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.

Auckland's Local Boards: According to ATA

On the 26th of February this year, ATA released its discussion document entitled: "Auckland council local boards". You can get it from the main page of their website at:
http://www.ata.govt.nz/web/cms_ata.nsf

The first media comment about it in NZ Herald (28th Feb) began like this:

"...Wanaka has more decision-making powers than what is planned for local boards in the Auckland Super City, says Queenstown Lakes District councillor Lyal Cocks.
The Central Otago Community Board, population 6000, has been delegated the maximum functions legally possible by its political masters in Queenstown.
The seven board members have been able to build a new sports facility, come up with a new water system for the small town of Lake Hawea and decide what roads will be sealed.
About all they cannot do is buy and sell land and set rates.
Mr Cocks, who chairs the board and is a member of the New Zealand Community Boards' executive committee, is unimpressed with the plans for local boards in Auckland....

Fairly damming NZ Herald introduction, but the report goes on to give a more comprehensive account of what is envisaged in the ATA discussion document. Then, The Hon Rodney Hide swung into action and ran an opinion piece in the Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629699), containing large chunks of the ATA document, and which defended ATA's document.

These are strange days indeed. Normally a Minister is advised by Departmental officials (in this case Dept of Internal Affairs), but here in Auckland the Minister is being advised by this unusual beast called the Auckland Transition Agency. Which, by its own account: "...does not make public policy, it is here to implement legislation..."

I think there is quite a lot going for the ATA discussion document on local boards. It is at its most interesting when it strays way outside current legislation, and moves into submission mode. A large hunk of this discussion document is advocacy. It is effectively advocating legislative change. So, while ATA might not be "making public policy" in respect to Local Boards, it is very definitely making a public policy case for change.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. In this blog I'll just draw attention to salient aspects of the discussion document, and comment.

In terms of non-regulatory responsibilities the ATA document suggests:

They will make locally based decisions on, for example, location and design of new local facilities, local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure, and local centre branding and marketing. In doing so, they will develop and reflect the distinct characteristics and needs of their local communities.
In allocating the non-regulatory activities, rather than asking "Why should local boards undertake certain activities?" the ATA has asked "why not?".

What is especially interesting about this is the reference to: "...local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure..." this clearly would include matters relating to roads and to sewers and to relevant service levels. Today, Community Boards on the North Shore get some involvement in these matters, but it's not alway certain. And I am aware that this pattern is not repeated across Auckland where in some areas there are no Community Boards, and others which have extremely limited scope to engage with local infrastructure matters. However, the obvious question now is: how will local boards be able to make such decisions... what is the mechanism?

Then we have a very interesting contribution to the debate from ATA in respect to regulatory responsibilities, which goes like this:

The ATA is not authorised to delegate regulatory activities to local boards, but to complete the picture on the role of the local boards we have considered which decisions in these types of areas may be delegated to them. The delegations to local boards will be decided by the governing body, once elected.

This section of the report then goes into the matter of regulatory activities for local boards. This is encouraging.

But probably the most interesting section of the discussion report is one headed: "Working with Others", and which addresses the vexed and controversial matter of CCOs - Council Controlled Organisations. The Exec Summary of the report states:

Council-controlled organisations will need a direct relationship with local boards both in seeking input to their plans and around day-to-day matters in local board areas....
For example, the legislation establishes a transport agency, Auckland Transport, to manage Auckland’s local government transport network. Auckland Transport will be responsible for footpaths, street furniture, signage and lighting, all of which contribute to building a "sense of place" and will be of key interest to local boards. Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards on these sorts of activities....
Effective working relationships will be essential to the success of this governance model....

Amen to all this.

But what is interesting is the language used here. It's all about "need". "Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards..." This language is really a submission to Government. Because - as we all know - it's one thing to have words like this in a document like this - a sort of aspirational statement - but it's quite another to be certain that this sort of behaviour will actually happen magically.

Unless CCOs are required to work with local boards, unless there is a formal process specified for CCOs to engage with local boards on plans and service delivery levels, then the minimum will be the norm. Why? Because meaningful engagement comes at a cost, and if you're a CCO whose SOI objective is something like: "deliver infrastructure services at minimum cost consistent with meeting environmental, economic, cultural and social objectives...", then the cost driver will lead to reductionist, do-minimum approaches when it comes to dealing with local boards.

Then we have:

This discussion document contains our thinking on the initial allocation of decision-making responsibilities to local boards, and on how local boards will fulfil their role. Once we have received your feedback, we can then undertake the task of allocating specific and detailed responsibilities to each local board, and determine initial budgets for the local boards....

It is useful to note ATA's emphasis here on this being the "initial allocation" of roles. It is a reminder that Auckland Council will have the ability to allocate more roles and responsibilities. But before I end this blog with a warning note, a little more from ATA's discussion document:

...These responsibilities will be significant. The Local Government Commission has proposed 19 local boards, many of which will represent communities larger than many district councils in New Zealand. The budgets and allocation of responsibility will be commensurate with this. Local boards will need good support from the Auckland Council organisation.
The structure already approved by the ATA includes a Manager Local Board Services at a senior level in the organisation. We are proposing that this manager will have dedicated staff to provide strategic and policy advice, and consultation and administrative support to local boards.....

And here is my warning.



The ATA document is silent on how Local Boards will be administered and staffed and advised. There is no information on how Local Boards functions and services will be staffed and delivered locally, though the document is at pains to state: "...local boards will be effectively supported from day one...". The document appears to be suggesting that the staff available to support local boards will be located at offices of Auckland Council which will be located: "...across the region.." I read this to mean that Local Boards will share staff with other Local Boards. There appears to be no commitment to the establishment of locally managed and resourced Local Boards. There is nothing here about the building of Local Boards - and by that I mean as local institutions, housed locally, and with local staff, local resources, local relations and partnerships in the same buildings with - eg the library, CAB offices, and other locally specific services and agencies. This is both a missed opportunity, and a loss for the community.



There is no point having Local Boards that exist on paper, and on ballot papers, without also having Local Institutional structures including bricks and mortar and dedicated staff.



This is the big gap in the thinking.

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

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.

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

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.