Super City bills
May 5th, 2009 at 8:36 am by David FarrarThe Government has given details of three bills that will be considered by Parliament to establish the Super City. I like how they have split the bills up, so only the bare minimum is done under urgency, and the rest goes out to select committee. They are:
- Transition Bill – will establish the Council as a legal entity, establish the Auckland Governance Transition Agency (AGTA) and constrain decision-making powers of existing Auckland councils. This will not go to select committee and presumably be passed in May
- Composition Bill – will set the number of Councillors, the split between wards and at large, the establishment of local boards and high level functions for those boards. This will go to select committee and is to be reported back by September. Also deals with the water infrastructure
- Details Bill – will provide full legislative framework, functions, roles and powers of Councils and Boards. This would be introduced later this year and go to select committee, reporting back around April 2010
In an ideal world, even the first bill would go to select committee. But there is no way it could all be completed by October 2010, if a transition authority can;t start work now – and the longer the transition, the harder it is for current staff. Also what the Government has done is only include in the first bill the very high level decisions recommended by the Royal Commission – which were consulted on for around 18 months. It does not include any changes made by the Government – those changes will all go to select committee.
I remain supportive of the overall direction, but think eight is too many at large seats – in fact would prefer none at all. And I think the Government needs to make sure the local boards are meaningful enough that they will attract good candidates. The ability to propose a targeted rate for their area, to fund additional facilities and services is actually quite powerful as I can’t see why the Auckland Council would turn down such a recommendation – so long as the local Board has adequately consulted local residents.
Related posts:
- Decisions on Auckland
- Super City Submissions Workshop
- Bring on the Super City
- Orsman on Auckland Council
May 5th, 2009 at 8:44 am
David, go over to whaleoil’s place and have a look at Bob Harvey’s shenanigans and outright lies. Constraining existing councils can’t come soon enough.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am
” Constraining existing councils can’t come soon enough.”
Stop aligning rates to property values. Everyone should pay the same.
It doesn’t cost more to pick up a rubbish container at one house than another.
An annual rating charge is all that is necessary, and that is based on the cost of the council divided by the number of rate payers.
That is a move that will constrain feather bedding wasteful socialist bastards like Bob Harvey well enough.
WHY ISN’T THIS A TALKING POINT???
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:00 am
DPF you forgot to mention the most important bill. $550 per ratepayer to pay for the cost of the review and no sign of the promised savings ever eventuating. And we are doing this because?
[DPF: Again if you want serious response, provide references to this $550 cost.]
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
The creaking councils like Rodney and Waitakere are nearly bankrupt.
Cannae afford new infrastructure.
A bunch of green commie idiots have stopped any central development of core services preferring to get involved in sexy items like managing brothel bylaws and social housing.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I’d stop using the lazy media “Super City” slogan – we are talking about a city of 1.4m people “Quite Tiny City” would be a more accurate description.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:13 am
RainbowGlobalWarming – I think you’ll find “stopped any central development of core services” have not come from the likes of Waitakere of Rodney – you have to look ‘a bit bigger’ to understand where the blockages have come from
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Except that we in Waitakere have the one of lowest rates bill. Don’t have to be genius to see we will be paying more. BTW where are the costings for the transition?? The RC threw some figures in but I haven’t seen any serious analysis of what it will cost to align IT, plan changes (consultants paradise) and paying out everyones long service entitlements.
Vote:Common services are a great idea but it needs to be sold and performed a lot better than it is being done at present.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am
DPF said: …but think eight is too many at large seats – in fact would prefer none at all.
I agree, DPF, but I would also add that all the councillors should be elected from multi-councillor wards by single transferable vote – say 5 wards electing 5 councillors each, gving 25 councillors (rather than 20) in total. That would assure proportionality and diversity of representation.
[DPF: Here I disagree. I think people struggle to vote on anything but name recognition when they are voting for more than one or two people]
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Pat yes, Ishould have mentioned the ARC in that snide comment.
But prefered to mix up the denegration of pinko greenies across all councils.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Rainbow Auckland City haven’t exactly been paragons of virtue either- why do let them off. I’m not sure where ypu think Penny Webster is on the ideological spectrum but not many would put her to the left.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
you also must consider that the massive borrowing that many councils embarked on was following the last commission of enquiry in Auckland – into rates.
Yep, agree that getting rid of the pinko greenies would be a great outcome – but I dont think you’re going to get that as the 20-30 community boards will be full of them. Sure they have a muzzle on – for now – until the next labour government which is why I don’t believe there should be any at all.
