3.1. This chapter outlines the structure and functions of Auckland’s current local government arrangements. The first part of the chapter describes the legislative framework for local government in New Zealand, and specifically for Auckland. The second part of the chapter describes the eight councils in the Auckland region, the functions they perform, and their work to date on regional cooperation and shared services.
3.2. The Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA 2002”) constitutes local authorities and defines their powers and the framework within which they must operate. There are two other most important pieces of legislation that regulate local government: the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
3.3. The Local Electoral Act 2001 sets out how local authority elections and polls should be conducted. It provides opportunities and procedures for local authorities to choose local electoral systems (first past the post or single transferable vote), and to review their representation arrangements, including the boundaries of constituencies for regional councils, and of wards and communities for territorial authorities. It also enables the creation of Māori constituencies and wards.
3.4. The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 prescribes rating mechanisms, which are the primary means by which councils raise revenue from their communities. The exercise of rating powers is subject to the transparency, consultation, and accountability requirements under the LGA 2002.1
3.5. Many other Acts govern specific responsibilities of local government, from resource management to dog control. These are listed in Appendix 3.1 to this chapter.
3.6. Special legislation has been enacted to provide for particular needs in Auckland. This includes the Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Act 1960, the North Shore Drainage Act 1963, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Protection Act 2007, and the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 (“LGAAA”), which among other things established the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and required changes to regional and district plans to implement the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy.
3.7. New Zealand has three tiers of local governance – regional councils, territorial authorities (which must be either a city or district council), and community boards.
3.8. Territorial authorities (and their predecessor boroughs and counties) have been the core units of local government in New Zealand since the abolition of provincial government in 1876. Local government legislation since then has reinforced this core status of territorial authorities. The power of general competence, which was given to councils under the LGA 2002,2 gives both regional councils and territorial authorities the ability to deal with any issue as long as it is not prohibited by law. Both are charged with the same purpose of enabling democratic decision making and promoting the economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities.3 However, the ability of regional councils to exercise that power is limited by the detailed procedures in the Act for regional councils taking on significant new activities.4
3.9. The basic functions of regional councils are to provide environmental regulation, stemming originally from water management but also anticipating the wider environmental range of the Resource Management Act (“RMA”) of 1991. Since 1989, further responsibilities have been conferred on regional councils (notably under the RMA and in relation to public transport), but they remain essentially special-purpose agencies. Regional councils do not generally have power over territorial authorities, except in a few specific cases such as the regional policy statement made under the RMA.5
3.10. Regional councils have the following main functions under legislation:
3.11. The legislation distinguishes between regional councils and territorial authorities
3.12. In most regions of New Zealand, including Auckland, a regional council operates alongside a number of territorial authorities. There is another model in use, which is where a region is governed by a “unitary authority,” that is, a territorial authority that has the responsibilities, duties, and powers of a regional council.7 Gisborne, Marlborough, Nelson, and Tasman regions have unitary authorities. The rationale for forming these unitary authorities is based on their small populations and rating bases and the savings in administrative costs that can be achieved from consolidating territorial and regional functions. However, these are not the only possible reasons for forming a unitary authority, and the Commission has identified advantages for Auckland in such an arrangement. This is expanded on later in this report.
3.13. Community boards are established at the discretion of territorial authorities. The status of community boards is that of an unincorporated statutory entity. Elected at the same time as the council, a community board usually consists of five or six members (sometimes including one or more councillors at the discretion of the territorial authority). Their role is essentially representative and advisory rather than having any specific executive authority. The powers of community boards are only those delegated to them by their territorial authorities, unless powers are expressly given to them by any Order in Council that incorporates a community board. Even then, they cannot deal with property or employ staff.8
3.14. Apart from elected local authorities, the LGA 2002 provides for three types of council-owned subsidiary organisations:9
3.15. The reasons councils place an activity into a separate entity include
3.16. Local authorities have the choice of using either the first-past-the-post electoral system or the single transferable vote system. They can also choose between booth voting, postal voting, or a combination of the two. The majority have opted for first past the post using postal voting. In Auckland, all councils use first past the post with a postal ballot (although Waitakere City Council has indicated it will shift to single transferable vote at the 2010 elections).
3.17. Regional councils must be divided into constituencies from which members are elected. Territorial authority members may be elected by combinations of wards or by the district as a whole. A change from wards to “at-large” elections can be effected only during the six-yearly review of representation arrangements required by legislation.11 The number of members and the constituency or ward boundaries are proposed by each local authority through the review process, subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission.12 Local authorities are required to ensure that
Table 3.1 Representation arrangements of Auckland’s local authorities and community boards
| Council | Mayor elected at large | Number of councillors | Number of wards/constituencies | Community boards | Community board members | Permanent consultative forums/committees/boards |
| Rodney District Council | 1 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 1 (Kawau Island) |
|
| North Shore City Council | 1 | 15 | 3 | 6 | 24 | |
| Waitakere City Council | 1 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 20 | 4 (Māori, Pacific Islands, Ethnic, Youth) |
| Auckland City Council | 1 | 19 | 7 | 10 | 52 | 1 (Pacific Islands) |
| Manukau City Council | 1 | 17 | 7 | 8 | 41 | 2 (Pacific Islands, Māori) |
| Papakura District Council | 1 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 1 (Māori) |
|
| Franklin District Council | 1 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 1 (Māori) |
| Auckland Regional Council | 13 | 61 | ||||
| Totals | 7 | 110 | 39 | 30 | 145 | 10 |
Table footnote: see further detail on ARC constituencies in Table 3.2. Source: Council websites.
3.18. The representation arrangements for Auckland’s local authorities and community boards are set out in Table 3.1.
3.19. The constituency arrangements for the Auckland Regional Council (“ARC”) are set out in Table 3.2. Members of the ARC are elected from six constituencies, which follow the same general boundaries as the districts of the territorial authorities, except that the districts of Franklin and Papakura form a single constituency. The chairperson of the ARC is elected by and from among its councillors at the first meeting after their election.
Table 3.2 Constituencies in representation arrangements for Auckland Regional Council
| Auckland Regional Council constituencies | Number of councillors |
| Rodney District | 1 |
| North Shore City | 2 |
| Waitakere City | 2 |
| Auckland City | 4 |
| Manukau City | 3 |
| Franklin/Papakura Districts | 1 |
Source: Council websites.
3.20. Nationally, local authorities obtain their operating revenue from a number of sources. In the year ended 30 June 2007, local government received approximately $5.8 billion in operating income (GST inclusive). Figure 3.1 shows that, New Zealand-wide, the bulk of this comes from rates (57%), sale of goods and services and other income (18%), and central government transfers (13%).
3.21. In Auckland, the total income available to each council and the sources of that funding vary considerably. Table 3.3 shows a breakdown by authority of their operating revenue for the year ended 30 June 2007.
3.21. Auckland City has the largest available operating revenue, per head of population, and Papakura District the least. Rates comprise the bulk of income for all councils. It is worth noting, however, that councils operate a range of different rating systems, which impact both the quantity of their total rates take and which sectors of their communities bear the rates burden. For example, rating systems may incorporate differentials between diverse types of properties (residential, business, rural).
Table 3.3 Sources of Auckland local authority operating revenue, year ended
June 2007
(% of total income)
| Rates | Regulatory income | Government grants & subsidies | Investment income | Sales of goods & services and other income | |
| Rodney District | 73.3% | 9.7% | 5.1% | 1.1% | 10.8% |
| North Shore City | 65.5% | 6.8% | 4.8% | 1.2% | 21.6% |
| Waitakere City | 62.7% | 7.9% | 5.5% | 1.2% | 22.8% |
| Auckland City | 67.7% | 9.1% | 2.3% | 5.5% | 15.3% |
| Manukau City | 60.6% | 9.1% | 6.0% | 9.4% | 15.0% |
| Papakura District | 71.0% | 11.4% | 4.9% | 2.1% | 10.6% |
| Franklin District | 64.8% | 7.3% | 16.1% | 0.3% | 11.5% |
| Auckland Regional Council | 69.6% | 8.3% | 3.2% | 0.9% | 18.1% |
Source: Calculated using data from Statistics New Zealand, “Individual local authority statistics”, available at www.stats.govt.nz/datasets/govt-finance/local-authority-financial-statistics-by-council.htm. Figures have been rounded to one decimal place and therefore do not always add up to 100%.
