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.

My Select Committee Oral Submission ....

I was invited to deliver my submission to the Select Committee at Orakei Marae on Bastion Point - Wednesday 8th July. This was because part of my submission addressed the matter of Maori seats. I also submitted about community boards (Community Councils in my lingo), Auckland Council elections, and Three Waters. Quite an experience.

Anyway, here it is. Remember, this was my oral submission - it is written as I spoke it:

1. Introduction to Oral Submission

Kia ora, and thank you and your staff for the opportunity of presenting my submission in this special place, Orakei Marae, Bastion Point.

This submission is in support of my written submission, which you will have.

But first of all a brief introduction to where I’m coming from, and where I come from.
I am from the Mainland. Went to school in Oamaru, university in Christchurch, and after becoming vastly over-qualified, went to live and work in England for 14 years.
There I had a spectacular time as a rocket scientist on military projects, as a systems analyst for Shell International working on oil price modelling and crude oil depletion, then for IBM designing interactive multimedia resources used when they introduced the first IBM PC into UK and European dealerships for personal and business use.

When I returned to New Zealand, I didn’t need to go into Local Government. But I did because – like most committed politicians – I wanted to make a difference.

I’ve been an elected independent councillor in Auckland for the past 11 years. Including 6 years on North Shore City Council from 1998 where I chaired the Works Ctte during the Northern Busway design and North Shore’s major sewer network cleanup program. I served on Devonport Community Board through those years also. In 2004 I stood for ARC. In my first term I chaired its Transport Committee and the Regional Land Transport Ctte that shifted $1 billion from state highway spending to public transport. Since then I have focussed on the waterfront, regional development, and – of course – governance.

Like most local government politicians I have a love/hate relationship with local government. I love it when it’s good, and I hate it when it’s bad. And after eleven years total immersion I have some understanding of the difference.

It’s easy to hate something you don’t understand. Unfortunately – many of those who have the power to decide what happens to Auckland’s governance have publicly demonstrated a poor understanding of local government. And they hate it. Superficial criticisms and simplistic solutions will not deliver good governance for Auckland.

I am advised that this is not the place for me to state my opinions about the broad supercity proposals that have been proposed by Government – many of which I oppose - so I won’t say any more about those opinions, unless asked.

The rest of what I’m going to say now, addresses the specifics of the Bill that is in front of you. My objective is to get the best outcomes from a flawed process.

2. Maori Representation on Auckland Council

ARC has a Maori Liaison unit with good staff. People like Tipa Compain and Johnny Freeland. But their contribution to ARC decision-making is mediated by other staff, by committee chairs, and by statute. Consequent decision-making is Treaty of Waitangi driven. There is no room for the broader Maori world view to be expressed.

To get a free and independent Maori voice around the Auckland Council table there needs to be 2 or 3 Maori seats at Council and key committees.

Forgive me if what I say now is a bit ignorant. I have some understanding of the Ngati Whatua AIP. I have had informal discussions with individual Maori - not all from Ngati Whatua - because I saw opportunities for Auckland Maori at Auckland’s waterfront development. Through those discussions I understand some reasons why there has not been a coordinated and collective Maori voice in Auckland. Pending the resolution of individual iwi claims, it is difficult to speak with a collective voice. The Hikoi was an exception. I have learned a little of the negotiations that are occurring now between Government and Auckland iwi. I understand that the aim is for these negotiations to be with the broader collective, not just with specific iwi.

With that understanding in mind, I don’t believe the best solution to Maori representation on Auckland Council is through 2 or 3 Maori candidates being elected.

I think Maori representatives would be better being appointed to Auckland Council, and relevant committees, to allocated seats, by the Auckland maori collective leadership, rather than being elected at large or from large wards.

This process would also mean that the most appropriate or informed maori voices can be appointed to take those seats at Council and its committees for specific decisions.


3. Auckland Council Elections – 9 multi-member wards

Most Councils appear to be supporting 20 wards, with one member/ward. This will lead to 20 First Past the Post elections (though the STV voting system would improve outcomes). I think there is a better option, which is supported by a significant number of ARC councillors.

