Rodney Hide must be getting quite lonely. The Government’s plan to parcel up 75% of Council operations, including the powerful transport agency, into arms-length council-owned companies has met with an avalanche of opposition.
I read out the roll call to Hide in question time today: Len Brown, John Banks, Andrew Williams, Mike Lee, Michael Barnett from the Chamber of Commerce, Lawrence Yule from Local Government NZ, The Herald, The Aucklander newspaper, Suburban Newspapers, hundreds of individuals who submitted to the select committee, and the 56% of Aucklanders who told a recent poll they didnt want to be part of the super city.
Is there anybody else out there who doesn’t like the corporatisation of Auckland local government?
Lawrence Yule was the latest to step up, this morning on RNZ. He is the mayor of Hastings, and president of the association representing local government politicians and officials. He is someone who cannot easily be written off by the Government. His opinion: the Government’s super city model is fundamentally undemocratic. “Handing over 75% of Auckland’s assets to unelected ‘council controlled organisations’ is unfathomable.”
Hmmm. Let’s see who is lining up to support the corporatisation of Auckland. John Key is. There’s Steven Joyce. And Stephen Sellwood from the Council for Infrastructure Development who Sean Plunket took delight in pointing out on Morning Report is a business lobby group that costs $9000 to join.
I am picking the Government will throw a bone to public concern by putting up some minor adjustments to the CCOs’ accountability regime. If they do, they will underestimate the depth and intensity of public concern. People don’t want transport to be run by an unaccountable council-owned company. They are concerned that one of these companies will be given control of waterfront development. They want their elected representatives on the Auckland Council to be properly accountable for the Council’s activities.
Meanwhile Rodney Hide is spinning like a top. Russell Brown this morning said he was ‘flat out lying’. Sean Plunket’s interview is worth a listen. Plunket got him to concede that the use of CCOs will be expanded under the super city, and made the point that Hide seems to equate commercial discipline with democratic controls.
Hide said “the ratepayers of Auckland have had a say”. How exactly? He said the CCOs are “totally controlled by the Councils” when the whole point of them is to keep the elected representatives at arm’s length. A full catalogue of Hide’s misrepresentations awaits another post. Not enough room here.
Keep their toes to the fire Phil.
A lot of understimating by National, NZers are passionate about their National Parks and Whaling, Aucklanders are passionate about keeping their democracy…
Roy (Morgan that is) and Colmar (Brunton that is) think you’re wrong Jeremy.
I loathe politicians running businesses and poking their boraxes in when and where they don’t belong. Our political history is littered with politicians deciding they know what’s best when commercial decisions should be precisely that: commercial decisions kept free of political pointscoring and frivolous spending decisions.
I can’t wait for the CCO structure to deliver free of political interference.
@ Gooner – Don’t you mean a CCO structure free of democracy? Transport which is the most contentious of the proposed CCOs is hardly a profit making business. It is a form of social provision.
I forgot to mention the other two bodies supporting the corporatisation agenda: the Property Council of NZ (the major commercial landlords), and the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association.
CCOs = council controlling organisations.
Phil, did you read John Roughan’s article on CCOs in Saturday’s Herald? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10631663&pnum=0
He says that CCOs are appropriate when you’re only worried about the ends, not the means. I agree in this respect, that a CCO probably is acceptable for an agency like Watercare. We don’t really care too much about how we get our water, as long as it’s good quality, affordable and has minimal adverse environmental effects.
Transport is a very different beast. While we may agree on the “ends”, of less congestion, better environmental results and a boost to economic development, the means are highly debatable. Whether we try to build our way out of congestion through massive motorway investment, or whether we build new railway lines, or whether we focus on improving bus lanes or whatever, are all matters of great public interest and debate. There is no clear right and wrong answer, the problem is not one that some engineer can simply work out with a computer programme and the different paths we take to getting the outcome we’re all aiming for will have tremendous impacts on people’s lives. It’s not a matter of debating whether this water pipe is plastic or concrete, transport is about debating issues that affect lives in a huge number of different ways. It’s complicated, it’s ugly, it’s debatable – and that’s why it needs to be accountable, transparent and democratic.
