Orsman on Auckland Council
July 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm by David FarrarBernard Orsman gives a good summary of the issues around Auckland Council and what he thinks will happen:
Possible outcome: the concept of subsidiarity will be inserted in the bill and, given the weight of public opinion, the select committee will go beyond principles and prescribe at least some of the powers and functions for the local boards. The Government’s goal is to take the heat out of the Super City debate by getting the structure in tune with Aucklanders’ wishes, not inflame it further. The bill will be changed to make it clear the Auckland Council is a servant, not the master, and include a dispute mechanism when things invariably go wrong. The number of local boards will be fewer than 20, possibly around 15, and they will be renamed community councils.
Everyone agrees the Boards will have more powers. I am a fan of the principle of subsidiarity. In terms of what you call them, I would personally avoid a name that includes “council” as I think people may stll confuse them with the old TLAs.
I also think 15 local boards is too few. You’ll end up with some areas getting lumped in with other areas that have little in common. It will also remove much flexibility from the Local Government Commission. The original plan of 20 – 30 would give the LGC flexibility to cater for diverse communities.
Possible outcome: At-large councillors will go and there will be 20 or so ward councillors. If local boards are constituted with sufficient powers, ward councillors will be inclined to focus on regional issues. There is also the issue of keeping the voting system simple. Asking voters to select a ward councillor and eight councillors at large is not simple.
I think that would be a good outcome. I think a mixture of ward and at large would be confusing.
Possible outcome: No change to the powers of the mayor or the voting system. Despite STV delivering a majority mandate, the voting system is complicated and unlikely to be adopted by Government MPs on the select committee.
The Mayoral powers should not be diminished. They are already quite weak compared to some overseas models. I personally would favour STV (or AV) for the Mayoralty but the current law allows the voters to decide this, and most of Auckland is on FPP for now.
Possible outcome: The best Rodney can hope for is to be carved up with the area north of Orewa going into Kaipara District Council and everything to the south and west coming under the Super City. There is more likelihood of Franklin staying together. The boundary in the bill, based on the water catchments for Manukau Harbour and Waikato River, could be moved north but will not move south. The select committee will also tidy up the southern boundary for two of Auckland’s largest water dams and three regional parks to stay in Auckland rather than transfer to Waikato District Council.
Don’t really cares. Whatever works and does not piss too many people off.
Possible outcome: This is one for the ninth floor of the Beehive. If John Key wants a long-term relationship between National and the Maori Party, and he is putting a lot of effort into that, he will provide Maori seats. However, Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is understood to strongly oppose Maori seats and the issue is shaping up as a test of the Government’s three-way party arrangement.
My preferred position is to let Aucklanders decide. Wellington should not decide for Auckland. Current local body laws allows for a Maori ward if people vote for it in a referendum. Schedule a referendum with the 2010 elections.
While I understand the motiviations of those who advocate for Maori seats, I worry that long-term they may lead to problems like we see in Fiji. But you know if Aucklanders vote for them, I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
Related posts:
- Auckland Council Bill reported back
- Decisions on Auckland
- How I would do representation in Auckland
- Equal votes for the proposed Auckland Council?
July 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Maori seats is daft. There are more Asians and Pacific Islanders in many areas. And if there are no “At Large” seats how on earth are they going to work?
This certainly seems to be steering into far more sensible territory, though it hardly seems compatible with the kind of people supposed to be organising the transition – raving centralists the lot of them as far as I can see.
And I have trouble seeing how something so complex can be constructed in time for the next local body elections.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
*yawn* Sick of hearing about Aucklanders and their drama to be honest.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Lack of interest showing that Bureaucrat City is way over-represented here?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Orsman is wrong on the Maori seats – they are not a seabed and foreshore type issue for the Maori Party. I cannot see National and ACT going for them simply because they are wrong in principle from the p.o.v of both of those parties.
I cannot see what possible reason the government has for adopting either the name (community Councils) for reducing the number to 20 or below. The Government should stick to the 30 local boards and beef them up using a delegation formula not a list of functions.
Why cave into the existing TLA desire to rebuild themselves. Will Labour go into a future election promising the abolition of local boards – I doubt it so long as the representational issues are sorted.
It is also very odd to keep talking about STV for a single position how does one proportionately allocate a single seat? Surely what is meant is either a preferential vote or alternative vote. I know the TLA’s get this wrong but there is no reason why the NZ Herald should repeat the mistake.
That said, preferential voting for the mayoralty coupled with upping the nomination fee from $220 would be the best solution (its 10,000 pounds to run for Mayor of Greater London – indicates its a serious election for serious candidates). Most votes (on some level) will go towards helping to elect someone or back the runner up. It’s not seemly to have a Mayor elected on less than some sort of majority of votes. Broad support provides someone that central government can wheel and deal with and assists the Mayor is wheeling and dealing with the Council (the majority of whom in all likelihood don’t share all of the Mayor’s platform).
STV for the rest would be the optimum solution; say 7 Council wards of three members and for the Local boards. This would probably get enthusiastic by-in from the Greens, unenthusiastic by in from Labour; and the Maori party might look at it as a superior electoral system.
The huge political advantage to the Government is that the next local government elections will not be about the electoral arrangements (as it will be currently) but rather the substantive issues facing Auckland. The Government gets a clear steer from Aucklanders about what they substantively want.
Preferential for the Mayor and STV for the rest would also mean that the voting instructions would be the same right down the ballot including the DHB’s – this drops the level of voter confusion that exists currently when one must shift between voting methods.
Can’t see the Government expanding the total number of seats from 21 or 22 – just makes the body unwieldy – do Aucklanders really need more local government politician names to try and remember and workout who they are and what they stand for. 21 or 22 is quite enough.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
They will be renamed community councils…………………………..Why not call them Shire Councils.
In my view the further they get away from the original concept, the more concessions and compromises they make the less the chances of a successful outcome.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I suspect what will eventually happen is that iwi will get council representation, speaking rights and committee membership, but they will not have the right to cast votes. Which is fine by me, and may give some measure of satisfaction and mana restoration to all parties. This will also avoid situations such as that in 1946 and 1957 where Labour only won elections with the (at the time) rotten Maori boroughs.
Vote: