Bassett on the Auckland Royal Commission
Michael Bassett lets us know his views on the Auckland Royal Commission. He thinks they have done a reasonable job, but that there are areas where they were constrained either by the Terms of Reference, Labour flakiness and/or flawed legislation such as that giving councils the power of general competence. He trusts that these factors will be taken into account in the Government response, i.e. given short shrift. Adam agrees.
Did like this though:-
The left wing City Vision Councillors’ Preservation Society with their media apparatchiks like Brian Rudman and Bernard Orsman, are trying to destroy the integrity of the whole Royal Commission report because it hasn’t devised a structure that perpetuates their elected positions. Lefties perpetually identify the good of the region with their personal interests. Friday’s City Vision press release was a thinly disguised complaint that there might not be enough winnable seats for themselves in the new dispensation. When assessing the merit of their complaints one should bear in mind that when they dominated the last Auckland City Council, they gave us rate increases of 37% over a three-year period when inflation was barely a third of that! Many of them believe they have a right to spend your money and are better at it than you yourself. They may produce some arguments worth listening to, but those advanced so far cannot be taken too seriously.
And this:-
The Royal Commission was hamstrung in part by a requirement in its Terms of Reference to pay heed to the Local Government Act 2002. That Act entrenched into law a number of flakey Labour fads that need revisiting. There are lots of questionable provisions in that Act which will necessarily affect the implementation of parts of the Royal Commission report. For example, for a city with the ethnic diversity existing in Auckland it is necessary to look carefully at those sections of the report requiring separate Maori representation. While the modern approach to the Treaty has tried to stress separate privileges for Maori, the bald fact is that Maori are now significantly outnumbered by several other ethnic groups within the wider Auckland region. On a one-person-one-vote principle those other groups might, with some justice, begin demanding their places in the sun. An ethnically blind system of representation would certainly be simpler, and more likely to guarantee equal opportunities for everyone into the future.
Race based seats, especially appointed race based seats by an unelected racial elite, is in Adam’s view unacceptable in NZ in the 21st century. We may have to accept them at national level, but not in local government.
That section of the Commission’s report was to Adam extremely questionable. As Bassett says why not a Chinese seat, or an Indian seat or a Samoan seat. Indeed given the North Shore, why not a South African seat.
Comments are closed.
Paul
Thanks I will take a look
Adam
The real problem with the Supercity idea is what hasn’t been talked about, namely, the effect on competition between councils. See TVHE, Offsetting Behaviour and Anti-Dismal for on going discussion.
This was a MEDIA RELEASE 16 July 2008 relaying the Far North Mayor Wayne Brown’s views. I think he made some very valid points. I was particularly taken with his comments re ” free of the learned behavior exhibited by too many of our existing elected representatives.” Having been a first term councillor on a small district council I agree totally with this observation.
“Frustration at Auckland’s apparent impotence to deal with major issues because of its fragmented local government structure has led Far North Mayor Wayne Brown to make strong representations seeking change. In submissions to the Auckland Governance Commission he said there was a broad spectrum of agreement nationwide that New Zealand had at least one and potentially two layers of government which a nation of four million people could well do without.
Firmly in his sights are regional councils which Mr Brown sees as causing widespread misunderstanding and confusion in the public arena and adding to an unnecessarily bureaucratic structure.
He wants to see a centralized Auckland region with a single local government body covering the existing seven councils, the external boundary shrunk to reflect the existing urbanized area, no regional council, and a leader for the new authority elected at large.
“Auckland’s borders need to be shrunk back to the urban edge, returning the semi-urban areas to the surrounding rural councils. Community Boards need to be strengthened and given clear mandates and budgets for local decision-making.
“The one large entity needs a handful of well-paid councilors to attract skilled candidates from a cross-section free of the learned behavior exhibited by too many of our existing elected representatives,” he says.
“All we need is one well-led council with an urban focus, strong community boards, more accountability and better service delivery.
“What we don’t need are regional councils in which the leaders are appointed by the elected members. Too often this leads to representation without a mandate, secured by deal–making and offers of jobs for the boys such as committee chairmanships and seats on boards. A leader has to see the big picture and the mandate has to come from the electorate.
“The seven village structure in Auckland is too big, too cumbersome, with too many elected officials and no ability to think regionally,” he says.”
Adam,
Amalgamation rarely solved anything without an overriding reason for doing it. Unless people can be given a “big picture”, a vision and several big goals to achieve, the fiefdoms will come back.
I don’t know what those big ticket items and goals would be for Auckland, but unless they are there, amalgamation into a super city isn’t likely to be much of an improvement in the long term.
JC
If you read the Royal Commission, you see that it is proposed to set up a whole range of regional government bureaucracies to look after urban design, economic development, social policy, environment etc. I doubt if a federal government, most of whom live outside the region will be willing to hand over power.
There is also very little political context provided. For example how will the electoral wards differ from federal electorates? Will they be identical, overlap, incorporate, envelop each other?
I suspect regional government 3 yearly elections will be little different (apart from the participants) from the 4 yearly federal elections
JC
Sally and McShane do of course have a particular point of view.
As in fact do we all.
I think the structure proposed by the Commission is still too unwieldy. Instead of local councils chewing up money I would prefer say 36 councillors, elected on a ‘constituency’ basis on an STV basis. This would enable the elimination of a layer of councils and supporting bureaucracy.
Adam
So how do the “uber” mayors of London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles get on with their fascist structures?
Not very well, I suspect, and likely because they are hemmed in by the same democracies that we have than because of any unrestrained fascist tendencies.
JC
Sally
I will read Owen’s article. Enjoyed your comment
Many thanks Adam
The more I read of this idea for a single Uber-City, with a single Uber-Mayor, the more I am convinced it is a no goer.
Owen McShane has an excellent article on the 800 page report.
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest140.htm
He writes about Fascism and the Economy
“Socialism is primarily an economic theory that requires the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Fascism is much less econocentric and allows property to remain in private hands but requires property owners to use their property to promote the interests of the State.”
“The Commission says we must all live at high density to ensure the viability of public transport because high-density living and public transport is more energy-efficient than low density and motor cars. Neither statement is true. This will require a total transformation of the City which will never happen and will never achieve its goals because technology change will outpace the rate of structural and form change by decades. Cities are not rebuilt overnight unless they are subject to rapid and intensive “Urban Renewal Programmes” such as the Blitz and the bombing of Dresden.”
“And of course the Commission tells us we must build no more roads – because cars set us free. (And make us fat.) Presumably the Uber-Mayor will get the trains to run on time.”