Yeah right, Gooner: Our political history is littered with politicians deciding they know what’s best when commercial decisions should be precisely that: commercial decisions kept free of political pointscoring and frivolous spending decisions.
Especially in the 1930’s and 1940’s, eh? Just some minor problems dealt with frivolously by bloody socialists. Nothing like frivolities of private developer groups and banks during the last decade,though.
Stop trolling Have a week off Trevor
Gooner, and Rortney would know how to run a company? Anyone ever tell you the ratepayers of Auckland are the shareholders of these council companies and therefore have every right to elect the board? Except when the tories and their cronies are in charge, when it’s somehow okay to use legislation to nationalise them and hand them over to another bunch of cronies, so as to set up a fake crisis and sell them off to another bunch of cronies in a fire sale. Bunch of crooks. They could give the Kremlin lessons.
The roll call grows: check out Fran O’Sullivan’s biting portrayal of Rodney Hide’s stewardship of the Auckland super city: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10632463
@ Jarbury – I did read John Roughan’s piece. I found this bit really galling:
That is unfair. The Local Government Act 2002 does allow Councils to set up parts of their operations as CCOs. Just as the Government can use the SOE model if it chooses.
But the Act does not impose the CCO model on Councils as Key Hide and Co are currently doing with Auckland. Everywhere else in the country democratically elected Councils are free to choose which if their operations if any they want to run as a CCO.
I agree John Roughan’s distinction re ends and means is useful. The Waterfront Development Agency which is also contentious is maybe a good example of this. How the waterfront is developed, the balance between private and public ownership and access, is intensely political, and should be subject to full transparency and public debate.
Yes Phil I agree much of his article was rubbish. However I really think he nailed things with the means/ends distinction.
Jennifer, the new Council, going forward, will be able to hire directors and control the CCOs just like they do now. Balance deleted personal abuse Warning Trevor
Looks like all of Rortney’s fair weather tory mates are set to dump him. I guess he was always gonna be the fall guy for their super city over-reaching. The fool walked right into it. They cunningly played to his over-inflated ego and sense of entitlement, and he took the bait. Now, who’s next up for the job? The mild mannered Hone Carter?
I know it’s semantics, Phil, but:
the 56% of Aucklanders who told a recent poll they didnt want to be part of the super city.
should read:
56% of Aucklanders recently polled said they didn’t want to be part of the super city.
Unless, of course, the poll actually polled over half of Auckland’s population (n = about 600,000)
Jeremy, it’s actually worse for the government, because a recent poll of Aucklanders showed that 56% want to remain with their existing councils. They don’t want any part of the government’s super city monster.
Gooner said “Roy (Morgan that is) and Colmar (Brunton that is) think you’re wrong Jeremy.”
Did they ask about the three specific examples I cited or just overall support for the government..? I think we both know the answer so take another swing…
National is just adding straws at the moment, they keep going the way they are and it will be a miracle if they get the three terms I initially thought they would…
Three terms?
Three years!!!! 
I loathe politicians running businesses and poking their boraxes in when and where they don’t belong.
You must have found National hard to swallow in recent times, they are interfering in everything, except R & D (they dont believe they shuld support that). Your ideology is very 1980’s Gooner. You’re entitled to it, but as the decades past it is being proven facile.
Could you provide your evidence for the following statement. It mighthelp clarify this entire topic.
the new Council, going forward, will be able to hire directors and control the CCOs just like they do now ,
I disagree with you about the water debacle Jarbury.
70% disappearing into private hands and profiteers in Canterbury with some Commissioner to oversee the changeover. All Auckland water services controlled.
Water is Gold. Ask Australia. You own the pipes. You can command any price. Ask United Water, Metrowater, Watercare and the goblins behind them.
Jum, thanks for reminding me that the ‘end game’ of these secret CCOs is privatisation. Sometimes this gets missed in debate over the detail.
I think privatisation of water is theft!
It’s ok jennifer, all will be solved down south with the release of the Creech Report. WHO could be MORE impartial???
” “Wyatt Creech is a director of Open Country Cheese, which has convictions for dirty dairying. So why put him in charge of a review of the regulator of the dairy industry?”
