Rodney Hide added some light entertainment to the Auckland super city debate when he told Morning Report today his planned local boards ‘won’t necessarily need to have premises…they could meet in the local community library or something like that.’ You can imagine the librarian approaching a board meeting in progress: “Shhhhhhh…people are reading!”
If there was any doubt that Hide’s local boards were inconsequential talk shops there should be none now. They won’t even have their own premises, nor staff, nor budget, nor policy making power. Hide was responding to comments by former High Court judge Peter Salmon, the chair of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, who spoke out yesterday against the Government’s decision to junk the Commission’s recommended second-tier of local councils and replace them with 20-30 local boards. The Royal Commission spent a great deal of time looking at the issue of the second tier. Having signed up to the idea, along with most Aucklanders, that we need a unitary authority with one mayor and one rates bill and one plan, they recognised that this massive centralisation of power needed to be balanced by a substantial second tier that was both close enough to communities to be responsive but big and well-resourced enough to be genuine local players. It was actually quite remarkable Justice Salmon spoke out yesterday the way he did, two months after the Royal Commission handed in their report, and an indication of how strongly he feels about this issue.
This highlights what Labour has been saying, which is that the local boards proposed by the Government will clearly lack the resources required to enable them to properly represent local interests. Labour has consistently said there must be enough second tier bodies to ensure the “local” is kept in local democracy, while at the same time ensuring they are big enough, and well enough resourced, to be influential.
With the new Auckland Governance select committee now receiving public submissions, the spotlight will increasingly swing back to this and other democracy issues, for instance whether councillors will be elected at-large or from wards. Meanwhile Rodney Hide doesn’t appear to be winning the battle for Aucklanders’ hearts and minds. A poll by the Business Council for Sustainable Development shows most New Zealanders believe the Government has failed to consult properly over its Super City plans and 70% want them subjected to a referendum. Hide told Report he thinks that as we go through the process, and as people have their say and discuss the issues in the select committee…broad support for the plans will grow. Unless the Government listens to Aucklanders and changes the anti-democratic nature of its plan I think he is dreaming.
What do you think?
What a lot of twoddle. Virtually all MP’s belong to a caucus – the 20 to 30 local councils will caucus up like there’s a bright tomorrow to out manoeuvre the big central council. There’ll be deals done between them all over the region, to get what they need for their own communities. As for yet another referendum, one minute you’re praising the Royal Commission then dishing it for not being a good referendum.
I have attended the National Party local meetings and John Carter (assoc Local Govt minister) talks a good talk about being open and listening but then Hide or Key come out and say things which prove they have a fixed view.
Hide has no comprehension of what local govt reps need to make good choices and to be effective and he says he wants to hear about it at the select committee process? The Royal Commission heard 550 oral submissions and that took over a month to hear- they met every day to hear Aucklanders.
I imagine there will be many submissions to the select committee.
Rodney and the National Govt say they want to hear us through the select committee process but will they hear all the submissions??? Or will it be like the RMA submissions where some people didnt get heard, others were grouped with people they didnt know to talk for 5 mins etc etc
I will put money on the fact that not all Aucklanders who want to be heard will be able to be heard in the select committee process.
The whole proposed structure is a mess. The council wards will have different boundaries to the community boards who will have no relationship to the staff who are supposed to help them (who will be accountable to the chief executive). The chief executive presumably will be accountable to the council but not the mayor who will have their own executive arm (so what will the relationship between the mayor’s executive staff and the council staff be?).
To top it all off, the council committees will be chaired by the mayors appointees but not the council who will select the numbers on the committees according to their affiliations. I presume council committee decisions will need to be ratified by full council, but what if they mayor’s executive disagrees? If Rodney can explain how this going to work he is a genius.
I just can’t believe the hypocrisy of the twat from Act. Having spent the last nine years decrying the arrogant Labour nanny state, Rodney ignores a poll showing a majority of Aucklanders don’t believe adequate consultation has occurred on the super city, nor the fact that many people in Auckland don’t support it. His response? Support will grow over time, i.e. people will soon learn that arrogant nanny Rodney knows best! First they force their super city on us, then they tell us what kinds of flu tablets we can and can’t take, and soon we won’t even be able to use our cell phones in our own cars. I’ve had quite enough of this PC nanny state government. It’s time for a change!