3.23. Local authorities also raise significant income from sources other than rates. Table 3.3 shows that some councils have significant investments that provide additional revenue (in 2007, ranging from around 9% for Manukau City to less than 1% for the ARC and Franklin District). Sales of goods and services are significant for some councils (between 11% and 22% in 2007). This may be influenced by the varying arrangements throughout the region for pricing and retailing water to consumers. Franklin District has the largest proportion of revenue provided by Government grants and subsidies, possibly because of transfers for rural roading.
3.25. The ARC has seven principal functions, which incorporate the regulatory, ownership, management, and regional planning work it undertakes:
3.26. Territorial authorities have considerable discretion under the LGA 2002 to decide what functions they will undertake to meet the needs of their communities to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of those communities, and how they will go about it. They are required under legislation to carry out particular functions:
3.27. At a practical level, meeting the needs of Auckland’s diverse population has resulted in councils undertaking a large number of specific functions. Appendix 3.2 at the end of this chapter lists 135 of these.
3.28. Territorial authorities have carved out specific identities for themselves in response to community priorities. For example, Waitakere City Council declared itself an “eco city” in 1993 to “eliminate threats to the environment and our communities and to build a sustainable future for our city”.18 Franklin District Council’s Vision Statement outlines its aim to become “Franklin: A country lifestyle in harmony with our environment”,19 reflecting its large rural land base and location on the fringes of the metropolitan area. Its functions include land drainage systems and rural fire services to meet the needs of its rural community. In response to the needs of its diverse population, Manukau City Council has a strong focus on social issues such as providing pensioner housing and funding community advisers.
3.29. In terms of delivery, some functions are provided in a fairly standard way while others vary depending on local decisions. For example, four of the Auckland councils provide retail water and wastewater services directly to consumers – two do so through council-controlled organisations and one provides these services under a franchise agreement with a private operator.
3.30. Intra-regional differences such as land area, population, urban/rural split, and socio-economic composition shape the communities of Auckland. As is evident in Figure 3.2, there is wide variation in the land area of Auckland’s territorial authorities and the populations they serve. Rodney District has the largest land area, and Papakura District the smallest. Auckland City has the largest population, followed by Manukau City, with Papakura District the smallest. Auckland City (excluding the Hauraki Gulf islands) is the most densely populated and Rodney District the least.
3.31. The urban/rural land mix also varies widely as shown in Figure 3.3. If urban land is defined as land within the metropolitan urban limit, the region as a whole is 89% rural and 11% urban; 83% of North Shore City is urban while 100% of Franklin District is rural (including rural towns). It is also worth noting the variation within Auckland City; it must meet the needs of its rural areas (comprising the Hauraki Gulf islands) alongside those of the most densely populated urban area of the city centre.
3.32. As outlined above, the legislation provides broad objectives but limited guidance on how the objectives for the tiers of local government are to be discharged, beyond prescribing accountability and consultation. This has resulted in the following four characteristics of local government activities in the Auckland region.
3.33. First, Auckland’s local authorities to a large extent determine their own activities in line with the priorities of their local communities, as intended by the LGA 2002 (aside from some legislatively determined functions, such as ARC’s role in transport planning and the responsibilities of all local authorities under the RMA).
3.34. Second, roles are often shared and/or overlap. For example, central, regional, and territorial government have different but overlapping responsibility for transport, parks and reserves, community development, economic development, civil defence, recreation, and events. Not all decisions made by central government align with regional priorities. Both the ARC and the territorial authorities interact with central government, sometimes competing with each other.
3.35. Third, on many key regional issues, there is no hierarchical relationship or binding decision-making process to ensure a coordinated approach by regional and territorial authorities (although there have been piecemeal attempts to remedy this, such as the LGAAA, which requires district plans to align with regional plans to implement the regional growth strategy). This can lead to different interpretations and applications of supposedly regional policy in different parts of Auckland. For example, while the ARC sets the strategy for the built environment, the delivery and implementation of that strategy depends on decisions made by Auckland’s territorial authorities and other agencies with respect to town centre planning, road and streetscape management, regulation of the built environment through district plans, and issuing of building consents. Also, some territorial authorities have active property development roles. Many regional decisions are made in voluntary non-binding regional forums, while implementation is carried out (or not carried out) at territorial authority level.