Creech’s firm has been twice prosecuted for contaminating Waikato farmland and rivers. “
Jum, that’s not what my argument was. My argument is that having the split between a council undertaking the “strategic” side of water and a CCO undertaking the “operational/delivery” side of water is likely to work much better than it would for transport. This is because the process of delivering the water isn’t particularly controversial.
Of course the big picture decisions for water are controversial and should be political. The difference with transport is that all the little stuff is also controversial and debatable.
Just ask yourself, how many trunk water pipes are there in Auckland? Do you know? Do you care? Alternatively, how many motorways are there in Auckland? Do you know? Do you care? I’m guessing the answers might be a tad different for water and transport.
“having the split between a council undertaking the “strategic” side of water and a CCO undertaking the “operational/delivery” side of water is likely to work much better than it would for transport.”
All well and goo din theory BUT as t stands the CCO doesnt have to revert back to Council. It can have closed sessions, to offer reports, and so on. Those who say the Council WILL control CCO’s need to start putting up evidence, starting with the proposed legislation
Trevor, noted. Apologies to you and Jennifer.
The only defenders of Hide’s crazy plan for Auckland left standing are a group of neo- conservative die -hard’s who have driven this process from the start .-
. The Property Council of NZ *( a group of the largest real estate companies in Australasia )
. The Employers and Manufacturers Association
. The New Zealand Council For Infrastructure Development ( Stephen Selwood and the roading lobby )
Have a look at their respective web-sites and the submissions they have made on thie current and Auckland bills . Or check out the briefings they submitted to the government soon after it took – office – contained there you will find chapter and verse the core tenets of Hide’s plan
all the best
Brent Morrissey
Local Government Reform Bill:
Cr Brent Morrissey (ARC) Private Submission
Introduction
My concern relates to the issue of Auckland legislative exceptionalisim which dominates the bills legal frame work . Auckland legislative exceptionalisim is not new in the context of Auckland governance reform. During the restructuring period of the 1990’s then Minister of Local Government Warren Cooper used it to devastating effect to exact change . The impact of the Auckland exceptionist initiatives undertaken by Cooper remain for many citizens synonymous with the most excessive abuse of power by Central Government in Aucklands history .
A theme of Auckland specific legislation permeates this bill. It is my concern that by departing from national legislation provided by the LGA ( 2002 ) Auckland will again become paralyzed through the effects of overwhelming Central Government power , Equally importantly Auckland exceptionalisim I believe will lead to a diminution of the core principles of good government in Auckland .
Without the framework of the LGA to guide it I believe Auckland will become vulnerable to a dissolution of democratic government through fragmentation of strategic purpose , and the capture of its vital functions by private interests .
Fragmentation of Strategic Purpose and the Diminution of Democracy
Ref : Sections 4.1 to 6.1
A central purpose of the reform process was to integrate and rationalise decision making by a range of significant institutions delivering services in the region . One key activity is transport. Critical though transport development is in Auckland this bill sets out to separate transport strategy and function from the Auckland Council . This can only lead to a weakening of the intended purpose of integrated and co-ordinated planning . The transport agency model is one of many examples throughout the bill where rather than integrate planning and function exceptionalist legal frameworks militate against this outcome .
Within this exceptionalist legislation the transport agency will have freedom to pursue is own and central governments priorities weather not the people paying its bills agree . It can be expected to follow the Ministers advice when deciding project priorities in the RLTP but not the councils if this means marginalising a strategic purpose decided by the Auckland Council then it will do so .
It is understood that the proposal to establish a stand alone transport agency is fully supported by the Minster of Transport . The Minister informed the cabinet recently he believed the agency would provide “ a level of focus on transport issues and continuity of decision making that could not be provided by the full Auckland Council with its multiplicity of responsibilities “ This claim is an outright fiction. and insults the judgement of ratepayers , questions the capacity of elected representatives , and dismisses the competency of high quality staff within the ARC and ARTA currently applying the RLTS and RLTP in Auckland .
The transport agency will be funded through access to fifty four per cent of the rates collected in the Auckland region . The Auckland council will be tasked with fixing and collecting rates and will be held to account for their expenditure however the Auckland Council will be unable to influence in any meaningful way the transport agency or its RLTP and the way it disposes of these funds .
