Ministerial "musket trading" backfires on Auckland

The unseemly squabble over TV coverage of a few games of rugby is the public tip of a political iceberg that threatens Auckland interests.

We all know how much the Government needs the support of either Act or the Maori Party in order to stay in power and get its policies enacted in Parliament. Managing this balance requires a certain amount of horse-trading - or musket-trading in the case of Maori it seems.

Recall the issue of Maori seats on the Super City council. There was a huge public majority in support of this idea. I was one of the thousands in the Queen Street Hikoi. It was popular.

The Maori Party spoke out strongly in support, but the Government was wobbling. Not consistent with policy, apparently.

Then Rodney Hide threatened to throw his toys out of his cot. An issue of principle - he said. Elected councillors should be elected by democratic process - he said. Seat allocation was undemocratic - he said. And threatened to resign. (Has he threatened to resign over the way Maori seats are allocated in parliament...?).

Anyway, the Government gave way and ditched Maori seats on the Super City. There was a bit of a grumpy backlash from the Maori Party about this, but it went quiet pretty quickly.

I suppose we should have all been aware that a few muskets might have been traded in some quiet deal behind the scenes. And then suddenly we found out what it was.

The sudden and rather odd change in Auckland's southern boundary. Looking at a map, what this means is about 14,000 hectares of land around the Hunau Ranges, the Mangatawhiri and Mangatangi dams, three regional parks, and an attractive chunk of Firth of Thames coastline get passed from the jurisdiction of Auckland Regional Council, to Waikato Regional Council - aka Environment Waikato.

For me, and for many of us, this proposal came out of the blue. Not like the Northern boundary change at Rodney. The reason for that was so transparent. Greedy developers and land-owners wanted freedom to develop away from the careful and long term planning objectives and policies of the Auckland region.

But why the change in the Southern boundary? What could be the plan?

Information about this has leaked out in variety of ways. It's part of the price of losing the Maori seats on Super City.

Fundamentally it is about Government wanting a tidy majority.
Materially it is about Tainui and water.
It is about Tainui getting control of Auckland's water supply.

I won't bore you with the details of the 2007 Tainui Settlement, but the essence is this: "The key principles of the settlement, Te Mana o te Awa and Mana Whakahaere, confirms the overarching purpose: to ensure that the protection of the health and well being of the river is paramount. Through these principles and this settlement, Waikato-Tainui and the Crown aim to enter a new era of co-management of the Waikato River at the highest level....."

There is the "co-management" word.

Environment Waikato is a critical player in all this. Tainui have long been angry at the declining health of the Waikato River. And fair enough too. The dairy industry in particular, and twenty or so municipal sewage discharges, have degraded water quality and affected the health of important food sources such as tuna (eel), koura and water cress.

Environment Waikato has been slow to respond, but it's hard when the dairy industry is so important to New Zealand's economy, and so powerful. Both Tainui and Environment Waikato have been frustrated, and have advocated action by Government.

A little further into the 2007 Settlement we find: "It has been agreed that there will be a financial package from the Crown to provide for cultural and economic loss, implementation and clean up funding, and funding for cultural, educational, economic, social and heritage initiatives for Waikato-Tainui...."

That would be expected. Some sort of financial package. But there is another matter which appears to relate to the actual use of Waikato River water. Disposition: "The intention of settlement has been revised to include disposition. The focus remains the same which is to prevent the further disposition of the river, and to outline the differing viewpoints that
both Waikato-Tainui and Crown have in regard to the issue of ownership. The focus is still about management of the river, but protects Waikato-Tainui’s position on ownership should it become relevant in the future...."

Should ownership become relevant in future.

I think ownership has suddenly become relevant. Government has come up with a win-win-win scenario with the Southern boundary change. It gives something significant to Tainui - through its relationship with Environment Waikato - and thereby keeps the Maori Party happy. And it hasn't had to enforce anything unpopular with the dairy industry. Fantastic.

And the losers are...? Auckland and the Waikato River.

The Hunuas drain into the Waikato River. But they would be the cleanest and least dairy polluted tributaries of that huge river. Hardly a target for a Tainui clean-up. No. I think this has much more to do with ownership, control and financial settlement.

I think this because Auckland will lose control of more than 50% of its water supply. The pristine protected catchments of its Hunua mountain water supply, and the dams, will be transferred into a co-management deal between Environment Waikato and Tainui. Tainui will be in the position to clip the ticket on every litre of water that flows to Auckland from catchments it will then have under its co-management control. It amounts to privatisation of Auckland water.

The ripples from this dirty little deal are already spreading and infecting Maori relations and partnerships in other parts of Auckland. Because that is what happens when one iwi gets too many muskets.

Pakeha clamp down on other iwi.

The Queens Wharf development is an example. Publicly agreed design criteria call for "Pacific Culture" to be showcased there. That would open the door to some ideas from Ngati Whatua, or other Maori thinking in Auckland. But can you find any of that in the winning designs? Not! Auckland will be the poorer without the enrichment that will result from creative involvement and inclusion of Maori ideas and imagery in its waterfront places and spaces.

Maori are being excluded from the Auckland's waterfront. It's called utu. Regional Revenge.