Presently the ARC's 13 members are elected from 6 wards. Rodney and Papakura/Franklin are single member wards; Manukau is a 3 member ward; Auckland is a 4 member ward; and Waitakere and North Shore are each 2 member wards. In the multi-member wards, voters get to choose ALL of the members from that ward. So in Auckland - for example - voters get to cast 4 votes.

I think this approach is better than 1 member/ward, because:

· Councillors are less inclined to be parochial (they will represent a broader area, and not just their "personal" seat);
· councillors from the same ward can support each other (sharing local meetings, and with local boards);
· ratepayers have choices who to make representation to;
· councillors can allocate ward responsibilities better;
· greater likelihood of Auckland Council concentrating on regional issues and regional decision-making;
· parallels the different structural roles of Auckland Council Vs Community Council – the one being regional, the others being local

An option for Auckland Council would be: Rodney remains a 1 member ward; North Shore becomes a 3 member ward; Auckland is split into two 3 member wards (say); Waitakere becomes a 3 member ward; Franklin and Papakura are each 1 member wards; and Manukau becomes a 2 and a 3 member ward. (20 in total).

This structure – which echoes the ARC’s present workable arrangement - offers an effective balance between at-large representation, and 20 single-member wards.


4. Community Council (Board) Functions, Candidate Quality, Numbers

Community Councils should be required to produce a Local/Community Plan annually, which would cover:

· the community vision;
· outline of community priorities, projects and activities;
· key assets and values that need to be protected by Auckland Council;
· balanced budget for 3 years to fund these priorities;
· how the plan delivers on regional plans and strategies;
· performance measures.

In addition, Community Councils should have clearly defined local planning responsibilities - such as the ability to process local resource consent applications. There is good reason for the Bill to statutorily provide for this sort of process and role.

Community Councils will be the local eyes and ears of Auckland Council. They will bear the brunt of community concerns should these arise. It is appropriate therefore, that their responsibilities are clear cut. Auckland Council should be accountable for its decisions, while Community Councils are accountable for local decisions.

The current bill provides for Auckland Council to delegate other functions to Community Councils. Such as local parks maintenance and management, local roading repairs. This is appropriate. This discretion is hard to prescribe in statute.

Community Board members need to be paid appropriately. If you give local members the job of peeling bananas and pay them peanuts – you’ll get monkeys. There is dead wood in Auckland community boards now. This is a consequence of lack of power and low pay. Ensuring a typical Community Council workload translates into something like 3 days a week/member, would justify remuneration in the $35,000 to $45,000. Candidates of quality will be attracted by a combination of personally satisfying and publicly meaningful decision-making, and worthwhile remuneration.

How many Community Boards? Most North Shore Community Boards are col-located with Area Offices in buildings which also house the local library and community services such as the CAB. These combined community facilities are local institutions, but they have depended on North Shore City Council which acts as the anchor tenant. I would invite Select Ctte members to visit – for example – East Coast Bays, Glenfield and Devonport Area Offices to gain a better understanding of what I am talking about.

If any of the associated Community Boards (local Council) are abolished then it will be difficult to justify retention of the related Area Office. Like a house of cards. Whole communities will suffer.

Institutional losses on a huge scale are implicit in Government’s reform proposals. It is my submission that – to ensure some community continuity – then Community Councils be built broadly along the lines of existing Community Boards.

Summing up: The legislation needs to deliver Community Councils that are appreciated as important, valuable and significant by the local community, and which will attract candidates of quality, and which can be established without destroying institutional community development infrastructure and networks that exist now.


5. Three Water Management & Watercare Vertical Integration

It is essential that if vertical integration is the objective (merging Watercare as wholesaler of services, with the local water service functions of the current city and district councils), then that integration needs to be horizontal and include stormwater.

Throughout my experience of Auckland local government I have observed lobbying from those keen to gain control of piped and metered infrastructure. Water and wastewater are piped. They are also metered (wastewater is metered using “water-in” as a proxy for “wastewater-out”). A nice neat business.

The Bill at the moment is silent on stormwater – though some say that the word “wastewater” includes “stormwater”. First time I’ve heard that one. To avoid uncertainty, the Bill needs to explicitly state that this vertically integrated entity will, also, manage stormwater and be responsible for stormwater infrastructure – soft and hard – and for managing and maintaining it. Regional stormwater infrastructure consists of detention & settling ponds, natural streams, and some piping.

