Auckland Council should be expected to control (eg transport and water services). But they are also disconnected from other regional plans.

Auckland Council will inherit various plans, some works in progress, some complete. These include 7 District Plans, 1 Regional Policy Statement (halfway through a major review), 8 Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs), a partially reviewed Regional Transport Strategy, plus other plans like the half-baked "One Plan", a Business Land Strategy, a Regional Parks Management Strategy .... and I can imagine a whole heap of Economic Development Strategies.

These plans will all be based on, or supported by, a cluster of data sets, maps, and council specific GIS systems. Different systems. Different software. All needing to be integrated. So there is a common information base upon which to build a technically competent and reliable Spatial Plan. Though something a little higher level could preceed this....

The ARC has been advised that, in preparing Bill 3, Cabinet considered various options for Regional Planning that included the idea of a Spatial Plan, and these included:

1) Status Quo (we all need to await the Second Round of RMA reforms - which are likely to include - horror of horrors - abolition of controls like Metropolitan Urban Limits);
2) Changes to the LGA 2002 so that the LTCCP would contain the Spatial Plan;
3) A statutory Spatial Plan that replaces other existing strategic plans;
4) A statutory Spatial Plan with strengthened legislative linkages. so that the Spatial Plan influences planning under other legislation (LGA 2002, RMA and LTMA planning frameworks);
5) A statutory Spatial Plan with no additional or strengthened legislative linkages, with changes to be considered later through the RMA reform process....

It appears that option 5 has been chosen.
But there is little justification for that choice.

The ARC's draft submission re Spatial Plan provisions, suggests that either:

1. The Government proceeds with (4) - ie sorts out the linkages (connexions) with other planning frameworks and legislations - and then brings in legislation requiring a Spatial Plan; or
2. Deletes the (half-baked) Spatial Plan provisions in the Bill, until work on the RMA is complete, when the Government could make a change then to LGA 2002, or to the Auckland Council Act, to require a statutory Spatial Plan.

So. Very hairy.

My take on this, whichever of the ARC options are recommended (and there may well be other positions taken by other parties), it is essential that Auckland Council is in the position to adopt strategies and priorities and directions very soon after being formed that have the effect of directing the activities of the plethora of CCOs that will exist in Auckland.

This would be an interim set of strategies and priorities. Maybe covering the first 24 months or 36 months. Terse and to the point. A controlling document for the region.

You only have to look at the very brief and punchy directions that Government adopts in respect of the SOE's that it controls, to get some idea of what Auckland Council should be in a position to quickly develop and adopt and require giving effect to, when it takes office.

More on this later. Actually sooner than later....

North Shore City's useful Bill 3 Submission

I would like to congratulate North Shore City Council officers for a very useful and readable draft submission to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Aka Bill 3. I understand this submission is very much the thinking of the politicians first and foremost, put into submission form by the officers.

You can find a link so you can download the whole thing at the end of this blog. But what I wanted to provide was my extracts from it. My choice of extracts is based on getting the main guts out of the submission, so you can use bits and pieces in your own submission. If you want to. It's not bad to repeat stuff - especially if you strongly agree.

NSCC's submission is a very useful summary of issues relating to: Local Boards; CCO's in general; Auckland Transport CCO in particular; Spatial Plan; and Stormwater.

1. Statement of Principles

Inter-relationships

“…there is risk with moving from 8 local government organisations to one local government organisation and 8 Council Controlled Organisations that the same issues with tensions and slow resolution of problems could continue to be the bane of Auckland’s governance, therefore it is vital the organisations have a shared goal of contributing to the vision of the Auckland region as a whole and implementing plans consistent with the Auckland region’s Spatial Plan…”

Subsidiarity

“… we believe Auckland Council should have the ability to focus solely on regional strategies, plans and their implementation. It is highly important, therefore, that the principle of subsidiarity is applied, we note that the Government is applying this same principle in its cabinet decision for ‘Local Boards to have a statutory role broader than community boards but narrower than local authorities and a much greater interdependence between the Auckland Council and Local Boards (compared with Community Boards and Councils), requiring close consultation and integrated decision-making’. We believe it is vital that the Auckland Council Governing body have the time to focus on regional issues, and not be caught up in decisions that can be made at local level by Local Boards.”