I am putting together my submission at the moment, and will share it when I have finished. It might be a good idea for Labour to give some pointers to people about what they should detail in their submissions – the Green Party did this about the RMA amendment bill and it was very helpful. Not quite a “template” but some good ideas from which people can launch off into their own submissions.
I’m still trying to figure out the balance of that second tier of local government. Too few local boards and you lose the “local”, too many and they’re either powerless or really expensive or take us back to the pre-1989 mess. Perhaps 11 would be a good compromise?
So far my submission asks for the following:
1) No at large councillors.
2) Alignment of wards, local boards and electorate boundaries.
3) Maori seats on the council (the number determined by the number of Maori on the electoral role).
Now I just need to figure out a way to get across my worry about such a powerful Mayor and also a way to give that second tier of local government some real power.
See, it used to be a function of Adult Community Education providers- developing community capacity – to support local (voluntary) community governance structures in their operations by providing: some administration facility, meeting space, secretariate, governance support and professional development. Those things aren’t free – they cost somebody. A percentage of High School ACE community budgets were assigned every year for that purpose.
Not anymore eh? – Shame.
Hide was simply being honest. If anyone bothers to read the ACT local government policy from the 08 election, it’s all carefully laid out in there. Sure, like any ACT document or Hide speech, you have to read between the lines and unscramble the rhetoric and slogans, but it’s all there. The toothless, powerless local boards are a model for what he wants to roll out across all local government, not just in Auckland. I wish people would start to join the dots instead of simply reacting to him all the time. It simply plays into his hands.
I am distressed at the negative and destructive style that has been adopted by Goff and Twyford. The move to establish a Royal Commission was a Labour initiative, the people were appointed from a Labour perspective, the consultation was open and transparent … why then are Phil (1) and Phil (2) adopting a destructive stance. The business case for a change is compelling, Helen knew that when she got the report from LEK in 2001 (A Talent Initiative) that was commissioned by her office.
Time to get constructive guys … the real point is JK moving away from implementing the original model, Maori representation, 6 Councils and all.
@ Oz
Have you actually been following this at all? Goff, Twyford etc ARE attacking the move away from the original model, not the plan for a supercity itself. What a pointless post.
I’m tired of the smoke screen being put up by people saying that the Royal Commission was established, and its members appointed, by Labour. So what? The compiling of the report and the decision on whether or not to implement its recommendations are two completely separate issues. While Labour ensured adequate consultation on the former, National and Act are prepared to completely disregard the views of the people on the latter. Given the recent poll showing most Aucklanders do not believe they have been adequately consulted on the matter, I think Labour is quite right to continue to push for more consultation. Far from being “destructive”, I would consider listening to the views of those who will be most affected is absolutely essential for such a significant change.
Jarbury
Add voting by STV. Devisive candidates like the current Akld mayor have less chance of being elected under STV.
Sorry. I meant divisive.
Key referred to John Banks as “super mayor” at National’s northern conference today. Looks like Auckland just had another decision made for them.
Hilary, I’m not that familiar with STV voting. Is that what we’ve been doing for DHB elections? Seems to be very confusing to me, to be honest.
STV is used in Australia in local, sate and federal elections, and tho its more complicated, it works fine. Think about how FFP is going to work in the proposed general wards when you are picking eight from fifty. Tickets will be worthless it will e a beauty contest.
Exactly TopCat – hence the stupidity of at large councillors.
How about the idea of electing your local board, then your local board elects who the councillors representing them will be, and then the council elects the mayor? Nice “bottom-up” grassroots democracy there.
I serve on a community board now and we meet in the local library, after hours off course. There is a specially large meeting room that serves us adequately. We lock up and alarm the place upon exit. And Phil, this is on the North Shore not far from where you live. You should get out more and see what local government really is about.
@Nick
My point really is that the second tier of Auckland’s local government HAS to be more than community boards. If you are going to centralise so much power and responsibility in the Auckland super-city Council, then you need a second tier that is more than just a talk shop. More than just responsible for community engagement. I reckon it has to have policy-making and governance responsibility for the important local issues.
@Oz
We are certainly not trying to be negative for the sake of it. But we are campaigning against serious mistakes the Government is making with the future of our democracy. Councillors elected at large will leave dozens of communities unrepresented on the new super council and gerrymander a permanent centre-right majority. A second tier that is just a bunch of talk shops will strip the local out of local government and leave communities without a voice. Maori seats are needed to guarantee Maori a seat at the table. These aren’t trivial things. They are worth fighting for.
