SuperCity - Boundaries and Local Government Commission

Last week ARC had a couple of meetings about Auckland's ward boundaries. One of those was at the invitation of the Local Government Commission. They're under a tight timetable to deliver boundaries:

- for the proposed Community Boards (Councils)
- for the wards of Auckland Council

The Commission has got some practical grunt on it: Grant Kirby has been involved with local government in Auckland (from Rodney to AMETI) for years; Gwen Bull was an ARC councillor and chaired it; Sue Piper (who I don't know so well) she was a member of the Wellington City Council from 1995 to 2004 and has been a member of the National Council of Local Government New Zealand. Makes a change to have some local government experience being applied to the SuperCity challenge - compared with the woeful ignorance and lack of local government experience we see at Cabinet.

The ARC presented to the LGC its majority position, but it was also an opportunity for individual members to share minority views with the Commission. I was among the ARC members who took up that invitation.

On Community Boards, my opinion is:

- the present City Councils divide their efforst and time about 15% on planning (District Plan changes, and Long Term Community Planning); and 85% on service delivery (libraries, pools, parks, road maintenance, community services, dogs, regulation, noise control, road reserves....);
- that because City Councils are to be abolished, it is essential that Community Boards have the scale and size to be relied upon to deliver a sizeable chunk of those services (otherwise Auckland Council will have to, and it will distract Auckland Council from big picture responsibilities);
- so bigger is better than smaller, for Community Boards;
- these entities need to be renamed Community Councils (or suchlike). They represent a break with the past. They need to be seen to be different from the past. Because they will do more, and they need to be seen as different and have greater responsibilities, to attract good calibre candidates. Retaining the old name "community board" - which is referred to in LGA - will simply indicate business as usual. Call them: "Community Councils..."
- in my view, North Shore should have 2 or at the most 3 Community Councils (I am aware that there is a call for Devonport to be retained as a small individual Community Council because of its geographic isolation and community of interest. However, if that means there has to be a Takapuna Community Council by itself, then I believe this will result in Community Councils which are too small, and lack scale needed.)
- the way to address the Community of Interest requirement is to subdivide these fewer Community Council areas into wards. These wards would be aligned with the current community board areas. So, if North Shore had 2 Community Councils, each would have 3 wards, and each ward would have a number of Community Councillors elected.

On Auckland Council Wards, my opinion is:

- these need to be multi-member wards (ie not 20 one member wards);
- ARC presently has 2 single-member wards (Papakura/Franklin and Rodney), 2 two-member wards (Waitakere and North Shore), 1 three-member ward (Manukau), 1 four-member ward (Auckland). This has worked well to create cohesive regional governance, where members largely debate the needs of the region, rather than being distracted into parochialism;
- I was elected to North Shore City Council in 1998 when its ward boundaries were changed by the Local Government Commission around 1997 from what I understand was 15 one-member wards, to 3 five-member wards. The new council, with its multi-member wards, was noted for cohesive city-wide decision-making;
- Auckland Council must focus on regional strategic development and direction. It cannot be distracted into local issues, otherwise the whole purpose of the reform will be lost. However, it will only be able to do that if it has confidence that its local service arm - the Community Councils - are doing that job well, and acting as its eyes and ears into communities of interest.

So. The two things: Community Councils and Auckland Council wards, need to be assessed together. This is governance at appropriate levels, but it is integrated governance. Regional, municipal and local. Together.

Having said all that. The above. I would like to say again: the extent and depth of the present restructuring proposed is damaging and destructive. The baby - or a goodly part of the baby - is being thrown out with this reform.

What I believed was a necessary and sufficient reform was:

- change the city councils to municipal authorities and allow them to appoint chairs but not have elected mayors;
- have one rates bill from Greater Auckland Council which has 3 lines: regional rates; municipal rates; water rates;
- put Watercare under Greater Auckland Council (with ARTA);
- ensure municipal authorities required to implement Regional Policy Statement and Regional Land Transport Strategy

Where we are now is vague, where we are headed is uncertain, and what will happen to institutions and good people is damaging.

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.