Equity and Access

“…. Communities across Auckland vary significantly. It is highly desirable for the health and progress of the region as a whole that individual community needs and and desires are able to be reflected appropriately… the regional benefit of recognising and allowing for these differences should be allowed for within the base funding agreements with Local Boards providing that the general equity and access to services across the region is maintained…”

2. Local Boards

Place Shaping role of Local Boards

“…we believe in order for the Local Boards to have a truly ‘place-shaping’ role and to engage local democracy at grassroots it is vitally important that the functions of the second tier (the Local Boards) be clearly defined, are substantive and meaningful… we believe the powers and functions of the second tier should be enshrined in legislation, to esnure clarity of prupose and clear delineation of duties and powers between the two tiers…

“….while we believe local planning and consenting issues should be delegated to Local Boards and acknowledge that this is not achievable with the requirement that Local Boards deal only with non-regulatory matters, this does not preclude the Auckland Council from delegating to Local Board members the power to be part of a panel hearing resource consents, to provide the local input and enable better connectivity with the place-shaping role the Local Boards should have…”

Placeshaping and the role of Council Controlled Organisations

“…It does not appear from the Bill that Local Boards will have the ability to input into any strategies or plans made by the Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) this includes Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, or that the CCO’s will be accountable to the Local Boards for work to be done in a local area. There is likely to be a large amount of work doen by Local Boards in helping placeshape their neighbourhoods, this not only involves dealing with local people on what Auckland Council may do for them but also what might be needed in their respective areas in regard to traffic calming measures or parking issues on roads…. (however) Auckland Transport is not directly accountable to Local Boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of the CCO – eg through appointing directors, and influencing its Statement of Intent….”

“…. Our council would like to see some provision in the Bill for Local Boards to have the ability to deal directly with the transport organisation or any of the other CCO’s where there is a local impact in respect of the work they are doing. We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the 2 bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

3. Council Controlled Organisations

Retention of infrastructure assets in public ownership

“…we are strongly committed to the belief that all infrastructure assets should remain in public ownership… we believe that provisions surrounding Watercare Services Ltd remaining in public ownership should be enshrined in law….”

Establishment of CCO’s through Order in Council

“…The Bill allows the Minister to establish, through an Order in Council and on the recommendation of Auckland Transition Agency further CCO’s… our Council believes there should be further constraints placed on the criteria for establishing new CCO’s….”

Ability for Minister to appoint initial directors of CCO’s

“…The Bill provides for the Minister of Local Government to make the initial director appointments to the CCO’s established under an Order in Council. It is generally considered best practivce for the body to which the directors to be accountable, to appoint them… we believe there should be ability for an interim board to be appointed for an interim period, this will then give the Auckland Council the ability to review the board members and the mix of skills…”

Integration of Spatial Plan and Infrastructure

“… we believe there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to ‘give effect’ to the Auckland region Spatial Plan…”

Requirement to consider 4 well-beings

“…there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to consider the four well-beings as part of their planning process…”

Local Board agreements with CCO’s

“…We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

4. Planning

Spatial Plan and lack of timeframe

“…while we agree that the Auckland Council ‘must prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland’ (Clause 66(1)), we are concerned that there is no timeframe for when such a plan should be completed, and nor is anything said about when updates are required. We note that since Toronto became a unitary authority in 1998, there was considerable delay before its first Spatial Plan emerged – a delay that is widely seen as being a major cause of the difficult development environment that the city has experienced…”

