Kiwiblog

The Herald reports on Auckland options:

1. $23.9 million to remove the two 1912 cargo sheds and creating a cup village with temporary and hired structures
2. $27.7 million involves minor refurbishment of the sheds to provide covered space for the cup
3. $31.3 million involves significant refurbishment of the sheds with a focus on keeping one or both over the medium term
4. $97 million has a a $49.2m budget for a cruise ship terminal, plus $15.6m for wharf repairs

A dedicated website has the four options and allows feedback.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports on Wellington’s RWC plans:

A Rugby World Cup village on Wellington’s waterfront – centred around a yet-to-be-built wharewaka – will become the focus of celebrations at next year’s tournament.

More than 1200 partygoers will be able to pack into the building and a marquee next door, with the city council set to rent the wharewaka, or canoe house, its staff and its facilities for the event.

It will be the focus of Rugby World Cup celebrations, costing ratepayers about $150,000 – considerably less than a $100 million plan to build a party zone in Auckland.

Sounds good to me.

The Dom Post is worried:

The vultures are circling. As the Wellington sevens kicked off in bright sunshine yesterday (is it ever any different in the capital?) word emerged that both Auckland and Dunedin are contemplating bids for host rights to the New Zealand leg of the international sevens circuit when it comes up for grabs again in 2012.

I don’t think there is any need to worry.

The Sevens won’t go to Auckland for two reasons:

1. No one will turn up
2. No one will notice they are on

Auckland is notoriously unreliable when it comes to attending sporting events. And the Sevens are more than a sporting event – they are a two day festival, and part of the festival is seeing people all through town in their costumes. You won’t in Auckland.

As for Dunedin, you have to be crazy to hodl the Sevens in Dunedin.

In one sense Dunedin would be a great venue. The venue would sell out easily, and the locals would definitely love dressing up and attending. It could almost do as well as Wellington.

But the problem is that half of Dunedin would get burnt to the ground, as the cost of hosting it.

Students (and others) in Dunedin start burning couches and generally rioting after just a couple of hours of drinking. You’d have to be mad to want to host a game which is basically two days of non-stop drinking rugby.

Can you imagine 25,000 students and others pouring out of the stadium after NZ wins (or loses) the Sevens. George Street would disappear in the rioting.

Auckland City Mayor John Banks calls for an underground rail loop between Britomart and Mt Eden:

Quite simply, New Zealand needs Auckland to work, and for that to happen, it needs to work efficiently. Auckland cannot rely on roads and motorways alone to meet the region’s future transport needs, as the city’s roading network is already nearing the practical limits of expansion.

The key thing is, it is not a choice between improving roads and public transport. They are not substitutes, but complementary.

The number of trips made on Auckland’s transport system by 2051 is expected to increase by 65 per cent from 3.2 million to 5.2 million a day.

Plans for an underground rail loop from Britomart southward underneath the CBD to Mt Eden have been debated for nearly a century.

Initial economic evaluation of the CBD tunnel shows that it attracts a higher return than many major roading projects of a similar scale, particularly as rail can shift much larger numbers than any other mode.

So long as it is cheaper per than Labour’s plan to spend $1 to $2 billion on a single tunnel to help then retain Mt Albert!

The Western Ring Route, State Highway 20 and incremental improvements to other motorway networks and roads are critical. However, these improvements and the new Central Connector and development of the bus lane network will meet future demands only if we complete a fully integrated transport system, including a CBD rail loop.

The capacity of Britomart at peak times would potentially more than double to 40 trains per hour, if it were a through-station. These are compelling reasons why we need to push through Britomart, up under Albert St, beneath Karangahape Rd and on to Mt Eden and Kingsland.

Because of its higher capacity, rail is the most effective and efficient way of providing for Auckland’s growth in travel demand, especially to the congested CBD.

So why a loop?

This CBD loop is no ordinary transport project. This project looks ahead 100 years, to the kind of centre a true super city aspires to.

Super cities all over the world have strong centres and with vision, good design and a sound business case, this project unlocks the potential of Auckland’s centre by enabling much greater access from all parts of the region. This will reinforce the existing role of central Auckland as a regional destination for workers, students and residents and it will cater for the projected growth in the size and intensity of the centre of Greater Auckland.

Enhancing access through a CBD rail loop is critical to the central area’s contribution to lifting the entire region’s (and therefore the country’s) economic performance.

This rail loop is more than a rail link. It is a transformational economic development project at the centre of the new Super City.

So what is the cost?

The currently estimated cost of a CBD rail loop is between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. If the rail loop is not constructed, we do have a good handle on that cost, which includes further road and motorway construction to meet demand (at least $3.3 billion for roading and additional parking capacity, according to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s latest estimate).

If it can be done for that much money, the economic argument really stacks up.