Placing these public funds at the disposal of a non – elected board which meets in private effectively disenfranchises Auckland voters and rate payers . This unseemly situation demonstrates the truth of an abiding maxim of democratic government dating back to the Magna Carta .
Voiced as a rallying slogan during the American revolution “ Taxation without representation is tyranny “ remains as a guiding principle of democracy as valid today as it was in 1750 .
In my view the neo – conservative fanatics in government driving this process would be well advised to heed the significance of such a sentiment in relation to the governance of the transport agency .
Privatisation of Public assets
One of most repeated concerns of Aucklanders throughout this process has been suspicion of the governments policy on privatisation and the perceived threat of private sector capture of public assets in Auckland . From the Prime Minister down the government has denied the accusation it wants to sell Auckland’s public assets Through exceptional legislation I believe this bill opens the way for a process of wholesale privatisation of a range of public assets by stealth .
The bill creates an Auckland exceptional framework where-by disposal of public assets will be made relatively easily .through allowing substantive CCOs to divest public assets without consultation with either the public or the council after July 1 2012. Since virtually all current council assets and activities will be forced into CCOs operating outside the frame work of the LGA 2002 all assets currently held in public ownership in Auckland will be in jeopardy of sale to the private sector after July 2012 .
During the Cooper assault on Auckland an attempt was made by the government to sell Auckland’s strategic assets by placing them under the control of elected trust , however the trust refused to sell the assets and they were retained . This bill sets out to divest Auckland of those same assets once again with the exception that no messy interference from the owners of the assets will be allowed this time . To achieve this goal the CCO tasked with managing the assets will have no democratic representation and will be at liberty to decide the fate of the assets under its control
Under the protection of the LGA 2002 strategic assets can only be disposed of if provided for in the Councils LTCCP – this requires public consultation . A council must also consult with the public if it intends to it transfer assets to a CCO . However through the application of yet more exceptionist legislation under this bill a statutory mechanism is proposed to avoid this obligation . As well as removing this general requirement to consult the public the bill also removes the specific requirement for a poll to be held before POAL shares are sold through the repeal of LGA Amendment Act 2004 .
Under the control of a substantial CCO it can be reasonably expected that the strategic assets POAL and AIAL will be put on the block without any public consultation after July 2012 .
These examples of statutory exceptionalisim illustrate clearly the governments true intention through stealth and deception to divest Aucklanders of the assets
Interesting too, to note the choice of date 2012. The next election would be 2013, coincidence?
Auckland transport is not a council controlled entity- wish people would stop calling it that.
Unlike all other CCO’s
1. Is established and protected by National legislation. If Hide/Joyce feel it should be controlled by Auckland why do they intend protecting it with an Act of Parliament?
2. Has a proposed bill that specifies a maximum number of Auckland councillors that are allowed top sit on it.
3. Is not created/initiated or even wanted by the the council that is supposed to oversee it.
4. Despite not being elected will propose its own by-laws.
5.Doesn’t have to concern itself with community values- despite the fact that it will be funded by taxation.
Its unlike anything ever seen before in Australasia (unless you count Fiji as part of Australasia)- Auckland will certainly be different
Nicely summarised.
What scares me is the fear that all our rates will be spent in Auckland central and the rest of us will be left out. Our assets we have amassed under our individual councils will be privatised and none of us will be able to enjoy the wonderful leisure centres, stadiums etc as they will outprice the budgets of particularly South and West Aucklanders.
We have great walking trails and libraries out here in Waitakere I fear they will not be maintained and updated to the standard we have grown used to.
At present we have many things we can enjoy for free. Will they all turn out to be user pays under this right wing governance of The so called Super City?
I hardly know anyone that wanted the Super city.
As for the privatisation of water. I saw a very good documentary on Sky a while back and its been an absolute disaster. Water prices going sky high leaving even some Americans on lower incomes unable to access water – it was cut off because the consumers could not pay their water bills. People in third world countries left in the same situation with no hope of ever accessing water in their homes because of their third world incomes.
Carolyn as long as your trails and libraries can make somebody money they will be nurtured