“…we suggest that the wording in Clause 66(1) be amended to read: ‘That Auckland Council must set a strategic vision for the city and must prepare and adopt a spatial plan by the end of its first term in office. Updates to the spatial plan should be prepared on an as required basis but no less than every six years.’…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise importance of integrated planning

“…We believe it is critical that the proposed Auckland Council structure responds to the strategic importance of centre and corridor planning, particularly because these two fundamental elements of regional planning are controlled, respectively, by the Auckland Council and by Auckland Transport. But because we believe that the linkages between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are less strong than desirable…. There is a likelihood that integrated planning will be difficult to achieve…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise sustainability and sustainable development

“…In order that the purpose of the spatial plan… ‘Section 45, 66(2) becomes consistent with existing law and clearer about the imperative of long-term thinking in achieving sustainable development…’, we suggest that Section 45, ‘66(2) be amended to read: The purpose of the spatial plan is to provide an effective long-term strategy for the sustainable development and management of Auckland…”

“… we also feel that there should be a clear connection made between social, cultural and economic factors and the more ‘physical’ development responses that have been emphasised at Clause ’66. We therefore suggest that Clause ‘66(3)(f) be amended to read: “to set out a development strategy on how to achieve broad policy objectives for land use, transport, other infrastructure, and environmental management in Auckland’s evolving social, cultural and economic framework’…”

5. Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport’s objectives

“…The objective and operating principles of Auckland Transport, as set out under s.45 of the Third Bill, are not as specific or wide-ranging as the objectives for ARTA under the (soon to be repealed) Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004….”

“…the LGAAA (2004) provides more specific objectives for ARTA, which do not apply to Auckland Transport:

- expansion of what exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility means
- avoiding adverse effects on the environment
- ensuring views of affected parties are taken into account
- give land transport options early and full consideration
- provide early and full opportunities for consultation on land transport programmes
- focus on overall needs of region and views of communities
- consider needs of future generations, including cultural and economic wellbeing
- foster co-operative and colaborative working relastionships
- clear accountability

“…we believe that the objectives for Auckland Transport need to be more specific because they are currently open to misinterpretation… Auckland Transport’s objectives need to be similar to ARTA’s objectives…”

Accountability of Auckland Transport

“…Accountability during the transition phase to 1st November 2010. Prior to the Auckland Council coming into effect on 1 November, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) together with the Ministers of Local Government and Transport, influence the direction of Auckland’s transport systems. Legislation contained in the 3rd Bill will guide the direction of Auckland Transport – for example by setting objectives and operating principles – after the Bill becomes an Act. Thus, elected local representatives do not have any influence during the important transitional period…”

“…Ongoing accountability post 1st November 2010…. There is no statement on what happens if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with Auckland Transport’s contribution to the council’s (or the Government’s) objectives….”

“…Accountability to Local Boards…. Auckland Transport is not accountable to local boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of Auckland Transport… Auckland Transport, unlike other CCO’s, does not need to prepare and adopt a 10-year plan that includes information on how the organisation is giving effect to the Auckland Council’s strategy, plans and priorities… the 3rd Bill should set out consultation requirements for Auckland Transport, including the opportunity for Local Boards to provide feedback on proposed activities that have an impact on the Local Board’s area…”

“…Auckland Council oversight of Auckland Transport planning…. We note with concern that the proposed legislation at New Clause 75 subsection 3 (p.55) currently exempts Auckland Transport from the requirement to prepare and adopt a plan under New Clause 75 subsection 2(c) which enables Auckland Council to require substantive CCO’s to prepare and adopt a plan covering a period of at least 10 years describing how the organisation intends to: (i) manage, maintain, and invest in its assets; and (ii) maintain or improve service levels, and; (iii) respond to population growth and other changing environmental factors, and; (iv) give effect to the Council’s strategy, plans and priorities…. Removing Auckland Council’s exemption (as in the Bill now) would provide the opportunity for Auckland Council to obtain an explicit statement from Auckland Transport on how it intends to “give effect” to key Council strategies, in particular the Spatial Plan…”