The actual legislation has local boards as something clearly “less than” a current community board.
If you look at section 13 of the bill, entitled “Status of local boards” outlines the following:
So basically they’re very little
Jarbury
We have STV voting in Wellington city council for wards and Mayor. You number 1,2,3 the same as for DHBs but there is a much shorter list. You don’t have to number all of them and in tactical voting might only number 1 or 2. It means if the candidate with the highest number of votes does not get 50% of the votes first up, there is a computer system for distributing the votes from the lower polling candidates – it’s quite efficient and fast now it’s been tested over a few elections. It means you are more likely to get a compromise candidate who is acceptable to a larger proportion of voters although they might have been the second or even third choice of some of them. You go on redistributing till a candidate gets over 50%. It means that candidates like John Banks (who only got about 33% of the FPP mayoral vote I think?) would only win if those who voted for other lower polling candidates as Number 1 voted for him in large numbers as their number 2 or even 3. Unlikely, I think as divisive candidates tend to be voted for as either Number 1 or last)
Thanks for the explanation Hilary.
So is your number 1 vote worth twice as much as number 2? And so forth?
It is not really to do with vote values. If a candidate gets over 50% of number 1 votes in the first counting then they are in – so in that sense number one votes are worth a lot. But it depends on the total votes, number of candidates etc. For example if you have a ward in which three candidates will be elected and there are 10 names on the list but you really only want to ensure that your favourite gets the most chance you only vote for a number 1 and no others. A number 2 or three person on your list could just tip the balance to them over your number 1.
There must be some people out there who are much more familiar with STV who can explain it better than me. I just know that in WCC we have had it for a few elections – after a campaign by the left for it – and when it came up for review last year there was a majority vote by the electors to keep it. It gives much more of a democratic legitimacy to the victors.
Hilary,
You summed it up pretty well. First thing that happens is that the bottom candidate is eliminated and their second preferences distributed. Then the process is repeated until the last person standing is left. If your second preferenced candidate is eliminated you vote goes to the person you marked as 3 and so on.
Its actually a lot simpler than that in most cases as it usually comes down to 2 or 3 leading candidates and what matters with each vote is which of those leading candidates is put higher on the ballot.
The beauty of the system is that you can vote for a minor party but still have a say on who you would like to win the seat. With multimember electorates the winners are generally representative of ideology of the electorate as a whole, something that is unlikely to happen with FFP.
On the subject of Local Councils it is worth noting that even under the Royal Commissions reccommended proposal the 6 local councils were still pretty much stripped of powers i.e. they would have had no ability to set rates or to employ staff- this would have been done for them by the Super Council. So the only real difference between them and Rodney Hides 20 to 30 councils would have been size. I think that 6 large “toothless” councils is worse than 20 to 30 small “toothless” councils as at least with the smaller ones we would get more local democracy. What is really needed for the Local Councils however is the right mix of powers- the power to rate, the power to employ staff etc- and one local council should represent one ward i.e. your ward councillor is your local councils voice on the Super Council.
Joepass, I think the size of the local councils would have meant that they would have been reasonably powerful. You would have ended up with the Manukau one retaining some/most of the current Manukau City Council bulding for the staff that worked there (even if they were officially employees of the Auckland Council). Their size would have meant some serious clout when sorting out which services would have been undertaken by the Auckland Council and which would have been left to the local councils.
This is why the Royal Commission proposed the at large councillors – to counter-balance against the VERY strong parochial voices of the local councils.
By contrast, Rodney Hide’s proposal is for the local boards to meet once a month in the local library and come up with a wishlist of projects they want the Auckland Council to undertake, and then go begging to the Auckland Council to do those projects (with no legal backup of the Auckland Council says “piss off”).
Its amazing that no one has picked up on how Hide/Key’s view of the local boards has changed so drastically in 48 hours. On Thurs, they were meeting in the back room of the library and doing little else.
By the weekend they had become fully autonomous authorities with a recurrent budget and defined powers that the Auckland Council could not take away. I would assume that if they had a budget to administer that they would require offices and presumably their own staff?? (I can’t see how they could have defined powers but not be responsible for their own staff).
This is before the select committee has even met.
Looks like they’re running around like headless chickens to me. I’m really looking forward to presenting my submission in person (I won’t take teleconferencing as option B this time) and really ripping into the proposal.