Goff on Auckland
Phil Goff has made a speech outlining his vision for Auckland. Let’s look at the substance:
Labour will legislate to enshrine real decision making powers for local boards.
In principle I support the boards having their powers certain and legislated for. I think the Government erred in leaving it to the Council, even though they did state a principle of subsidiarity.
However Goff has not stated what are the powers he would legislate for local boards, so it is somewhat meaningless.
And we will review the ward boundaries and talk to communities about whether single rather than multi member wards would better ensure that all communities are fairly represented and feel their voice is being heard.
Now again in principle I agree with Labour. I think single member wards are better than multi member wards. The main reasons, being it is easier to select one Councillor from a smaller area, than multiple Councillors from a larger area. You get better informed voting.
I suspect Labour’s concerns are more on trying to gain control of the Auckland Council. The fact is the ward boundaries have been determined by the Local Government Commission, and should be given a chance to see how they work.
Rather than insist on single Councillor wards just for Auckland, I’d rather Labour pushed a policy of single member wards for all local bodies.
We will restore to Auckland the power to make its own decisions about the structure and powers of the seven council-owned companies that will manage three-quarters of the rates revenue provided by Aucklanders.
Now again, I have some agreement here with Labour. I do think it was essential that the Government and the ATA set establish initial CCOs. It would be an absolute disaster to just have elected Councillors take office, and no CCOs in place. They would spent their entire first term just trying to work out what to do. There would also be a serious risk of failure in key areas such as transport if there was not a unified CCO ready to go on day one.
But I don’t see why the initial CCOs need to have legislative backing to remain permanently, and the Council should in the future be able to make it own arrangements. So my solution would be to have the legislation setting up the initial CCOs expire after five years. Then from 2015 onwards, the Council can modify them as they see fit, having had the experience of seeing how they work.
We will legislate to ensure all Aucklanders have a say in a binding referendum before strategic assets can be sold.
As I have said time and time again, I’d contemplate supporting such a measure if it was balanced – demanding a referendum for both the purchase/construction of such strategic assets and their sale.
Labour though refuse to consider that the public should have a binding say on massive purchases that put up rates bills.
It is insane that Auckland Councils are buying shares in two Australian Airports, with no need for permission from ratepayers. Yet under Labour’s proposal they will need permission to sell shares in said Australian Airports.
I will invite the Mayor of Auckland to attend Cabinet committees for significant decisions relating to Auckland.
Well that would probably be almost every meeting ever held. So the Mayor will have to find an apartment to live in, in Wellington as he or she will spend more time in Wellington than Auckland.
And why stop there? Why not the Mayor of Christchurch and Dunedin also? And Hamilton?
The last idea is populist nonsense. The remaining issues raised by Goff are areas where improvements can be made, and I am supportive of that. Having said that, let’s see how the initial Council goes, before demanding change.
What is most surprising about the speech, is what Phil did not mention. Why did Phil not mention the Maori seats? Labour’s policy is to legislate for reserved seats for Maori on the Auckland Council? Has he forgotten that policy? Why on earth would he not even mention their policy in a speech about the changes he would make to the Auckland Council?
April 26th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Is this deliberate intended to muck around with the decision of the voters of Wellington and other councils to adopt STV?
[DPF: One can have STV in a single member ward - we already have it for the Wellington Mayoralty]
April 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
It is entirely strategic though,
The Super City changes will affect how Aucklander’s feel about National’s overall performance as a government. If they feel that the changes are being rushed and undemocratic, they will vote this way in 2011.
Phil Goff is using this theory to Labour’s advantage by applying pressure and recognising the feeling of the Auckland constituency base as a result of these local-body changes.
It is no hidden fact that a government rarely enters office without strong support from the Auckland constituency, John Key better realise this soon.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I was initially somewhat sympathetic to legislating for local boards’ powers until I read arguments to the contrary from greater local government brains than mine. The idea is silly.
If you legislate then it is impossible for local boards to go outside of the legislation, and if they do they are acting ultra vires and therefore illegally. Be legislating, you are therefore limiting the boards’ powers, rather than empowering them.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Any idea of the numbers who rocked up to hear Mr Goff thoughts.
Given that it is a working day and during the school term I suspect it was a bunch of pensioners looking for a free cuppa and some EPMU staffers.
April 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Hmmm The Super Mayor is representing a quarter of our population, whether or not Cabinet meetings are going too far is certainly a moot point, but it is worth acknowledging that this Mayor is going to be completely different from any other one we have seen in NZ, and perhaps should have extraordinary communications with government in a meaningful way.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Hopefully he will get rid of the legislation that specifically enshrines the rights of CCO’s from their own council. Then the Auckland Council can set up the CCOs for themselves.
Any mention of what Labour wants to do with Rodney and Franklin- that will be really interesting.
PS why are we bothering to have Local Boards at all?
April 26th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Goff… just doesn’t get it.. no matter what he say’s or where… he just sounds desperate.. in this case not mentioning Maori seats.. and trying to please the masses.
dpf>They would spent their entire first term just trying to work out what to do..
well there’s five years gone.. then another five years wondering why they’ve done nothing.
binding referendums thats interesting.. but still just fruitless redirect comming from Goff.