The Herald reports:

Publicans in suburban Auckland reckon the city council should leave the running of neighbourhood bars to the locals.

There’s a difference between suburban bars and inner-city boozers, says Jason Breen, managing director of Remuera’s Villager restaurant and bar.

Local bars responded to the patrons’ needs, which meant they needed flexibility.

Mr Breen is saying leave it to the local bar owners, but it got me thinking about another issue – why doesn’t the Auckland City Council not make any changes at all to licensing rules, and wait for the Super City.

Because then the new local boards will be able to set rules for their local communities, rather than have them set centrally. That would seem a win-win.

The Herald reports:

Hundreds of Auckland bars and restaurants will be forced to close at 11pm under planned city council liquor law changes.

The council wants all on-licence premises outside the CBD closed by 11pm, unless they are situated in entertainment precincts such as Ponsonby Rd, Parnell Rd, Newmarket or Mission Bay.

I’m glad I live in Wellington!

Labour List MP Damien O’Connor blogs:

The rest of the country subsidises Auckland and provides it with the wealth to exist.

This is not a view unique to Damien. Michael Cullen once said:

Auckland now sits atop the nation like a great crushing weight

I think it is commendable Damien shares his views with us. he is obviously positioning to become Finance Minister.

Incidentally a report in 2006 concluded Auckland sends $3.8 billion more tax to Wellington than it receives back in spending.

As reported on M&M, I’m up in Auckland Thursday and Friday, and conveniently understand there will be blogger drinks (all welcome) starting 5.30 pm on Thursday at Galbraiths in Mt Eden.

Regulars PC and Annie will be there, and many more I am sure.

Getting Auckland’s local governance right is a hugely important task. While there are a diversity of views on changes to the one model, most people are taking the task seriously.

Then we have the idiots. Inspired by the scare mongering of Phil Twyford’s bill about Auckland assets (I note Labour only wants the public consulted over selling assets – not over buying or producing them), they have listed several Auckland assets for sale such as the Harbour Bridge (noT even owned locally), libraries (what moron thinks anyone would sell or buy a library), a building owned by DOC and a stadium owned by a trust.

So not only are they trying to whip up hysteria over a non-existent issue, they can’t even get the most basic facts right.

Meanwhile the adults are actually trying to grapple with the serious issues.

Labour and its allies keep talking about the issues they think are important, rather than those people are actually concerned about. But hey long may they campaign on free silk scarf dying courses, welfare for millionaires, and stopping Auckland local bodies from selling assets they don’t actually own.

That was quick – the Government and the ARC have put in $20 million each to buy Queens Wharf off Ports of Auckland (owned by ARC). This means it will be available not just for the Rugby World Cup, but be the cornerstone of future waterfront development.

Ports of Auckland will vacate the wharf by April 2010.

The NZ Herald editorial today:

If ever the case for a single city was clinched it was last week on Queens Wharf. The old wharf, a terminus for Gulf ferries but otherwise little used, could be purchased from Ports of Auckland for $20 million and turned into the public centrepiece of the waterfront in time for the Rugby World Cup 2011. …

And hopefully it will happen.

They are not, of course. The mayors of Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere cities, inveterate opponents of the single-city plan, have missed an opportunity to show that progress is possible with the present set-up. They are disinclined to share the Queens Wharf development lest Auckland City’s mayor and council take the lion’s share of the credit.

And soon they will all be gone – or at least their positions.

The NZ Herald reports:

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a mix of 10 ward and 10 at-large councillors.

But it is understood the Government and Mr Hide could live with a council of ward-only councillors if that were the strong view of submitters.

Another option is to increase the number of ward councillors to 18 and reduce at-large councillors to six.

Here is where Labour has very confused messages. The one thing they are most oppossed to, is the at large seats. Yet they also compalin that the Government is changing the decisions of the Royal Commission, when it was the Royal Commission itself that went for a massive ten at large seats.

The Royal Commission had ten at large seats recommended (plus arguably two Maori seats at large). The Government’s response reduced this to eight, and now according to the Herald may reduce it further to six. Looks to me like a Government responding to feedback.

So why is Labour so desperate to get rid of the at large seats? Well mainly because it will make it harder for them to gain control of the new Council. Labour actively stands for local Councils, and will no doubt be fielding a ticket for Mayor and Council. Their concern is about how best to gain power in Auckland – not about what is best for Auckland.

As it so happens, I have also oppossed at large seats. I’ve blogged several times that I woud prefer they are done away with. I’ve taken this position, even though it is true that doing away with them may benefit Labour gaining control. The reason I oppose them is simply because I don’t think you get informed decision making when there are too many names to be selected on a ballot paper. The original proposal of 10 at large would have led to voters having to pick 10 candidates out of a field oh probably 50 or more. It would be like the DHB elections.