Transport and Land Use Integration

“…The 3rd Bill is particularly emphatic in allocating responsibility for developing and managing the Auckland Transport System to Auckland Transport. But we believe the Bill does not adequately emphasise the fundamental importance of achieving transport and land use integration… Transport and land use integration is a key objective of the RLTS but we believe that its ability to influence the actions of Auckland Transport has been substantially downgraded from that currently applying to ARTA. Whereas the 3rd Bill requires the Auckland Transport’s RLTP to be ‘consistent with’ the RLTS, ARTA’s RLTP has been required to ‘give effect’ the RLTS…”

“….We have a number of questions about this:

- Will Auckland Transport reflect the land use strategies being promoted by the Auckland Council through the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in the RLTP?
- Will Auckland Transport provide public transport services and infrastructure which support the region’s land use strategies?
- How much recognition and accommodation will be given by Auckland Transport to land use objectives and plans in individual transport projects?

“…we believe the following additional objective for Auckland Transport is required….The objective of Auckland Transport is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the effective and sustainable integration of land use and the transport system, including an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable network…”

6. Ongoing operation of development contributions

“…development contributions represent a significant funding source for the Auckland region (projected to fund a total of $1.6 billion of growth related capital investment over the 2009-2019 period). If the legal provisions around transition and the ongoing ability of Auckland Council to use development contribuitions as a funding tool were not carefully managed, the new Auckland council would be faced with a major funding issue…”

7. Water and Stormwater organisation issues

“…there is some confusion around the relationship between wastewater services and stormwater. It is assumed that initially at least Auckland Council will be responsible for stormwater management across the region… while powers under LGA 74 Pt 21 have been removed from the Auckland Council (these relate to the use of vehicle crossings; planting in dividing strips; foot paths and channels….) some of these are useful for stomrwater management when dealing with overland flow and flooding, and the powers therefore need to be restored to Auckland Council for stormwater management. If these powers remain removed from Auckland Council, there needs to be a requirement for Auckland Transport to acknowledge the function of roads in managing/conveying stormwater and a requirement for them to work with Auckland Council…

Good eh?
Anyway, here's the link so you can download this submission. It's the lion's share of the agenda you can get from NSCC's website for its Council meeting of 3rd February 2010.
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/YourCouncil/Meetings/AgendasAndMinutes/Documents/2010%20Agendas%20Minutes/February/Council%203%20February%202010%20Order%20Paper.pdf

Auckland Restructuring - Papering Reform Cracks - Bill 3

The current Auckland Local Government Law Reform Bill was released 10 December 2009, and had its first reading in Parliament 15 December, where it was referred to Select Ctte.This Ctte is likely to call for submissions....

This Bill is complex and large - 179 pages. It reads like a set of patches to cover over the holes that are graduallyemerging in this ship of reform. The Bill asks as many questions as it answers. I feel some sympathy for ATA - the Auckland Transition Agency - it ends up with a bucketload of more work to do - as we cruise toward abolition and relaunch November 1st 2010.

This table lists some of the provisions in the Bill - and my concerns about them. And some suggestions as to what fixes might help....
The table is not comprehensive, and if you want chapter and verse, I suggest you get a copy of the Bill yourself. But it is not - by any means - plain sailing....

