Comment on the Select Committee report on the Auckland Council Bill – released 4th September 2009

Overall the Select Committee has responded favourably to many of the submissions made – except for the mixed reception to the Maori seat decision and some division arising from the divorcing of the rural fringes to neighbouring regions.

There is some logic in removing those essentially rural farming areas from under the control of an essentially metropolitan city/region which is destined to be be the powerhouse of the nations economy. Rural activities would represent a distraction to an Auckland Council which needs to concentrate entirely on the problems and opportunities of the nations major urban centre.

Substantial powers are to be given to Local Boards – each of which will have its own budget – and there is a clear aim to define the relative roles of regional and purely local decision-making.

Of especial value is the proposal that budgets for Local Boards will be based on a formula which reflects the needs of each community plus the amount of rates revenue from each community.

There will no doubt continue to be opposition to all these changes – much of it on party political grounds. But I venture to suggest that there are huge opportunities being created here for those who want to see a more accepted and respected form of local government in Auckland. There are certainly opportunities for a closer engagement between elected and electors.

Number of Local Boards.
The Select Committee has left the range of options in the bill as between 20-30 – including one each for Waiheke and Great Barrier Island. There was a strong challenge to reduce the numbers to between 16-20, but overall the Committee concluded that more was better than less to ensure that there would be greater communication between Local Boards and their communities. However a Cabinet Paper of 31st July 2009 suggest that the figure may yet be reduced to 20-25.
The final decision will be left to the Local Government Commission which has already commenced its task of setting boundaries for Auckland Council Wards and Local Board areas.
There is a real challenge here for existing Community Boards to redefine their current boundaries, and seek any commonality with neighbouring communities.

What is a community?

The Bill does not define Community – and neither does the Local Government Act 2002, except to state that is an area designated by the Local Government Commission. In the new Bill communities are known as Local Board Area, - again to be designated by the Local Government Commission.
This presents a golden opportunity for current local politicians to consult with their residents to define an acceptable definition of community capable of being defined and recognised as a geographical location. Such critera as schools, shops, playgrounds, parks, community facitlities such as libraries and leisure centres could all be consideredas contributing to the creation of a community which residents share within a generally distinct geographical area.

What’s in a name.
There were many submissions calling for the new Local Boards to be remaned Community Councils. This has been rejected by the Select Committee apparently to underline the message that these changes reflect a wholly new Structure for Auckland government. I queried this issue with the Associate Minister who confirmed that the Committee did not want to give the impression that these new Boards were Community Boards ‘beefed up’ and choosing the name Local Board would remove that impression.
I believe this issue should be re-examined in the light of the considerable powers to be given to the new Local Boards.
It may be useful to test local opinion on this [and other more important issues] between now and the introduction of the Third Bill to be introduced in Novemeber.
One final thought – Community Boards as such will still exist in many parts of the country, which will not have the level of powers being proposed for Auckland’s Local Boards. This might well cause confusion in the minds of many as to the actual status of the Local Boards – a poor assesssment of which may serve to dilute the level of acceptance by residents of Local Board areas. Surely it would be much simpler for everyone if the terms Community and Community Council would be used.

Local Boards representation level

The Bill recommends each Board has between 4 and 9 members. With a maximum of 30 Boards [including Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands] the average population for the 28 ‘mainland’ Boards would be approx 46,400.
The Bill commentary, and the 31st July Cabinet paper, make it clear that the new Local Boards are intended to be based on communities – therefore if the famously Independent Devonport is established as a Board Area, and any similar smaller community were established, their popuations of around 20,000 would result in other boards needing to have populations 50,00 - 70,000.
Provided these larger populations did indeed form recogisable and accepted communities there would be seem to be little problem with accepting a Devonport Local Board.
Without getting Boards which are too large it is important that the ratio of elected Board members to population should be low enough to encourage meaningful communication between elected and electors. That ratio should be set between 1 member per 8,000 population and 1 per 10,000 population – although both Waiheke and Great Barrier would be outside those ratio. This would give a total figure of around 150 Board members throughout the region.

Relationship. Local Boards/ Auckland Council

The Bill goes to some length to set out relationships between the Auckland Council and the Local Boards – annual plans for each Board including funding to be agreed with Auckland Council. Dispute resolution process, common code of conduct a set of principles for defining local functions and decision-making powers.
However in a Cabinet Paper of 31st July 2009, prepared for the Select Committee, there is a suggestion that a formal option might be for the Auckland Council to form a Local Boards Committee which would include membership by some Local Board Members.

Local Government Commission

I have been advised of the following timelines for the work of the LGC in defining boundaries for wards and Local Board areas, plus membership of Boards.

1. Auckland Governance Legislation Committee reports back to Parliament:
4th September

2. Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill enacted 24th September

3. LGC seeks initial input on Auckland’s communities of interest by 16th October

4. LGC releases draft proposals by 20th November

5. LGC seeks responses to draft proposals by 11th December

6. LGC revises proposals as necessary : January

Conclusion

My strongest recommendation is that local politicians drop the viralent opposition to the changes ahead and work together to forge a new governance structure which has the potential to be a great new opportunity for a genuine partnership between ratepayers and residents and their elected reprsentatives.
What is being proposed is a good framework – but will only work well if those involved in transforming our communities into the new arrangement stop bitching and politicking and talk with their neighbours and community groups to ensure that in replacing the present sytructure we do not lose the precious community assets and volunteers which have developed our communities thus far.

ENDS

© Scoop Media