Only six at large mitigates the issue somewhat. But I still think six is too many for well informed decision making. If you are asking people to choose more than a couple of candidates, then it becomes a contest on name recognition, not picking the best candidate.

It is likely to pass a bill under urgency next month to set up an establishment board with the complex, and controversial job of restructuring the eight councils into the super council in less than 18 months.

Victorious Rugby World Cup captain-turned-businessman David Kirk, former Commonwealth Secretary-General Sir Don McKinnon and NZ Post chief John Allen are being mentioned as possible board heads.

Other names mentioned are Fletcher Building chairman Roderick Deane, who is believed to have turned down the job, Professor John Hood, former vice-chancellor of Auckland and Oxford universities, former Labour Cabinet minister and Wellington Mayor Fran Wilde, and accountant Brian Roche, who has scored a raft of public sector appointments and is familiar with Auckland’s problems.

I’d pick Fran Wilde. Fran would sort those Auckland Mayors out in quick time, and get the CEOs working together to form the new Super City. And God help anyone who steps out of line.

Labour still has no policy on what it wants for Auckland. Despite setting up the Royal Commission, they are now al over the place in terms of any coherent vision for the future.

Can anyone tell me their position on Maori seats?

Can anyone tell me their position on local Councils vs community boards?  They initially said they did not support local Councils as they were too large, but then complained when the Government listened and got rid of them.

Can anyone tell me whether or not they supported the unchanged recommendations of the Royal Commission?

No you can’t, as they have no policy apart from wanting no at large seats, as that will make it easier for them to gain power over the city.

But now in a fit of stupidity, Goff is calling for a referendum on the changes. Before I detail how unworkable this is, let’s hear what the Royal Commission itself said:

31.4 Nor does the Commission consider that a reorganisation proposal would be an appropriate mechanism for implementing the proposed reforms, despite the superficial attraction of using an existing statutory mechanism.1 The reorganisation process requires the review of any reorganisation proposal by the Local Government Commission, followed by consultation with stakeholders, the notification of a draft proposal, and public submissions. It also requires a poll of electors which, by simple majority, determines whether or not the proposal will proceed. Plainly, the complex and wide-ranging recommendations in this Report are not suited to this process;

So the Royal Commission itself said a referendum is only superficially attractive and is plainly unsuited to complex and wide-ranging recommendations.

The Royal Commission was of course right on this point. Referendums are suitable for simple singular propositions, such as changing the term of Parliament from three to four years.

The reform proposals have dozens of elements to them – one Council, an executive Mayor, local boards, composition of Council, powers of Council, powers of Board, ward boundaries, etc etc etc. What would people be voting on?

And is Goff really saying that he wants it to be a choice between doing nothing and the Government’s proposals? That there should be a poll, and if it fails then the status quo endures and all the work of the Royal Commission is wasted? Because a referendum is not something that allows you to modify a proposal, like a select committee process. It is a stop or go process.You don’t like the bathwater and indeed the baby goes out the window also.

Also consider the further practicalities of a referendum? What do you do if voters in six Councils vote yes, and one Council votes no? Do you then have a new Auckland Council with a big hole in the middle of it? Do you give veto power to the voters of the smallest Council that represents around 2% of the Region?

And let us remember the hypocrisy. Goff attacks the Government for changing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet himself now demands the Government ignore one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission – that the reform is far too complex for a referendum.

The Dom Post Editorial today:

The mayoral war of words that greeted the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and the Government’s swift response to it, has merely proved the commissioners’ implied message that their cities comprise a sprawling metropolis, the councils of which prefer to work in silos, believe one community is superior to the others and that, given the opportunity, mayors would rather engage in verbal battle than unite to secure a structure that would benefit most of those they purport to represent.

Indeed the Mayors have proven the case for change.

To their credit, Auckland City’s John Banks and Waitakere’s Bob Harvey seem to have glimpsed what the commission was trying to achieve when its three members delivered their report late last month. North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams and his Manukau counterpart, Len Brown, seem unable, however, to see beyond the prospect that their mayoral chains will have to be stowed for good after the next local body election, possibly now two years away.

I would agree that Harvey has been constructive.

The kerfuffle with which the four mayors responded to the Government’s post-commission plans simply underlines why much of the rest of New Zealand regards their politics as toxic and why reorganisation of local government north of the Bombay Hills is urgent.

You won’t get integrated public transport and a proper roading strategy until you have one Council.

Mr Banks is itching to be mayor of an Auckland “supercity” and has tried, unsuccessfully, to remain above the fray. But he is at odds with the leftist minority on his council and certainly with his North Shore counterpart, who has an idiosyncratic approach to local governance.

Heh that is a euphemism.