Local Govt (Auckland Law Reform) Bill	My Criticism of provisions	Fixes I think are needed
ATA must amalgamate the region's LTCCPs to create a bunch of plans one for each Local Board. These plans must list the non-regulatory activities the Boards will do. It will also give Board budgets for 2011/12.	This seems sensible. But it will likely take until September 2010 before this work is done. Only then will prospective candidates have any idea of the magnitude and type of work that Local Boards will actually do. ATA's task is complicated by the fact the Local Govt Commission will only finalise Boards by end of March 2010.	Hard to know what to suggest here. Get it done as soon as possible though - I'd say by June to be of use in helping candidates decide their future. This is a good example of a repair patch needed to define - very roughly- the functions of Local Boards.
Transport Auckland established as a "non-standard" CCO. Exempt from many LGA provisions. Potential for its Board to be appointed by Ministers of Transport & Local Government. No mention about who/how it will be funded.	This is -in effect - a Crown controlled organisation. (See my blog about this a couple of entries ago). Would the Crown deny itself powers to control SOE's or other Authorities it owns? Would Govt fail to state in legislation the rules for SOEs to negotiate with Govt in regard to activities, objectives & budgets? I don't think so. Most SOE budgets are heavily tagged. Not so for Auckland Transport....	Government needs to learn from the 2004 transport and local govt reforms for Auckland. This was when ARTA was established to run Auckland public transport and other services. The checks and balances in place - about funding, activities, objectives - were decided in partnership with ARC. This model worked well for Auckland. It should be replicated for Transport Auckland.
Watercare will NOT do stormwater, and Auckland Council will NOT be able to change Watercare's SOI until 2012.	There are no provisions in the Bill for how Watercare will charge for water and wastewater services. Extraordinarily, it seems likely that Watercare will charge ratepayers for water services in a Bill separate from their rates bill. What a waste of a reform@! Also, appears to be no public process whereby transition in water/wastewater charges occurs. Apparently Auckland Council will be able to fire the Board. Now there's a blunt governance tool!	Auckland Council needs to be able to govern Watercare through its SOI immediately. Total nonsense otherwise. It also seems a nonsense that stormwater infrastructure and its use and management is to be separated from water and wastewater. Backward. Some sort of transition duty should be required as wastewater charges move from Uniform Charges to volumetric charges. These are major policy and public interest issues. Policy control should come via SOI.
Whole bunch of CCO's to be established by the ATA - many before the end of October 31st. Boards may be appointed also. Boards to appoint their own Chairs!	What Govt SOE or Authority exists where the Minister has NOT appointed the Board Chair? Why should Auckland Council not have the power to appoint the Chairs of CCOs it is supposed to control? This is crazy.	What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. This Bill demonstrates a real failure on the part of Government to understand the need for independent local government. Is it so afraid of failure? Has it so little confidence in these reforms?
Mana Whenua and Maori Statutory Board set up with 9 members, that can appoint 2 people to Auckland Council Ctte dealing with resource management decisions. Option to sit on other cttes.	This is the fallback option instead of maori seats. I understand this option is likely to be unwieldy and expensive. However does have the benefit of ensuring the right mana whenua people serve on the Auckland Council cttes. That voice will be there.	Suggest a costs & benefits assessment is done for this option vv Maori seat option. Need to be better informed about this.
Auckland Council will be required to prepare a comprehensive Spatial Plan - with a lot of detail. Intended to provide a 20-30 year direction for Auckland. This will replace the Growth Strategy.	This sort of specific plan has long been needed. But this provision "drips with insincerity". It has no relationship with any of the other implementation plans. No relationshipwith Regional Policy Statement, District Plans, Regional Transport Strategy... In short, just another time-consuming strategy that won't stand a chance of getting implemented.	In my view, the Spatial Plan is an opportunity to do something good for Auckland planning, and its implementation. But Govt needs to take it seriously, for the Spatial Plan to be taken seriously by Auckland Council. The Spatial Plan lacks credibility when there is no obvious connection between it, and Auckland Council planning, and the infrastructure projects needed from Watercare and Auckland Transport....
Rating. A revaluation of the whole region is to be completed by 1 July 2010. ALL rates are to be based on capital value. Auckland Council must set a transition rate for each rating unit for 2011/12.	This is a doozy of a provision. For example, North Shore rates are based on Land Value (Capital Value includes Land Value PLUS improvements value.) This means there will be BIG losers,and BIG winners in this transition. Even a revaluation using the same rating system causes huge upheaval. Let alone changing the basis of rating itself@!	While the Bill provides for Auckland Council having a 3 year transition period - the scale of change will be very large for some rating units - too large to be safely absorbed across 3 years. I think work is required - ahead of Select Ctte - s0 there is better info about the impact of this change. Also, I think the rating Bill should include water as well as rates.
ATA "Planning Document". This is an interesting new planning document required of ATA (intro'd above). It must deal with initial allocation of decision-making responsibility between council and ALL Boards.	A necessary document. This needs to be planned for. But there are so many things that need to be planned for,for each Local Board: Building; staff requirement; budget; divisions... and think of this: that Waitakere Local Board is as big as Waitakere City Council...! Again- this won't be ready till Sept 2010, almost after the date candidates need to declare their hands...	When you look at this one - the sheer scale of it - you wonder about the sense of forcingall this to be done by Oct 31 next year. Maybe a better option would be to legislate for the current arrangements to run for another year - or maybe 6 months. Anything to avoid the patched reform ship from sinking through having too many unfixed holes....