April 26th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
STV in name only.
STV is a proportional system. Preferential vote, which is what STV becomes with single member wards, is not a proportional system.
[DPF: It is proportional - can you name a single result of STV in single member wards that did not deliver a proportional response?]
April 26th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Although a far right winger I am nervous about the CCO’s. Having government appointed Boards could lead to a very unhealthy situation where the citizens elected representatives are backdoored by the Boards of the CCOs. There is also scope for not at arms length deals. Remember the Auckland business community is very connected. It also doesnt understand or practise conflict of interest very well. The usual excuse is the small size of the sector but its just an excuse smoke and mirrors.
I want to see transperancey and disclosure and a clear process around conflicts of interest. I am not holding my breath based on the past performance.
I want to see competent Directors standing for election by the citizens for posts on CCOs. Problem is wont happen so the same old same old will get tapped on the shoulder
April 26th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Having John Banks at a Labour Cabinet meeting? Surely hell will freeze over first.
April 26th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I only caught the end of it on ZB, with Goof being interviewed, Leighton asked goof if he had mentioned the Moree seat topic, Goof said he did. Leighton said he never said anything about the Moree seats….
Anyone know the bully on this?
What I did hear, Goof still sounded like a desperate teenager talking to a hawt teenage girl for the first time…
April 26th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Phil Goff attack’s Civil Servants?
Er, Phil seems to be denigrating civil servants, on a couple of occassions in this interview….?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/2010/04/26/goff_offers_mayors_chance_to_sit_at_cabinent_committee
Does opposition spokesperson on these matters, Grant Robertson, agree with da Goff?
April 26th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
As one who has lived in a ‘small ward’ with one elected representative for the past couple of decades I can tell you that I feel virtually dis enfrachised and see little point in voting …. though despite it being a frustrating exercise I have voted in every election.
The whole council makes the decisions and I can only influence just one councillor…. at least with MMP I can vote for a party.
I see it as a left wing conspiracy becuase that is where the original idea came from twenty or so years ago.
April 26th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
jcuknz-
The Auckland City wards definitely cannot be classified as small! Each councillor will represent 65,000 people, which if my maths is correct is twice the number NZ government MPs represent.
April 26th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Exactly bchapman we have a MP for every 31,000 people. the UK get by with one for every 100,000 and they are all ELECTED.
We should not be encourging people to even stand to be elected there is far to much of it in NZ.
11 people could run Auckland, if they are the right people of course. But we will fuck it up with this democracy thing and they will be elected peopel rather than talented people who should be able to apply for the job
April 26th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
O. so you lot are arguing for Maori seats just because Goff forgot to mention them, talk about reactionary what will the grand master say when he hears about that then?
So Goff is taking a position on the Super City, well about fucking time, National is loosing Auckland and it would be pathetic if Labour didnt pick it up.
Now for the rest of the country; Key and Hide coming to piss you off soon.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
There already is a provision for Auckland Council to get Maori seats if they want them. I’m pretty sure if Len Brown becomes mayor we will get them. What has any of that got to do with Goff? Once it is elected the Auckland Council will become its own beast. Any NZ government picking a fight with them will need to think twice.
I’m not sure what the Maori seats issue has to do with CCO appointments and the aspirational Local Boards.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Question: WHY has it taken this long for Goff to take a position on the Super City? He is the Leader of the Opposition, yes?
Question: WHY is Goff pretty much saying that the Wellington Civil Servants/Public Service are incompetent and can’t be trusted as per the Radio NZ Checkpoint interview above?
Why so now, as opposed to say, a few years ago? They are non-partisan, yes?
If MP Grant Robinson won’t defend the Civil Servants/Public Service, will Brenda Pilot of the PSA do so?
What on earth is going on (or not going on) in Goff’s head?
April 26th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Proposing a situation where the Auckland Mayor can attend Cabinet is just pure rubbish – what about going to Cabinet Committees? – when is this person going to be Mayor of Auckland. But the most striking omission is NOTHING about special seats for Maori. Goff really is trying to distance Labour from Maori, very interesting indeed.
April 27th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Bchapman .. it is not the numbers but rather the total and only being able to vote for a segment instead of being able to vote for several members making the whole. The original reason for part wards was that it helps the poor little person to afford the advertising to stand .. a leftwing moan which of course took hold in places like Dunedin.
Goff also said that mayors from other centres should be able to attend Cabinet. Cabinet committees would be better since there they would be a larger proportion of those present and more likely to be able to influence, always assuming that is a good thing since government is supposed to be working for the whole country rather than a section..
April 27th, 2010 at 7:48 am
I thought Labour had a Minister for Auckland what did she achieve?
April 27th, 2010 at 8:12 am
..
April 27th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Doug,
Judith Tizard’s uselessness simply proves the point- Wellington pollies and their bureaucratic sheep haven’t and f—–g clue about what people in Auckland need or want. Sitting in Lampton Key drinking coffee is about the last place from which you can tell us what we want (which is what Key kept telling us in Question Time today).
Whats wong with talking to the local mayors? I understand Len Brown was told of the prison for Manukau after it was announced, do you think that is the sort of consultation that Wellington should practice?