Good to see the Auckland Mayors getting some sense about the Auckland Super City.

They seem to have stopped trying to protect their old job, by demanding the proposed six local Councils be retained. The model of 20 – 30 community boards is far better for local representation than six huge local Councils with no community boards.

What they are now focusing on is having all the Auckland Council seats done through wards, instead of 12 wards and 8 at large. On this issue I support them.

The Royal Commission proposed 10 at large seats (the Govt reduced this to eight), and proponents of at large seats have noble intentions. They want Councillors who will put the entire Region first, not their ward. I can understand the rationale for at large seats.

Having said that, I don’t think Councillors get too influenced by their ward. On Wellington City Council you rarely get people voting on ward lines – it is almost always on ideological grounds. And I don’t think Auckland Regional Council has a lot of divisions based on current wards.

There is some risk in not having at large seats, as the new Auckland Council will be very powerful, if all the Councillors do get tribal and try to represent the old cities. But having ward boundaries that are very different to the old cities and districts are a way around this.

So why do I think at large seats are a bad idea, even if well intentioned? The main issue for me is that you will not get well informed voting. Having to pick 8 or 10 Councillors out of what maybe 30 – 50 candidates will be a simple game in name recognition at best. It will not lead to good governance.

Picking one Mayor out of 10 candidates will be okay, as that race gets lots of publicity, and you probably will know enough about your preferred candidate to make an informed choice.

Likewise a ward election will mean picking one (maybe two) Councillor only – few enough to be an informed choice.

The other issue is cost of campaigning across the whole region.

Sending one letter to the region’s 500,000 ratepayers will cost a candidate $250,000 in postage alone.

Spending limits should be high enough to allow a direct mail letter to every voter and $250,000 while suitable for the Mayoralty will be too much to expect people to raise just for a City Council spot. You could get away with spending under $50,000 on a ward spot, which is about right.

Just read this article and laugh and cry:

The spat comes comes as Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey is trying to act as a peacemaker and bring all the mayors together for a meeting on Wednesday with Mr Hide.

“It’s hugely important that the mayors are united in a common voice,” Mr Harvey said.

But his peacemaking efforts have been criticised after he emailed colleagues to suggest some leading figures in the governance debate, such as Warehouse boss Stephen Tindall, Deloitte chairman Nick Main and Committee for Auckland chairman Sir Ron Carter, take part in the meting.

Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee replied: “Sound likes elitist bullshit to me Bob.”

Mr Lee said it was the “hair-brained (sic) scheming of those amateurs” which encouraged the failed mayoral coup of 2006 that would have consigned the ARC to the political scrapheap.

Mr Harvey has since agreed not to invite the businessmen to the meeting, which may have to be moved from North Shore City Council’s headquarters to have any chance of getting Mr Banks to attend.

So the Chair and the Mayors can’t even agree on who to invite to a meeting, and where to have it.

Mr Williams is convinced Mr Banks is part of a right-wing smear campaign that includes Mr Bhatnagar, Mr Banks’ former press secretary Cameron Brewer, who now heads the Newmarket Business Association, and the right-wing blog Whaleoil run by Cameron Slater – son of Citizens & Ratepayers president John Slater, and a friend of Mr Banks.

Banks accidentially sent a text to Williams:

“I leave this to Whaleoil. TV3 are running this lunitic (sic) tonight?”

It was hardly a difficult guess that Whale would be responding to Mayor Williams latest outburst.

To me this just sums up why we need reform – no more squabbling Mayors all about patch protection.

The Herald on Sunday editorial says:

The plan announced on Monday sensibly ditched the commission’s recommendation for six local councils – a recipe for more of the same paralysis – and provided for between 20 and 30 local boards, with between 125 and 150 members, to ensure that community voices are heard.

Apart from the Mayors losing their jobs, almost everyone seems to be saying that decision was the right one.

The HoS is concerned about lack of powers for the local boards. I think the ability to propose an additional rate for additional local facilities or services will turn out to be quite powerful.

What is more worrying is the composition of the council itself. It is a blizzard of confusing numbers but the proposal is for 20 councillors elected from 12 wards (which, for no good reason, will coincide with neither the community boards’ bailiwicks, nor Parliamentary electorates) and eight councillors elected at large. The mayor, too, would be elected by the voters of the region.

Again there seems to be a consensus that all the Councillors should be from wards. Hopefully the Select Committee will be able to make recommendations on this issue.

Talking of super city issues, one has to giggle at this story:

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams accused Rodney Hide of lying about having met local Mayors – claiming he met John Banks only. Rodney’s response:

But Mr Hide said he spoke to other Mayors the day the Royal Commission released its report, a day when Williams was in the South Island.

“Andrew Williams wasn’t there when the Royal Commission released their report, and I don’t know why, so we did our best,” he told NZPA.