Auckland Transport (Authority) Bill - Independent & Powerful

This blog explores the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill (introduced to NZ Parliament on Friday 10th December), and in particular what it says about transport, and the Auckland Transport Authority – which we now learn here is to be known as “Auckland Transport”. In this blog I look at a few aspects of the Auckland Transport entity: what it is and how it is different from other CCOs; its powers and functions; how it will be funded

What Auckland Transport is, and how it differs from other CCOs

According to the Bill, this entity is “a body corporate with perpetual sucession” and “a council controlled organisation of the Auckland Council”.

But – and it’s a big “but” – various Local Government Act provisions relating to CCOs will not apply to Auckland Transport.

For example, Auckland Transport, does not have to comply with ss. 59, 60, 64 and 74 of the LGA. This means:

a) (s 59 does NOT apply) Therefore the principal objective of Auckland Transport is NOT to achieve the objectives of its shareholders (in this case Auckland Council), as specified in the statement of intent; and it is NOT to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates….; (My interpretation: Auckland Transport does NOT have to deliver the objectives of Auckland Council – which might be embodied in annual plans, policy statements, spatial plans.)
(b) (s 60 does NOT apply) Therefore decisions relating to the operation of Auckland Transport DON’T have to be made in accordance its statement of intent; and its constitution…; (My interpretation: Even if Auckland Transport has a Statement of Intent – or Constitution – its Board can make decisions that are not consistent.)
(c) (s 64 does NOT apply) Therefore Auckland Transport DOESN’T have to have a statement of intent that complies with the detailed information requirements set out in clause 9 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act…; (My interpretation: The SOI requirements for Auckland Transport are totally undefined. It appears to be able to decide its own direction, with little reference to Auckland Council. Strangely, however, s34 of the Bill requires that Auckland Transport “must have a statement of intent that complies with the LGA" – so – I don’t know. Can’t have it both ways…)
(d) (s 74 does NOT apply) Therefore the usual official information provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act DON’T apply to Auckland Transport. (My interpretation: Auckland Transport will NOT be publicly accountable in the same way other CCO’s have been. However this is qualified by a specific provision which DOES make Auckland Transport subject to parts of LGOIMA.)

Auckland Transport Powers and Functions

The “status and powers” of Auckland Transport are untrammelled. Auckland Transport: “has full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and …. full rights, powers and privileges … subject to the Act. NB: Auckland Transport can make bylaws – separate from Auckland Council.

Interestingly, in exercising its functions, Auckland Transport can act: “as if it were a regional council, territorial authority, or other statutory body, as the case may be…”. On the face of it, Auckland Council has tiny number of transport duties. These include: management of off-street parking facilities owned by the Council! Interestingly, Auckland Transport can – if it decides to – delegate duties or responsibilities to Auckland Council (s33, schedule 2). This delegation can also be to 1 or more Local Boards. (My interpretation: this provision – almost more than any other – underlines the hierarchy here. Auckland Transport has authority over Auckland Council, and very considerable independence from it.)