Ripples from Government's proposed Southern Boundary deal with the Maori Party will spread far and wide throughout New Zealand. And they will make waves for a very long time, because Maori and Pakeha both have very long memories for this sort of thing.

You won't solve grievances by creating other grievances.

Government SuperCity Model Undermines NZ Law

For 20 years Auckland has developed and re-shaped itself following the 1989 Amalgamation. Legislative planks that have underpinned Auckland planning over that time are the Resource Management Act 1991 and the more recent Local Government Act.

Both of these Acts profoundly influence and enable the way that the public and communities are involved in Auckland planning.

It has taken Auckland's councils time and effort to properly engage with and adapt their institutional arrangements to fit these new laws. Among other things that delay, or organisational intertia has led to delays in implementing the Growth Strategy - which calls for more efficient and intensive development of parts of Auckland around mass transport corridors (like rail and bus and ferry), and less wasteful greenfield sprawl at the edges.

The LGAAA 2004, amended the Local Government Act and put more direction into what Councils needed to do, to give effect to the Growth Strategy.

And it has been happening: New Lynn and Newmarket are standout examples. And planning is underway for change in other parts of the region now: St Lukes and Milford shopping centres are examples that come to mind readily.

But Government's proposed changes risk halting that progress. Government's proposals will lead to centralised planning, and to just 20 councillors.

The public are only slightly aware of the important and significant role that District Plan changes and Designations under the RMA are to urban change. Nobody - not even Councils or Government agencies - can build something, or permit something to be built, unless the District Plan provides for it. Unless it is permitted by the District Plan.

Waitakere City's New Lynn project required a suite of District Plan changes. These will enable medium density and high density development around the railway station. These Plan Changes did not happen overnight. They are not like a resource consent permit to build a house. They are at the heart of planning. The RMA imposes a range of consultation requirements and obligations when changes are made to the District Plan. The public - even under proposed streamlining changes to the RMA - still have very significant opportunities for input to Plan Changes. Council has very significant duties to ensure the changes to the plan - and their implications - are well understood by the community.

The affected community includes local land owners. Some residential. Some business. And there are the infrastructure operators as well: public transport, roading, water, electricity....

Waitakere City Council carried out much of this consultation using Charrette processes. These are a form of consultation which is intensive, involving, creative, and which takes time. Experts were brought in to explain options for change. Meetings took place over an extended time period. Wall charts went up. People indicated their support for some things and not others. This process took a couple of years for New Lynn. And it's still going on as detail gets worked through.
Ultimately, the council proposed various District Plan changes. These are policy decisions for the council to take. Elected councillors make the final decisions. Most Plan Changes are heard by Councillors. They should be. While there is pressure to professionalise this process, and ensure that no politician is seeking to pork barrel over any aspect, there is no taking away from the reality that Plan Change processes are highly contested.

Public issues and public realm are at stake. Land development profit opportunities are evident. Development levies need to be calculated so infrastructure is paid for appropriately. Those decisions are taken under the Local Government Act, which is entwined with RMA decisions.

Plan Changes to District Plans take time.

They are the fundamental basis for Auckland planning. As are designations. These are needed for new motorways for example. Or other new public works like schools.

There has been much debate in the media about resource consent planning processes, and who will do those under the SuperCity. But resource consents are heard in terms of the District Plan. I am talking here about the District Plan itself. How it changes over time. How it needs to change to enable Auckland to develop in a more energy efficient and land efficient way. A more compact way. A way that is the agreed alternative to sprawl.

Auckland's future development is dependent on the District Plan. These are 7 of these now. One for each territorial authority area. They are changing all the time.

I am sitting on a plan change hearing now. There is a private plan change being heard for farm land at Takanini - Papakura. This Plan Change is problematic because it involves a shift in the MUL. However there are many other Plan Changes being considered across Auckland Region.

ARC's Transport and Urban Development Ctte was advised of a major Plan Change being prepared for St Lukes shopping area. This is another private Plan Change. Auckland City Council is the consent authority, as it affects its District Plan. Consultation obligations must be met and public participation is substantial.

Political decisions are required to ensure that the level of public consultation and involvement is appropriate. And that the Plan Change itself is good and fair to all parties affected. This work goes largely un-noticed by the public, yet it is fundamental to Auckland's direction, and to the implementation of the principles that underpin the Local Government and Resource Management Acts.

Abolishing the councils that do this work, and that manage the contest between public realm development and private benefit, puts much of what has begun to work well across Auckland at risk. Cutting councillors from their present level to just 20 will seriously undermine their ability to carry out the essentially political work that this process demands.

It will mean greater delegation to officers of this work. It will mean that councillors are removed from the reality and the impact of their decisions. This will not improve representation. Whether government likes it or not, elected council representatives are the people whose job it is to manage the awkward decisions that no-one else likes to make.

These need to be as public as possible. Because planning and Plan Changes are not a private matter. Less planning will not mean better outcomes.

Government changes will damage the implementation of New Zealand law. If we had a constitution in NZ, Government could not change these governance arrangements in so draconian a way. Government should take a long hard look in the mirror, and a deep breath before going further with these destructive plans.