Much of Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau stormwater infrastructure is currently run in an integrated way with the other 2 waters. Stormwater is the biggest problem for wastewater (infiltration causes overflows at pump stations); and rainwater is increasingly used as local supply (for washing water and irrigation). Stormwater is inextricably intermingled with water and wastewater. That is why related infrastructure needs to be managed as part of a 3-water approach.

ENDS

So, there you have it. The most obviously engaged members of the Select Committee were Shane Jones and Simon Power, and its Chair - Tau Henare. They appeared very interested in the idea of Maori seats being allocated, and appropriate Maori members appointed.

Auckland Local Government: How Many Wards? How Many Community Councils?

So we're all into making submissions to the Select Committee about these changes.
As you may know, I'm not happy about destroying so much institutional knowledge and capacity, in order to achieve the agreed goal of strengthened regional governance.
But, if that is where the Government is determined to take things, then it is necessary to get the best outcome for Auckland....

It's called swallowing rats....

Wards: Present thinking is that there will be 20 Auckland City Councillors (Govt proposals = 12 ward members, and 8 elected at large), a Mayor elected at large, and Maori seats (though Government at present don't want any of these).

I support 2 or 3 Maori seats. I also support a Mayor elected at large (though I think the powers proposed for the Mayor - especially ability to appoint Committee Chairs - is not a good recipe for a coherent, collegial and consensus thinking Auckland).

I oppose Auckland Councillors being elected at large for a host of reasons: campaigns would be prohibitively expensive, representation would be poor, accountability would be worse. Most opponents are calling for a "1 member 1 ward" system. This would mean dividing Auckland into 20 wards, and having first-past-the-post elections in each of those wards.

While this has the appearnce of being more democratic, you have to also consider how effective it would be. The risk of a single member for each ward, is that patch protection and parochialism would tend to drive their decisions at Council. Also, first-past-the-post elections create that old style sort of governance which NZ moved away from when it went to MMP.

North Shore City Council is presently formed of 15 councillors, and they are elected from 3 wards. These are multi-member wards. 5 members/ward. I understand - from being a North Shore Councillor in the past - and from talking to councillors from previous regimes - that this system tends to encourage councillors to think city-wide - rather than just their own electoral backyard. The North Shore ward system was brought in in 1998.

Auckland Regional Council has a healthy Council, with good regional decision-making for the most part. That's been my experience. It has 13 members. It does not have 13 wards though. In fact it has two single member wards (Rodney and Franklin/Papakura), two 2-member wards (North Shore and Waitakere), one 3-member ward (Mamukau), and one 4-member ward (Auckland). What this means for the multi-member wards, is that ratepayers have a choice of several when they vote, and they also have a choice of whom to deal with when they have an issue. It also means that elected members in a multi-member ward, can seek support from fellow members when there is a local issue. It also means they canallocate meetings between themselves. And other benefits.

It has also meant - in my experience - that members from multi-member wards do take a regional perspective.

So. I think this structure has merit for the Auckland Council. We could have - say - 9 wards. One each for Rodney, Papakura, Franklin (single-member wards). 1 each for Auckland and Manukau (ie two, 4 - 6 member wards). 1 each for North Shore and Waitakere (ie two 3-member wards). Ward sizes would be about 60,000/member - so a 3 member ward would be for a voting population of about 180,000.

Community Councils. At present there are 30 community Boards in Auckland Region. But Papakura and Rodney Districts have none. Government has indicated it wants 20-30 Community Boards in total. I suggest that Auckland Council Ward areas, should be contiguous with a set of Community Boards (or Community Councils - a better name for these new entities would be "Community Councils"). This would mean it was clear to all, which Auckland Council members were related to which Community Councils.

There is some logic to deciding that existing Community Board (Council) boundaries (broadly) are retained. And then - say - 3 new ones established inPapakura, and 4 new ones established in Rodney. That would make 37. The benefit of this would be to reduce some of the re-organisation chaos that is already inevitable.