One of the key functions of Auckland Transport is to “prepare the regional land transport programme for Auckland in accordance with the Land Transport Management Act 2003…”.

This is the area – as former chair of Auckland’s Regional Land Transport Committee, tasked with establishing Auckland’s Regional Land Transport Strategy – that I wanted understand. Took a little time to unwind. Not a happy experience….

Presently, the LTMA 2003 says this:

15 Core requirements of regional land transport programmes
prepared by ARTA
ARTA must, in preparing an Auckland regional land transport
programme,—
(a) be satisfied that the Auckland regional land transport
programme—
(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable,
integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land
transport system; and
(ii) contributes to each of the following:
(A) assisting economic development:
(B) assisting safety and personal security:
(C) improving access and mobility:
(D) protecting and promoting public health:
(E) ensuring environmental sustainability;
and
(iii) is consistent with the relevant GPS; and
(b) give effect to the matters in the Auckland regional land
transport strategy, unless it is required to do otherwise
by operational considerations that affect the sequencing
and timing of activities, the funding available to it, or its
statutory functions, duties, or powers; and
(c) take into account any—
(i) national land transport strategy; and
(ii) national energy efficiency and conservation strategy;
and
(iii) relevant national policy statement and any relevant
regional policy statements or plans that are
for the time being in force under the Resource
Management Act 1991; and
(iv) relevant regional public transport plan; and
(v) likely funding from any source.

But this Bill – this law reform bill – changes this to:

15 Core requirements of regional land transport programmes
prepared by Auckland Transport
Auckland Transport must, in preparing an Auckland regional land transport
programme,—
(a) be satisfied that the Auckland regional land transport
programme—
(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable,
integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land
transport system; and
(ii) contributes to each of the following:
(A) assisting economic development:
(B) assisting safety and personal security:
(C) improving access and mobility:
(D) protecting and promoting public health:
(E) ensuring environmental sustainability;
and
(iii) is consistent with the relevant GPS and the Auckland regional transport strategy; and

xxxxx

(c) take into account any—
(i) national land transport strategy; and
(ii) national energy efficiency and conservation strategy;
and
(iii) relevant national policy statement and any relevant
regional policy statements or plans that are
for the time being in force under the Resource
Management Act 1991; and
(iv) relevant regional public transport plan; and
(v) likely funding from any source.

You'll see that s15(b) has gone. The key thing here is the loss of the power or influence of the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy to drive transport investment in Auckland. Previously, ARTA was required to “give effect to the RLTS”. Under these changes, the RLTS and the GPS are on the same policy level. Who knows how the Board of Auckland Transport will resolve any differences?

I think I know.

There is enough in what we see above to suggest that the Board of Auckland Transport has a great deal of latitude.

How Auckland Transport will be funded

The gap that remains unfilled – and one we all await with interest – is how Auckland Transport’s programme will be funded. What mix of Government and Local Government money will be required. The Bill makes some mention of developer levies – and this is good for regional transport infrastructure. More analysis required to see how that all works.

But – in terms of the principle that rating follows representation – it is hard to see a good strong link between the election platforms of would-be Auckland Councillors (in terms of rates and what should be funded), and the activities and funding requirements of Auckland Transport.

What does it all mean?

Auckland Transport is not your usual "Council Controlled Organisation". Because there are so many exceptions (noted above), and exemptions (noted above), and freedoms (noted above), really, Auckland Transport is a Crown Entity.

It is a Government Controlled Organisation.

If Auckland Transport is established as proposed, Auckland will lose something significant. It will lose its ability to determine its transport future. Auckland Council will become little more than an entity set up to extract rate revenues from Auckland ratepayers, and these revenues will then be directed to Auckland transport investments that central government considers are priorities in delivering its objectives, and not Auckland Council objectives.