Williams seems exceptionally skilled at making himself look foolish.

The NZ Herald takes a more constructive attitude to the Auckland reforms that the incumbent Mayors who seem horrified that in future they may only be local community board chairs. I think we know what motivates them. They’re the same Mayors who refused to put constructive solutions up to the Royal Commission, and just defended the broken status quo.

The Herald editorial:

The Government’s refinement of the royal commission’s design for Auckland is nearly right, but not quite. The single city overlaying 20 to 30 community boards looks a better balance of power and local democracy than the commission’s six subsidiary councils.

Absolutely. But that is what the Mayors are fighting to keep.

But the gap between the two tiers would be wide, and that makes the electoral arrangements for the higher body more important.

The Government, conscious of the gap, perhaps, has increased from 10 to 12 the number of Auckland Council seats to be elected from constituencies, leaving eight to be elected, like the mayor, across the whole city. But why have any council seats elected city-wide?

I agree. And people should submit on this issue to the select committee.

If the purpose is to ensure that at least a core of the council takes a broad view of the city’s interests, it is interesting that the same principle has not altered behaviours in Parliament. List MPs are not beholden to territorial constituencies but their behaviour is not notably different from those of colleagues representing electorates.

A good point. Also it will be horribly confusing having maybe 50 people standing for eight at large positions.

The 20 council seats could have electorates identical to those of 20 community boards, if the Local Government Commission settles on that number of boards.

That to me would be ideal. Each ward should elect one Councillor, who would also be a key liasion with the community board.

The electorates could even match parliamentary constituencies in the Auckland region.

I have no problem with that, but understand some MPs do not like the idea of the City Councillor becomign a de facto shadow MP, as may happen if they have the same boundaries and represent the exact same set of constituents.

And it should be a simple matter to add two Maori seats elected from the Maori parliamentary electorates that cover the area. That would simultaneously put right two failings in the latest proposal.

As the Government says, there is an existing law that allows Aucklanders to have Maori seats, should they so wish them. Only 5% need sign a petition.

The Government envisages community boards having roles that would include dog control, liquor licensing and graffiti clean-ups. Their autonomy should go beyond those tasks. Community boards can, and should, continue to make many of the resource consent decisions that affect the character and amenities of the area but do not impinge on the wider city.

I also tend to agree here, and again would advocate people submit for enhanced powers to the select committee.

I regard one of the best decisions by the Government about Auckland, was to expand the second tier underneath the Auckland Council from the proposed six local Councils to 20 – 30 local Boards.

The six local Councils would have been on very similiar boundaries to the existing cities and I dont think they would would reflect communities at all well, despite some assuming they do.

Communities can be hard to define, but we know them when we see them. In Wellington, Thorndon is a distinct community. In Auckland, West Auckland is a distinct community as any Westie can tell you.

But Waitakere City is not the same as West Auckland. Waitakere City includes Piha, which is not West Auckland. It includes Hobsonville which is very different to Henderson and Glen Eden.

The same occurs in Manukau City. People may think Manukau City is about South Auckland. Well South Auckland is very much a community with its own culture and identity. But Manukau City is far larger than that.

Pakuranga is not the same community as Mangere. The rural Botany-Clevedon area has little in common with Papatoetoe.

The move to 20 – 30 local boards, instead of 6 local councils, provides an opportunity for far better reflection of natural communities. And each local board can propose a local targeted rate for their local area, to cover proposed extra services or facilities. Now of course the overall Auckland Council has to agree to them, but if the local Board does a good job of ascertaining the views of its residents, I doubt there will be much second guessing.

Matthew Hooton has an excellent column in NBR (as he unlike me, remembered it was being published today not tomorrow). His description of the problems with the status quo in Auckland is so good, I have repeated an extract here:

Auckland has always been ripped off by the rest of New Zealand, paying far more tax to Wellington than it has ever received back, even including benefits to South Auckland.

The city’s infrastructure has never been a priority. Reefton had electric street lighting before Auckland; the first telephone call was made from Roxburgh; Auckland had to wait for STD to first be rolled out in parts of National’s provincial heartland; and its roading network was never completed because of political priorities in marginal electorates.

Today, the city’s roads remain shambolic; electricity supply is not guaranteed; cellphone calls can’t be maintained driving from Queen St to the airport; public transport is more primitive than in Queen Victoria’s London; Cath Tizard’s opera house stands at the wrong end of town; Auckland couldn’t competently respond to Trevor Mallard’s offer of a free rugby stadium; it idiotically runs a major port at the foot of its CBD, separating the city from the sea and with no possibility of ever achieving streamlined transport links to the country’s manufacturing base; and its kids were recently at risk of losing their elephants because politicians couldn’t agree about funding for the zoo.

If Auckland were some Pacific island, we’d call it a failed state.

And this is the status quo that Labour now has decided it wants to protect?

Labour have been quick to say what they don’t like, but are being very careful not to offer any constructive solution of their own. Would they have Maori seats on the Auckland Council? Depends which Labour MP you listen to according to John Carter who said in the House that a senior Labour MP was reported ruling out Maori seats as recommended by the Royal Commission.

The Government has announced its decisions to date on Auckland Local Government. There is a dedicated website – www.auckland.govt.nz -  with info. Note my disclosure statement.

The structure is to be:

• One unitary Auckland Council for the region
• One Mayor, elected at large, with governance powers
• 20 Councillors, 8 at large and 12 from wards
• 20 to 30 local boards as the second tier of governance
• Local Government Commission to determine ward boundaries and number and shape of local boards
• No Maori seats (unless voted for by the public)
• Continue with a three year term
• No Minister or Cabinet Committee for Auckland but an Auckland Transition Committee to be chaired by Rodney Hide.

I am very pleased that they have replaced the proposed six local Councils with a larger number of smaller local boards, that will provide better community representation.

Also pleased to see the Local Government Commission set all the boundaries, so they are presumably of equal size. I would prefer no at large Councillors, but they have at least reduced the numbers.

The Maori Party will presumably not be happy that there will be no dedicated seats for Maori. The Government has said Maori representation will continue to addressed by the Local Electoral Act which allows 5% of electors to demand a poll on establishing a Maori ward. So I guess the message for supporters of Maori wards is to go off and get 5% of Aucklanders to sign a petition for one. If they do, then a poll could be run with the 2010 election about adding them on. Sounds like a smart compromise – leave it to the people.

Overall the decisions look to be a good improvvement on the Royal Commission report, especially the introduction of smaller and more local boards to keep local government local.

I’ve spent a bit of time discussing parts of the Royal Commission report that are not that flash (I should note I am a strong supporter of the overall direction of one Council and an elected Mayor with enhanced powers), so here is where I spell out what I would do.

First of all I would scrap the at large seats, or at least reduce their number. Ten at large seats is a huge amount and what it means is that you may have say 50 people standing for 10 positions, and in that scenario it becomes name recognition only – not informed decision making.

It also means that an area such as Manukau could end up with only 2 Councillors out of 23, despite being 30% of the Region.

Plus it will be confusing to have people vote for three sets of Councillors – local Councillors, ward Councillors on Auckland Council and at large Councillors on Auckland Council.

No Right Turn has a model that works well with no at large, and 1 to 6 Councillors per ward, which has equality of representation.

My second decision would be to have local Council boundaries and Ward boundaries the same. The Royal Commission allows them to be different which is confusing.

My third decision would be to have more, yet smaller, local Councils (and in fact don’t call them Councils as that confuses them with the Auckland Council, so I will call them Local Boards).

The local boards should be small enough to not need further wards underneath them. I quite like the 11 council/board option in the RC report.

If you had 11 smaller boards and wards, then each of them could elect two Councillors each (if their boundaries were adjusted so populations were similar enough) to the Auckland Council. And each of them would have perhaps just half a dozen members.

Finally you have the Maori reps. Putting aside my personal views that long-term these take us down the wrong path, I think it is inevitable the Council will have some as they have been recommended. But under the current proposal, their number is way too high as you have one per 30,000 residents compared to one per 120,000 in the main wards.

However if one gets rid of the at large seats, then the correct number of Maori seats would be around 1.5 – so say two Councillors elected off the Maori roll. I don’t think mana whenua should directly appoint a Councillor, but can live with a Maori roll election as we do have the precedent.

So in total my principles would be:

1. Abolish at large Councillors
2. Ward boundaries for Auckland Council should match local Council/Board boundaries
3. Have more, smaller local Councils/Boards
4. Have local Councils/Boards small enough so that they in turn do not need another set of wards beneath them
5. Have a Maori roll ward with one or two Crs, but do not have direct appointment by mana whenua

As I said I am supportive of most of the Royal Commission’s recommendations, but the representation model they have devised is one that can be improved upon – in my opinion.

I’ve been looking more closely at the proposed representation for the 23 strong Auckland Council and there are some issues.

At the parliamentary level, all electorates are meant to be the same size, within a 5% tolerance.

At local body level, the number of residents per Councillor is meant to be realtively equal, so that those in one neighbourhood do not get less or more say than those in another. There is some flexibility as small distinct communities (like Hauraki Gulf Islands) can’t be given just 0.4 of a Councillor, but the current Auckland City Council wards are:

• Avondale-Roskill Ward – 90,459/4 = 22,615
• Eastern Bays Ward – 45,798/2 = 22,899
• Eden-Albert Ward – 59,454/3 = 19,818
• Hauraki Gulf Islands Ward – 8,637/1 = 8,637
• Hobson Ward – 74,388/3 = 24,796
• Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward – 88,218/4 = 22,055
• Western Bays Ward – 37,704/2 = 18,852

So with the exception of Hauraki Gulf, the residents per Councillor range from 18,852 to 24,796. About as equal as you can get them, without having ward boundaries significantly change.

Now what are the proposed local Councils for the new Auckland Council:

• Rodney 54,000/1 = 54,000
• Waitemata 261,000/2 = 130,500
• Waitakere 198,000/2 = 99,000
• Tamaki-makau-rau 397,000/2 = 198,500
• Manukau 387,000/2 = 193,500
• Hunua 72,000/1 = 72,000

This is massively out of kilter. The local Council boundaries are unsuitable to also be the ward boundaries. So either one has to change the local Council boundaries, or have City wards which do not correspond to the local Council boundaries. Now the RC has not said that the local Councils must be the ward boundaries but they have said four urban wards and two rural wards, and we happen to have four urban local Councils proposed and two rural ones.

But even more out of kilter is the proposal for there to be 3/23 seats reserved for Maori – two elected by voters on the Maori electoral roll, and one appointed by mana whenua. But many Maori do not go on the Maori roll – only about 60% do.

Now population of Auckland is around 1.37 million. 11% of that is Maori which is 0.15 million. However say 40% are on general roll and 60% on Maori roll. So 0.09 million on Maori roll and 1.28 million on general roll.

Three Maori Councillors for 90,000 persons on Maori roll is one per 30,000. Ten Ward Councillors for those on general roll of 1.28 million is one per 128,000.

So even if you accept there should be Council seats reserved for those on the Maori roll and/or mana whenua, the Royal Commission proposal gives four times the voting strength by allocating three seats. The correct number, it seems to me is one seat.

Some may say 3/23 is 13% and that is close to the Maori population of 11% of Auckland. But that overlooks that those on Maori roll also get to vote for the ten at large seats. The correct comparison is population on Maori roll vs population on the general roll in the wards.

I agree with a large amount of the NZ Herald editorial on the Royal Commission’s report:

The royal commission on Auckland has been as radical as its instigators could have hoped. Under its proposals all existing councils and community boards would be abolished. In their place a single Auckland Council, so named, would be the sole rate-collecting body and repository of all local government power in the region.

And that is a big step forward. One level of rates. One district plan. One set of resourcing consents. One set of bylaws. One Council to decide things (and in the darkness bind them

Crucially, it would be led by a directly elected mayor. The commission has not listened to arguments that only celebrity dilettantes would be likely to win such a race. It suggests the mayor be invested with a degree of executive power, to appoint a deputy and council committee chairs, establish an administrative office, propose an annual budget and initiate policy for the council’s assent.

That sort of role ought to attract the sort of leader Auckland sorely needs, inspirational and, in the commission’s words, “inclusive in approach and decisive in action”.

Again the proposed powers for the Mayor look very good. The Mayor can not rule by fiat, but the Mayor will have significant authority. What this means is that the Mayor can stand on a platform, and be held accountable for what they achieve or do not achieve.

The person would doubtless lead a ticket of candidates for the 23-seat council, 10 seats elected by the whole region, 10 from wards, two from the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by the tribe with mana whenua status. That composition, though, does not look like a recipe for unity, particularly if there is pressure to use proportional representation for the seats elected across the region.

As I said yesterday I am not a fan of the Maori electoral roll, and mana whenua seats. I do like having the at large seats so not everyone is an area rep.  Personally I would divide the four urban wards into smaller wards so each ward has only one Councillor from it. Incidentially the elections will be FPP.

Today’s four cities of Manukau, North Shore, Auckland and Waitakere, and the districts of Rodney and a redrawn Franklin would be wards of the council. Each city would fill two seats and the districts one each. The six would also keep their own elected Local Councils, so called, but they would be comparable to today’s community boards.

On page 322 of the Commission’s report (yes I am reading all 800 pages) they look at an alternative to six local Councils – namely a 20 Council model and 11 Council model. They say the 20 model Council would cost too much and 20 local Councils would be too hard for the Auckland Council to support and manage. But their 11 Council model is well worth considering as an alternative to their six Council model. With 11 local Councils (and I would call them Community Boards) you would have:

1. Hibiscus-Albany
2. North Harbour
3. Waitakere
4. Auckland West
5. Auckland North
6. Auckland East
7. Howick-Pakuranga
8. Manurewa-Papkura
9. Manukau Central
10. North Rural
11. South Rural

This gets away from the new Councils being seen as similiar the existing Councils, and brings them closer to the community. Each local Council would have population ranging from 54,000 to 198,000. Under the six Council model they range up to 397,000.

They would be subservient to the Auckland Council, financed by it to oversee the delivery of its services, with certain functions spelled out by Parliament and others delegated by the parent council. There would be no third tier of local representation. Today’s suburban community boards would disappear.

The royal commission was asked to satisfy two divergent aims: to give Auckland unity and to keep decision-making reasonably close to the people concerned. If it has erred, it is in the direction of unity. Its prospectus for the Auckland Council offers all the power and cohesion that is lacking in the present regional set-up. But some will question whether the existing cities and districts are as small as community representation need be.

I agree they are not. I think the 11 council proposal is superior to having just six Councils. And even the Royal Commission didn’t see much differences between six and 11. They did make a strong case against 20.

The commission pretends they would be more than community boards. “They will be a new type of body – a local representative body, which operates within a larger local authority and which provides services and acts as an advocate for the residents …” It is describing a community board.

To be fair, they will also have powers to hear resource consents etc.

Local councils will be further reduced in the public eye by their lack of a directly elected leader. Each will be chaired by someone elected by the council. The commission has rather neatly turned their submissions against “celebrity elections” on themselves.

I think it is more having just one directly elected leader for the Region.

But it is the powers of the proposed Auckland Council and its mayor that deserve most attention.

The commission proposes they go far beyond water mains, drains, land use and transport planning to encompass electricity supply, broadband, telecommunications, social and economic development.

The nervousness of central Government at some of the proposals can be imagined. Auckland is being offered a prescription for a level of self-government greater than any New Zealand city has known. It is a plan that assumes there are capable city leaders ready to step up to the platform the commission has designed. Some of those who instigated the exercise may have to stand for election to prove it has been worthwhile.

I think the ambitions of having the Auckland Council also take on a role for social well-being may be too ambitious – at least for now. I would be tempted to advocate that you don’t expand the aims of the Council for now, so they can initially concenrate on a smooth transition, and making sure current services get done well. And maybe five years or so down the track look at whether the Council is doing well enough to take on additional responsibilities.

The Herald rates the chances of potential contenders for the Mayoralty of Auckland (assuming the Government adopts the key recommendations):

They are:

1. John Banks – the front runner
2. Len Brown – good to very good
3. Mike Lee – good
4. Bob Harvey – average to good
5. Paul Holmes – average
6. Peter Leitch – poor to average
7. Andrew Williams – poor
8. Judith Tizard – poor
9. Blair Strang – dead on arrival

I have not read the full report yet. It will be interesting if the vote for the Mayor is FPP or STV.

The Royal Commission report is now online.

Comments shortly. Key details:

• ARC and the seven TLAs to be dissolved and replaced with one unitary authority called the Auckland Council.
• Some adjustment to the boundary with Waikato
• Six elected local Councils within the Auckland Council to oversee delivery of services and local engagement.
• Community Boards to be abolished except for the Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Community Boards which get wider delegated powers
• An elected Mayor of Auckland will have greater executive powers than currently available in NZ, but less than some overseas models.
• The Mayor will appoint the Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs, propose a budget, initiate policy and have an appropriately staffed Mayoral Office.
• The Auckland Council approves policy
• Auckland Council to have 23 Councillors. 10 elected at large, eight from four urban wards, two from two rural wards, two from Maori electoral roll and one directly by mana whenua.
• Council should have a role to improve social well-being
• Estimated efficiency gains of $76 to $112 million a year.
• Integration costs of $120m to $240m over four years

There are some good parts to this. The one Council is a real step forward. Having control of all infrastructure and planning will make a difference.

I’m not convinced the six local Councils under the one Council will be of great value. I’m not sure you need elected reps on them to oversee delivery of services. I do think local engagement is vital, but thought that would be better done at community board level. There is a risk too, the local Councils may just become internal lobby groups. But on the plus side, the overall Auckland Council will hold the power and can make decisions.

Good to see Waiheke and Great Barrier recognised as unique communities needing their own community boards, and that they are to get more powers.

The Mayoral powers look good. A good Mayor should be able to achieve and lot and be held accountable for what happens.

I do have a problem with having three of the 23 seats race based. There certainly is a need for there to be significant consultation with tangata whenua, but I have never though having elected seats restricted to those of Maori descent is the best way to achieve that. This will probably be a highly challenging area for the Government.  Incidentally on that front, people may want to note my updated disclosure statement.

Also I thought giving Councils the power of general competence was a step too far, To also make the Council to have to focus on social well-being risks it taking the ball off core services.

Overall the report would be a significant improvement on the status quo, and the Commissioners should be thanked for their work. What lies ahead is for the Government and Parliament to make decisions. There isn’t much time to get it all done by October 2010!