Vote:All they are doing is building huge platforms they will easily be turned into fiefdoms at the next change of government. Why make it easy to rebuild these
platforms?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:31 am
bchapman – “Auckland City haven’t exactly been paragons of virtue either”
agree – they’ve in fact been the worst. Many of the issues remain at officer level and never make it for committee consideration.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Imagine a combination of ARC and ACC bureaucrats running the show? All too hideous to think.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Yes, all true. Perhaps a culling season running alongside duck season?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Whilst I fully support a single council in Auckland you have to really examine the issues that lead to the fiasco. You had 7 neighbouring councils acting with more competitiveness than the oil companies in NZ…… (OK bad example – use the telecom companies)
Vote:They were obliged to follow the LGA (7 different interpretations) with no ability to resolve conflicts in the courts, and the only person that could have acted in a facilitation role was the Minister for Auckland !!!– (enough said)
The self interest was overwhelming, in fact I fear the self interest is now driving the new direction.
Perhaps this all could have been overcome with an additional LGA specifically for Auckland, and a Minister with some power – and ability
May 5th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“Redbaiter
An annual rating charge is all that is necessary, and that is based on the cost of the council divided by the number of rate payers.
That is a move that will constrain feather bedding wasteful socialist bastards like Bob Harvey well enough.”
So what, if they change the rating system to what you suggested and it collects less for them they will just raise the rates.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Re the first bill and the constraining of powers – the next two years are critical if we want to deliver a decent RWC and an Auckland that the tourist influx enjoys. If I recall, certain people were actually saying we need the SuperCity council in place exactly because of this. Yet in reality, we’re just locking down the ability of our councils to do anything?
Vote:Unless the Transition Board is actually getting decision making authority over what spending does (e.g. kingsland rail upgrade, or CBD beautification) or doesn’t go ahead – which I can’t believe would happen.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Do you really believe the Auckland council has a material impact on tourism?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Well apparently Key does:
“John Key has opted for the “pressure makes a diamond” motto by imposing a winner-takes-all solution on Auckland.
Key didn’t exactly spell it out, but one of the imperatives driving his Cabinet is the necessity to not only have a strong Auckland Council in place by the end of next year, but to somehow ensure the implementation of the raft of plans that need to be in place so New Zealand can capitalise on the 2011 Rugby World Cup event.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10565752
And I’d say issues around transport, city planning and “spruce-up” work certainly could have an impact.
Vote:My point is simply that those who called for the SuperCity to be in place for the RWC actually seem to be now constraining any investment from local councils to make it happen.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I have heard from someone very reliable the Auckland City Council are using today’s legislation to stop all regional progress they disagree with. Whilst Auckland Region didn’t achieve a lot of progress together what they did achieve has been many years in the making. If regional planning comes to a grinding halt until new plans are consulted upon under a new super council you’re effectively deferring much of the progress for another three to five years. Whilst I like John Banks I dont have a great deal of time for the bureaucrats that keep him in the dark
Vote:I hope this isn’t the shape of things to come. Self interest has already distrupted Auckland enough
May 5th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
How about we have our 25 local boards, each of whom have say 5 members on them. The highest polling candidate for each local board would then become that local board’s representative on the Auckland Council. Matching the number of councillors with the number of local boards makes a lot of sense. It would also mean the local boards had more power as their representative would also be on the main council.
I also wonder when we will find out more information about how Councils will be constrained in their decision making over the next 18 months. What won’t they be able to do anymore?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The council structure will need to endure 3-4 years of restructuring from here on in. The interim CEO will set up hers/ his structure, the first appointed CEO will have his/hers, then they will work out that they didn’t really like the people they appointed and that they have too many of this and not enough of that. Then it will be time for the next elections.
Vote:Under this environment do you anything will happen for the next 4 years?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
@jarbury – agree. At the very least, align the local boards to the “wards” for electing councillors so there’s a direct link.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I have no confidence in the structural plan so far. There is no concrete evidence that the new structure will deliver any benefit to the citizens and ratepayers
In fact alreay there are indications costs will rise and service levels and infrastructure development wont keep pace with required improvments.
Rather than set out definitive KPIs for 5 years out all we get is waffle and mealy mouthed statements.
As with all central and local governance there is no will capacity or capability to set out definitive measurable and quantitifed goals and time lines to achieve those goals.
Just more noisy empty vessels without the wit or ability to govern a booze up in a brewery
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
David,
You said: “I remain supportive of the overall direction, but think eight is too many at large seats – in fact would prefer none at all.”
So have you changed your mind on the at large seats?
On Saturday 28 March you said: “I do like having the at large seats so not everyone is an area rep.” http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/03/herald_on_auckland_royal_commission.html
I agree with today DPF but why the change?
Vote: