Kiwiblog

The Local Government Commission (chaired by former Labour Councillor Sue Piper) has announced the final boundaries for the Auckland Council.

Major changes:

• An increase from 12 to 13 wards, with Orakei-Maungakiekie Ward splitting into separate Orakei and Maungakiekie wards.
• An increase in the number of local boards from 19 to 21, with the Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Local Board now
  a Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and Upper Harbour Local Board and the Waitakere Local Board now a Henderson-Massey Local
  Board and a Waitakere Ranges Local Board
• No change to northern boundary, but some minor changes to the southern boundary

So the overall situation is:

Wards

1. Rodney – 1 Councillor
2. Albany – 2 Councillors
3. North Shore – 2 Councillors
4. Waitakere – 2 Councillors
5. Whau – 1 Councillor
6. Albert-Eden-Roskill 2 Councillors
7. Waitemata and Gulf – 1 Councillor
8. Orakei – 1 Councillor
9. Maungakiekie-Tamaki – 1 Councillor
10. Te Irirangi – 2 Councillors
11. Manukau – 2 Councillors
12. Manurewa-Papkura – 2 Councillors
13. Franklin – 1 Councillor

The ward boundaries have been adjusted to be closer in terms of population per Councillor. 11 out of the 13 wards have a deviation of less than 11%. Rodney does “best” getting a Councillor for only 54,100 residents and “worst” is Oraeki who get a Councillor for 81,100 residents.

Local Boards

1. Rodney – 9 members from 4 sub-divisions
2. Hibiscus and Bays – 8 members from 2 sub-divisions
3. Upper Harbour – 6 members
4. Kaipatiki – 8 members
5. Devonport-Takapuna – 6 members
6. Henderson-Massey 8 members
7. Waitakere Ranges – 6 members
8. Whau – 7 members
9. Albert-Eden – 8 members from 2 sub-divisions
10. Puketapapa – 6 members
11. Waitemata – 7 members
12. Waiheke – 5 members
13. Great Barrier – 5 members
14. Orakei – 7 members
15. Maungakiekie-Tamaki 7 members from 2 sub-divisions
16. Mangere-Otahuhu – 7 members
17. Otara-Papatoetoe – 7 members from 2 sub-divisions
18. Te Irirangi – 9 members from 3 -sub-divisions
19. Manurewa – 8 members
20. Papakura – 6 members
21. Franklin – 9 members from 3 -sub-divisions

So in total we have:

• 1 Mayor
• 20 Councillors
• 149 Local Board Members
• 13 Wards
• 21 Local Boards
• 32 electoral divisions for boards

For those interested in the Super City debate, I found last night’s Close Up good viewing. They had profiles of John Banks and Len Brown, and their campaign teams, plus an interview with Rodney Hide, which was far less hysterical about CCOs than the Herald has been.

Not often I regard TV as covering an issue better, but thought it was a good segment.

The Herald strikes out at a possible faceless Super City:

From right to left, from John Banks and Michael Barnett to Len Brown and Mike Lee, Auckland’s local politicians have begun protesting at a distinctly undemocratic element in the constitution being written for the Super City.

Legislation setting up the new Auckland Council threatens to delegate most decisions to a number of “council-controlled organisations” (CCOs), a piece of Orwellian newspeak if ever there was one.

They will not be directly controlled by the council. They will be run by boards appointed by the council but short of dismissing them there will be little public representatives can do to have a say in decisions about Auckland’s roads and public transport, waterfront development and much else.

I look forward to seeing the final version of the Super City, when the bill comes out of select committee, and when the Auckland Transition Authority produces some final outputs.

No Press editorial online today.

The Dominion Post looks at the upcoming Wellington Mayoral campaign:

The worst-kept secret in Wellington is out. Mayor Kerry Prendergast has announced that she will seek a fourth term, having said after she won the 2007 election that she had promised husband and hotelier Rex Nicholls to give politics away later this year to spend more time with her family.

Ms Prendergast is just the latest to announce her candidacy. She has vowed to stand again as an independent, even though commercial property owner Sir Robert Jones has had hopes of persuading her to stand at the head of the ticket he and a shadowy group of business folk intend will contest the local body elections in October.

Others to have thrown their hats into the ring include sitting councillors Bryan Pepperell, who has had several unsuccessful tilts at the top job, the Greens’ Celia Wade-Brown, and local businessmen Allan Probert and Jack Yan.

You have to say Kerry’s chances look pretty good.

Unspoken, however, is probably another reason for Ms Prendergast’s fourth bid for the mayoralty. That is a perceived lack of experience – perhaps even gravitas – among those who would snatch the chains from her.

The joker in the pack, of course, is Sir Robert. One of Wellington’s biggest ratepayers, even though he lives in Lower Hutt, he wants to turn the Golden Mile into a pedestrian precinct, along the lines of those of some European cities. Ms Prendergast can see the fishhooks in that, which is presumably why she has chosen not to be the knight’s mayoral anointee.

I hope Kerry is only sceptical, not opposed. I think it is a brillant idea, and would like to see a full costed study of how to do it. My intentions at this stage would be to vote Kerry as Mayor, but vote for the “Golden Mile”ticket for Council – unless the candidates are total wallies.

The ODT focuses on wool:

New Zealand’s economy may have been built from wool off the sheep’s back, but the present perilous state of the industry means its contribution could be consigned to history.

It is a widely held view that the strong wool sector, which supplies fibre for carpets and upholstery, has one last chance to remain a credible export industry, let alone regain its former status Strong or crossbred wool made up 89% of the clip last year and earned $570 million in export receipts. …

I am very sceptical that the sector can unite.

Over at Curiablog, I have blogged the results of a poll done last week of 1,200 Aucklanders on the Auckland Mayoralty.

It is very rare to have a dead tie between two candidates, but that is what we got – of the 85% of respondents who had a preference between John Banks and Len Brown, they got 50.0% each.

Banks, who is the client who commissioned the poll, has a small 4.4% lead when we ask Aucklanders unprompted who their preference for Mayor is. He gets 42.5% to 38.1% for Brown. Bob Harvey is at 7.2% and Stephen Tindall at 4.8%.

But in the second question, when asked if it is a choice between John Banks and Len Brown, they are dead even. This is a change from the previous poll in September when Brown was almost 10% ahead of Banks.

It looks like it will be a very interesting contest!

The HoS reports:

Manukau Mayor Len Brown has come under fire for spending thousands of dollars of ratepayer cash to take his wife on a sister-city trip to Japan.

Supermayor candidate Brown was also criticised for opting to fly premium economy on the junket while other members of the delegation flew economy.

Flights for the mayor and his wife Shan cost $7900, and a further $8700 was spent flying three council staff to Utsunomiya, 120km north of Tokyo.

Council chief executive Leigh Auton also brought his wife, Jenny, on the trip but paid for her costs personally.

I’m not against Mayoral travel, but there are three reasons why this travel stands out as a rather stupid thing to do:

1. Len Brown travelled a higher class of travel, than the other delegation members. There should be a clear policy on travel which has everyone travel in the same class.
2. He had the ratepayers pay for his wife to attend, while the CEO personally paid for his wife. Again, consistency is key.
3. The Manukau City Council is disappearing in a few months, and there is no way the new Auckland Council will maintain all existing super city relationships, so the travel was ill-timed as there may be no sister city relationship going forward.

The eight Councils between them have a huge number of sister cities. If the new Auckland Council doesn’t prune some of them, the new Mayor would end up spending more time overseas than in Auckland!

The NZ Herald talks city transport:

Unlike the present agency, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the new body will not be responsible for public transport alone, it will also take charge of roading from local councils. Thus it will oversee everything from the big picture to the small details of where to put footpaths and bus stops.

On the face of it, the idea of having one body co-ordinating the approach to all forms of transport in the city looks like a good thing. Unfortunately, there is a significant downside. As a council controlled organisation, Auckland Transport will not be obliged to hold public meetings or issue agendas and minutes except when making bylaws. Effectively, therefore, many of the decisions about things that directly affect ratepayers at a local level will be made in secrecy by remote officials. …

The best thing that can be said about the lack of transparency envisaged by the bill is that it is not yet set in stone. Mr Joyce acknowledged as much when he said the balance struck between administrative burden and transparency was a decision made by officials and further thought would be given to these aspects after submissions on the bill were heard.

This sounds very much like preparing the ground for some important changes. They will be most welcome if they favour more openness.

I expect the Select Committee will make changes.

The Dominion Post supports drug law reform:

The Government’s quick dismissal of the bulk of the Law Commission’s work on drug use in New Zealand is regrettable.

Its unpalatability for the Government – and, no doubt, for many others – comes in its recommendation for flexibility when dealing with small-scale dealing and personal possession for use, and for less emphasis on conviction and punishment. The flip side of that is a recommendation for a greater focus on treatment, prevention and education.

The current laws are hardly working. We have the highest use of cannabis in pretty much the western world.

The Press is enthused over electric vehicles:

The notion that petrol-driven vehicles are nearing the end of their domination of the road seems doubtful to many. They have become used to stories of geniuses with plans for water-propelled engines being done down by Big Oil, and with expectations from reputable scientists that alternative sources of unlimited energy were close to being harnessed. Scepticism about electric vehicles becoming a practical option is, therefore, understandable.

It is time for the end of those doubts. The world’s major car manufacturers are investing hugely in electric-motor research and development and have based their plans for survival on using the technology.

How about nuclear powered cars

The ODT welcomes back the scarfies:

In the wake of cruise-ship passengers crowding Dunedin streets comes the hubbub and display of an entirely different species of wild life: the university year is about to restart.

The influx of students is already evident in shops, bars and restaurants, and the second-hand furniture traders from which yet another year’s batch of scarfie flats is furnished.

Once again the streets are alive with the sound of youthful excitement, bubbling with optimism, hungry for adventure.

The city is an altogether more vibrant place when, like the godwits, these scholars migrate south to continue their studies or begin a new chapter in their lives.

Having spent a summer in Dunedin, it is a lovely place when it is more tranquil, but there is nothing like the bustle of term time.

A very thoughtful piece from John Banks in the Herald:

Local boards must have the power, the influence, responsibilities and the budget to meet the needs of their residents and ratepayers.

The guiding principle of the council I would be privileged to lead at the end of this year is that local boards should be the people to deal with issues that relate to their local community.

This means Greater Auckland councillors can concentrate on the “big picture” while local boards keep their ear to the ground and look after the needs of their suburbs and neighbourhoods.

The subsidiarity principle – decisions should be made at the most local level possible.

For example, while listening to people’s concerns I have heard loud and clear that some communities are worried about the impact of off-licence liquor outlets. We need to give your local board the ability to decide liquor policy for your area.

If people in Manukau are worried there are too many corner booze shops, then the local boards should have the power to decide numbers and liquor licence applications.

If, say, Glenfield wants more wine shops or licensed cafes then, again, it’s the local board there that should decide.

I think that is good example. There shouldn’t be a nation-wide policy, or even an Auckland-wide policy on liquor licences. It should be a local decision.

Currently Auckland City community boards get money for local improvements (called Slips) that fund playgrounds, tree planting, public artworks and other projects that the boards choose to do. Those community boards also have modest discretionary budgets that let them fund community activities, charities and public events in their areas.

We need to expand on this system, the new local boards need bigger Slips and discretionary funding, so that spending in your neighbourhood is decided at the grassroots, not at the town hall on Queen St.

The local boards will need the authority and the budget to service the needs of their communities. A great example of this is where local boards in South Auckland have a policy of free entry to ratepayer-funded swimming pools. Elsewhere councils provide partially funded entry to pools.

It should be the local board that decides whether the pools are free or not. The Greater Auckland Council should establish a baseline subsidy as part of providing fair and equitable services across the region, and then the local boards should decide whether or not they top up the subsidy from their own discretionary budgets or spend that money on other priorities.

The whole city should not fund free pools in one area and not in others. Why should a retired ratepayer in Orewa pay for free pools in Manurewa when they can’t access them, even if they wanted to?

This is an important principle. The local community boards will have the ability to ask for a targeted rate if they want to provide extra facilities or services. And that is how they should be funded. You shouldn’t indeed have ratepayers in Orewa pay for free swimming pools in Manurewa.

Ratepayers will need to know who is seeking your money, for what purpose, how much and why. The local boards will need to be accountable and communicate directly with you through local papers and dedicated local board website pages.

I am talking about real grassroots democracy when it comes to how your rates are spent at a local level.

It is vital the Auckland Council staff support your local boards becoming a success.

That is why I want the performance of the new council’s chief executive to be assessed on his or her ability to deliver on local board satisfaction and effectiveness.

Satisfaction with the local boards will be a key success factor, so I like the idea of making them part of the CE’s performance agreement.

The Herald reports:

Manukau Mayor Len Brown wants the proposed Super City mayoral campaign spending limit of $580,000 reduced – only weeks after saying he would spend $1 million trying to win the job.

And Brown has already spent lots of money, launching billboards some months ago.

Alex Swney and Greg McKeown write in the Herald:

The commissioners have suggested that communities are better represented by two councillors rather than one, so they have gone for huge wards, more than twice the size of general electorates, with two councillors each.

If that is such a good idea, why don’t we double the size of general electorates and have two MPs per electorate? At the centre of this is a debate about parochialism – somehow two councillors will be less parochial than one. Strong local representation at all levels of local government, including the new Auckland Council, is healthy and required.

I tend to favour smaller wards with just one Councillor each. I think you get better informed decision making when voters have to select just one representative than multiple.

There’s a lot of talk about representation for communities of interest. But under the commissioners’ draft plan, the people of Paritai Drive, Orakei, and Princes St, Otahuhu, have been lumped together in a ward with 161,400 voters and two councillors.

How awful for the good people of Otahuhu.

Several on the left has expressed outrage that the Local Government Commission boundaries for the new Auckland Council has the two rural areas with a smaller population per Councillor, than the urban areas.

They blame this on Rodney Hide and the Government. But in fact what has happened is very common, as I will show.

As Parliament is the supreme legislative boday, the law is inflexible and all electorates must be within 5% of the average population or quota. That means boundaries often will cut through existing suburbs or communities of interest, to fit the 5% tolerance.

The law has always allowed more flexibility for local bodies, in recognition they are not actually always contested by party tickets (in fact few are), and that if you want to have rural areas with a dedicated Councillor, sometimes you have to exceed the 10% tolerance target. The Local Government Commission has this power, and has always had it – this is not new.

Here’s some examples.

1. The 2010 Christchurch City Council wards have an average population per Councillor of 26,803 but rural Banks Peninsula has only 8,166 while Riccarton-Wigram has 29,310
2. The 2007 Auckland City Council wards have an average population per Councillor of 22,390 but Hauraki Gulf Islands have 9,470 and Hobson 24,367. Were the Greens complaining that Waiheke had three times the voting power of Hobson No.
3. The 2007 Auckland Regional Council wards range from 85,300 for Papakura-Franklin to 110,967 for Manukau – so even existing ARC boundaies have Papakura-Franklin with 25% more Councillors per population than Manukau.

Here is what the LGC said in setting the 2007 boundaries:

compliance with statutory requirements would require including at least 7,500 and 5,000 more people in the current Papakura-Franklin and Rodney Constituencies respectively, and this would expand the already large geographic areas the representatives for these constituencies have to cover, requiring longer travel times and restraining their ability to provide effective representation to these communities.

The LGC waives the 10% target, when they think it may leave rural areas without effective representation. Take for example Banks Peninsula – if that ward was expanded to include some of urban Christchurch, then the BP community would be a minority in their own ward and be without “effective representation”

Now you can agree or disagree with the LGC, but the point I am making is that this is nothing new.It is not some gerrymander designed just for the Auckland Council. It is in fact pretty much the status quo. In fact going from 13 to 20 Councillors in the Auckland Region has provided more flexibility.

Stuff reports:

Auckland will be ruled by 146 politicians – more than there currently are in Parliament – under the new Supercity structure, it was revealed today.

Actually it is 147 politicians – they forgot the Mayor.

What I thought would be interesting is how many there are at the moment. The changes are:

1. Mayors – from 7 to 1
2. Councillors – from 109 to 20
3. Community Board Members – from 142 to 126
4. Total – from 258 to 147

So the number of people at community board level is staying much the same, which is to be expected – to keep things local.

But there is a massive reduction in Councillors and Mayors, where there was duplication. I’d say 111 less Councillors etc is a good start!

NZPA reports:

Auckland Mayor John Banks says the city’s new local government structure is “an inspired piece of work” while the Labour Party is committed to opposing it and the boundaries that go with it.

Mr Banks, who is going to stand for mayor of the new super city, said the proposition was coming together well and people would not lose their representation.

Manukau Mayor Len Brown, who is going to stand against Mr Banks, said he was pleased the commission had taken account of concerns about Auckland’s assets.

So Banks and Brown both say they are good boundaries, but why is Phil Twyford complaining:

“The proposed boundaries favour rural and the conservative northern and southern areas of Auckland while disadvantaging the isthmus and West Auckland,” he said.

“For example, the changes would give Rodney residents a third more voting power than a central Auckland resident, which is clearly unjust.”

The irony is that the Government actually planned to leave much of Rodney outside the boundaries, despite the fact it would mean more “conservative” voters. Rodney only had it all go back in after an outcry from locals.

But it is interesting that Twyford’s real concern are that Labour may not be able to gain control of the new Council.

Interesting the Chairwoman of the Local Government Commissioner has an active Labour Party backgrounds. Sue Piper was a Labour Wellington City Councillor. It is good to see she has done a professional job, rather than help Mr Twyford with his aim to have Labour control the Council.

The Local Government Commission has proposed 12 wards and 19 local boards for Auckland, plus it ahs tweaked the southern boundary.

The proposed wards are:

1. a Rodney Ward, electing one councillor, covering most of the present Rodney District but excluding the Hibiscus Coast and an area south of Muriwai Beach which will be included in the Waitakere Ward (in order to keep the Waitakere Ranges heritage area in one ward)
2. a Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward electing two councillors
3. a North Shore Ward, electing two councillors, covering Glenfield,
   Birkenhead, Takapuna and Devonport
4. a Waitakere Ward, electing two councillors, covering all of the existing Waitakere City excluding New Lynn, Green Bay and Kelston plus a small area of Rodney District
5. a Whau Ward (New Lynn-Avondale), electing one councillor, covering New Lynn, Green Bay, Kelston, Avondale, Rosebank, Waterview, Blockhouse Bay
6. a Mt Albert-Mt Roskill Ward, electing two councillors
7. a Maungawhau-Hauraki Gulf Ward (Auckland Central), electing one
   councillor, covering the central/CBD area and the Hauraki Gulf islands
8. an Orakei-Maungakiekie Ward, electing two councillors
9. a Franklin Ward, electing one councillor, comprising all the area of
   Franklin District remaining in Auckland together with the Clevedon
   community and the majority of the rural area of Papakura District
10. a Papakura-Manurewa Ward electing two councillors
11. a Howick-Pakuranga-Botany Ward electing two councillors
12. a Manukau Ward, electing two councillors, covering Mangere,
    Papatoetoe and Otara

The wards are meant to have approximately the same amount of population per councillor as each other. The average is 70,810 pop per Councillor and the extremes are Rodney with only 53,590 pop for 1 Cr and Maungawhau-Hauraki Gulf (Auckland Central) with 88,000 for 1 Cr.

The 19 proposed local boards are:

1. Rodney (7 members)
2. Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays (9)
3. Glenfield-Birkenhead (6)
4. Takapuna-Devonport (5)
5. Waitakere (9)
6. Whau (7)
7. Mt Albert (7)
8. Mt Roskill (6)
9. Maungawhau (5)
10. Waiheke (5)
11. Great Barrier (5)
12. Orakei (7)
13. Maungakiekie-Tamaki (6)
14. Mangere (5)
15. Otara-Papatoetoe (7)
16. Howick-Pakuranga-Botany (9)
17. Papakura (5)
18. Manurewa (7)
19. Franklin (9)

Submissions are open until mid December. From my outside perspective the proposals look pretty sound, but I defer to local knowledge.

The Herald reports claims and lies re Auckland:

Labour MP Phil Twyford and the Greens’ Sue Kedgley yesterday claimed the agency designing the Super City was going to place control of most of Auckland’s assets into eight companies.

Mr Twyford said up to eight council-controlled organisations (CCOs) with their own boards and chief executives would run the services of transport, water, stadiums, land development and economic development.

“They are even planning to corporatise libraries and community houses. The mayor and council will be left like beached whales,” he said.

So is this true?

Mr Ford said there was no way that libraries and community services, “which lie at the heart of local government”, would be run by anything but the council.

Seems not. Any other lies?

He also disputed a claim by Mr Twyford that the CCOs would be overseen by a separate council-owned holding company with its own chief executive and board.

“CCOs will be controlled under the Auckland Council and it will be the council that is responsible for the governance and monitoring of performance,” Mr Ford said.

Yep.

Nope not Gordon Brown, but Len Brown. His spending is already into six figures it seems, and he is planning a million dollar campaign.

Where are the Labour Party and Green Party people condemning big money in politics, and demanding law changes to stop him “buying” the election?

Brown has already spent between $150,000 and $200,000, according to his rival, Auckland Mayor John Banks – but Brown has dismissed this as at least $100,000 too high.

Brown also denied that his funding had come principally from former Auckland City mayor Dick Hubbard – however the cereal king has paid a small sum.

Brown predicted yesterday that his campaign would reach the million mark.

So who is funding Brown? Surely this Labour Party member will reveal all.

While there will be a cap of $70,000 on all campaigns, that only covers the last three months before the election.

Now think about this. A national campaign has a spending cap of $2.4 million for the last three months and the fact National ran some billboards just ahead of that time period worth around $250,000 saw Labour force through a law change to stop such a thing. So National spent an extra 10% of the regulated period budget before the regulated period. While Labour Party member Len Brown is planning to spend an extra 1300% before the regulated period.

Sue Bradford only announced her resignation on Friday, but already Len Brown has a job for her, as reported by NewstalkZB:

Len Brown says he would relish the opportunity to work alongside Sue Bradford on the Auckland Super City Council.

The Manukau mayor has thrown his hat into the ring to lead the new local body, and says the Green MP would make a great councillor.

Mr Brown says he enjoys Ms Bradford’s company and thinks she is a great leader.

If Len is elected, he appoints the Deputy Mayor so that may be Sue Bradford. Of course Sue doesn’t like it when she isn’t leader, so she may have designs on the top job, not just the Deputy.

Imagine all the worthy projects Sue can think up for the ratepayers of Auckland to fund.

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.

Labour proposed amendments requiring the new Auckland Council to have a Pacific Advisory Board and an Asian Advisory Board.

Personally I think it is weird that Labour wants to dictate to the Auckland Council how it consults with ethnic communities, as if it doesn’t trust Aucklanders to be able to work this stuff out for themselves.

But my question is why they have only sought to legislate for a Pacific advisory board and an Asian advisory board? Why have they not championed a South African advisory board? New Zealand has 42,000 residents born in South Africa, and it is well known many of them live in Auckland. More New Zealanders were born in South Africa than in Tonga, Fiji, Korea, and the Cook Islands.

So why is Labour not fighting for South Africans in Auckland to have an advisory board? Is it just they have not reached a certain population threshold? Will they try and introduce a law to create such a board when their population does reach a certain threshold?

Or maybe they could just trust the new Auckland Council to work out how it liaises and consults with the many ethnic communities of Auckland. You see without Phil Twyford telling them how to do their job, they might decide to do things differently. They might realise Indians and Japanese don’t always like being lumped in together, and create separate boards for each. Or they might decide you don’t needs boards at all, and just need regular meetings between Councillors and ethnic community groups. Or they may organise a couple of forums a year open to all such groups.

Just watching a recording of Q&A and Paul Holmes has revealed that the Families Commission put in a submission on the Auckland Council legislation advocating for Maori Seats.

They defended their submission on the grounds that how Auckland is governed can affect families/whanau. What a ridicolous justification.

I would say every law passed by Parliament can be argued to have an impact on families. That doesn’t mean we need to be putting in millions of dollars into the Families Commission to be making submissions on laws that really are well outside what should be their core area of focus.

I’m still unconvinced we get anything near value for money by having a Families Commission. Some of the stuff they have been involved in is useful (I think the anti domestic violence TV ads are quite good), but these may well have occurred even if there was no Families Commission.

The report by the Select Committee is here.

Key points:

• All 20 Councillors to be elected from wards
• Issue of Maori Seats one for the Auckland Council and voters to decide in future
• FPP confirmed as electoral system for 2010 elections
• campaign spending cap to be in third bill
• Mayor can set committee structure, committee chairs and deputy mayor
• Mayor’s office budget to be 0.2% of total Council, up to $3 million a year to allow for independent advisors
• rural northern area of Rodney District to become part of Kaipara District
• southern boundary unchanged
• two rural single-member wards, and the other 18 councillors to come from wards with LGC to determine how many are multi-member and single-member.
• Number of local boards remains at 20 – 30. LGC to determine boundaries, and electoral subdivisions of a board if any.
• Each board to have 4 to 9 members
• local board boundaries to coincide with ward boundaries where possible
• 10% tolerance for boundaries in terms of voters/representative
• Great Barrier Island And Waiheke Island guaranteed local boards
• decision on nature and level of services provided should be made by local boards except where decision on an Auckland wide basis will be better.
• boards expected to be responsible for libraries, swimming pools, parks, rec centres, community halls, funding of local groups and local bylaws etc
• can not be on both Council and a local board

I am pleased the Committee/Government has given local boards much greater powers, and the principle of subsidiarity. Also pleased at large seats have been deleted.

Labour has a minority report. They want:

• Maori Seats
• More Councillors – 25 instead of 20
• Fewer local boards (making local boards less local)
• Maximum two members per ward
• Mayor only to nominate Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs, not appoint them
• STV for all elections
• Pacific and Asian advisory boards to be enshrined in legislation
• Wants to keep all of Rodney in the new Council and extend southern boundary to Waikato River

I have previously blogged on Maori Seats. Not too worried about 25 vs 20 for size of Council. I am puzzled that after arguing for more local involvement they want fewer local boards, meaning residents will have less of a local connection to them.

Chris Trotter is unhappy that Labour are pushing for Len Brown as Auckland Mayor, ignoring the wider left:

WHEN will Labour ever learn? A party whose membership now numbers less than 5,000 nationwide, and probably less than 1,000 north of Taupo, has decided – unilaterally – to select the Left’s mayoral candidate for the new Auckland “supercity”.

“Cheek” is too small a word to describe this sort of behaviour. Why? Because, if we accept the well-established rule-of-thumb that only ten percent of any organisation’s paper membership should ever be considered active players, fewer than 100 people took it upon themselves to choose the person aiming to represent 1.4 million.

For the sheer, jaw-dropping arrogance of this pre-emptive strike against democratic procedure, Labour deserves a hefty political smack – to say nothing of the “good parental correction” required for putting its own, narrow, partisan interests ahead of Auckland’s future.

Of Labour (and City Vision, its front organisation) I did, however, expect something more imaginative (and democratic) than an old-fashioned “deal”, hammered out in a variety of smoke-free rooms, between a clutch of anonymous party hacks and the Mayor of Manukau City.

Strategically commissioned opinion polls, notwithstanding, Mr Brown has long been the Auckland Right’s preferred opponent. He comes across as an evangelical social-worker, who, when he’s not mouthing bogus Pasifika street-slang, delivers earnest speeches in which the buzz-words “vision”, “passion” and “community” are endlessly repeated.

I do, however, give Labour points for staking its claim so early and with such clarity. The other potential candidates: be he Waitakere City Mayor, Bob Harvey, or the Chairman of the Auckland Regional Council, Mike Lee; can now be intimidated into withdrawing from the race – on pain of “splitting the Left vote”.

The truth, of course, is that the only splitters operating in the broader Auckland Left are Labour and its allies. By dividing the field of mayoral hopefuls into Mr Brown and “the rest”, they have very foolishly, and selfishly, made the best candidate the enemy of the first.

But, if the Left accepts Labour’s fait accompli, what will it be getting in Mr Brown? A Palangi lawyer from Manukau, with a very thin portfolio of municipal achievements (unlike his illustrious predecessor, Sir Barry Curtis) and a rather goofy grin.

In a classic case of stating opinion as fact, Northern EMA CEO Alasdair Thompson writes:

Maori have the right to be elected to reserved seats on the new Auckland council under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Now of course the Treaty says no such thing.

Certainly some, maybe many, will argue that having reserved seats on the Council would be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

But I get annoyed when people form an opinion on what should be done, and then claim that so and so is a “right” under the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is a way of trying to stop debate.

UPDATE: Alasdair was writing in a personal capacity. I mentioned his work role, as that is how almost everyone knows him.

The Herald covers the announcement of Manukau Mayor Len Brown that he will stand for Mayor of the new Auckland Council.

Brown, a Labour Party member, is a strong candidate. It will be interesting if anyone else from the left stands.

I hope all candidates will propose specific policies, and cost them, so Aucklanders can know their likely rates level when they vote. Just like we require central Government politicians to reveal their tax policies before an election. That way people get an informed choice.

Brown has a campaign website. However as you see below, they didn’t fully populate it when they launched it.

Around 5 pm, the blank space got replaced by text.

Bernard Orsman reports:

The Government has dropped a controversial plan to have councillors elected at large on the Auckland Super City.

This follows widespread opposition to the proposal for eight at-large councillors and 12 ward councillors on the Super Auckland Council.

The Royal Commission actually proposed 10 at-large Councillors and only 10 ward councillors. The at large proposal is well motivated. The idea was that these Councillors would put the region ahead of their ward.

But I have blogged consistently against the at large since the Commission proposed them, and am glad they have been dropped. I don’t think you would have got sensible voting if Aucklanders were having to choose 8 or 10 at large Councillors for a possible pool of 40 to 50.

It is understood the Government is considering a halfway house with six urban wards, each with three councillors elected within the ward at large. There would also be two rural wards for Franklin and Rodney with one councillor each.

My preference would be for the wards to elect one Councillor each. This keeps the wards small, and increases the chance that you will know something about the Councillors you vote for, rather than just go off name recognition.

In fact ideally I would have the wards mirror the parliamentary districts.

Brian Rudman agrees with me that smaller wards is preferable to six multi-member wards. That’s almost enough to make me reconsider my position

Rudman proposes STV be used to stop winner takes all in the wards. Now initially I think it is appropriate the elections be FPP as that is what almost all the fomer Auckland Councils used. The Local Electoral Act makes it a decision for local voters via referendum if they wish to move from FPP to STV or vice-versa.

My experience of STV in local body elections is that I think it works well for single vacancies. In other words it is good for voting for the Mayor as you usually know enough about the Mayoral candidates to sensibly rank them.

For multi-member vacancies like DHBs, it is a nightmare. Ranking 32 people in order is near impossible to do sensibly. If Auckland goes with single member wards, STV would work well. With multi-member wards, my concern is that too many candidates will stand to make ranking them a sensible exercise.

The NZ Herald states:

The new Auckland Super City Council will now have Maori seats only if ratepayers force a referendum approving them or a future council is sympathetic enough to create them of its own accord.

The story makes this sound like some desperate lowlife way to get Maori seats, but isn’t this actually the way it should be.

They are saying the Auckland Council will only get Maori seats if Auckland voters or the Auckland Council itself want them. So the decision will be made in Auckland, not Wellington.