3.36. Fourth, the seven territorial authorities operate independently of each other and have their own funding sources. In practice this means that they undertake, for the most part independently, a core of common functions such as street maintenance and providing libraries. They also exercise a range of discretionary functions (ranging from film promotion to running camping grounds) to meet local needs and aspirations. Each has its own planning and regulatory systems; for example, there are seven distinct district plans and seven sets of rules for building consents and planning applications.
3.37. In recent years, questions have been raised as to whether more effective coordination at a regional level might enable the whole region to better deal with the scale of the pressures and opportunities resulting from Auckland’s rapid growth and social change. In response, there has been some cooperation between local authorities to coordinate and share services, and in the preparation of regional policy for Auckland.
3.38. In an attempt to coordinate administration and decision making, councils have set up a mass of joint committees and groups including both councillors and staff. As part of its submission, the North Shore City Council gave the Commission an indicative list of 100 national and regional teams and working groups in the region, included as an appendix to Chapter 11, “Defining the Problems”.20
3.39. At the functional level of local government service delivery and back-room operations, Auckland’s local authorities have explored the feasibility of common support operations. Options range from combining operations to establish shared service centres21 through to collaboration and best-practice sharing. Further work is envisaged through the One Plan process, which provides a single strategic plan for the region22 (discussed further below).
3.40. Starting in 1999, the Auckland Region Chief Executive Officers’ Forum established a vision and strategy for shared services across the seven Auckland councils.23 A series of pilot projects was initiated with anticipated savings of up to $6 million on procurement alone. Examples of recent shared services projects include the following:
3.41. In January 2007, Auckland’s local authorities made a series of joint recommendations to central government on regional cooperation in a report called “Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance Proposal”. It identified the following existing problems in regional governance:
3.42. The report’s proposed governance model comprised
3.43. A number of additional recommendations relating to the three waters, transport, regional facilities, economic development, shared services, tourism, and major events were also included.
3.44. Central government broadly endorsed the recommendations in July 2007, with an emphasis on developing the strategic planning aspects of the proposal. To date, the Regional Sustainable Development Forum has produced a draft One Plan (adopted by the ARC in October 2008), setting out a blueprint for regional investment in projects covering both infrastructure and social issues. There are seven programmes of action identified:
The One Plan is expected to be advanced by councils through their long-term council community plans to be published in July 2009.
3.45. The Commission acknowledges the intent and efforts of Auckland councils in getting the One Plan to this stage. But the Commission also observes that the region’s history in managing to implement what are, in the end, voluntary joint recommendations is one of missed opportunities with few tangible results.
The following Acts contain provisions that affect the operation of local government.
In addition, Parliament’s Standing Orders grant local authorities the right to promote local legislation specifically affecting their own districts or region.
Source: Collated by the Commission based on a survey of Auckland territorial authorities, July 2008.
1. Local Government Act 2002 (hereafter LGA 2002), sections 3(c), 39, and 40.
2. LGA 2002, section 10.
3. LGA 2002, section 12.
4. LGA 2002, section 16.
5. Resource Management Act 1991, sections 59–62.
6. LGA 2002, sections 12 and 16.
7. LGA 2002, section 5.
8. LGA 2002, sections 50–53.
9. LGA 2002, Part 5. Council organisations are discussed in more detail in Chapter 21, “Council Organisations and Council-Controlled Organisations”.
10. LGA 2002, sections 5–7.
11. Local Electoral Act 2001, sections 19H and 19I.
12. The Local Government Commission is an independent statutory body, whose main role is to make decisions on the structure and representation requirements of local government in New Zealand. Examples of decisions made by the commission are the alteration of boundaries between local authorities, alteration of ward boundaries, and the abolition and amalgamation of local authorities. (See www.lgc.govt.nz. Past actions of Local Government Commissions are noted in Chapter 4, “History of Auckland’s Governance”.)
13. Local Electoral Act 2001, sections 19T–19V.
14. Franklin District Council represents a geographic area that falls within both the Auckland and Waikato regions (see Figure 3.2). For the purposes of transport, the Auckland region is deemed to include the whole of the Franklin District.
15. Richardson, Mike, Part 9, “Setting Community Boards in Context”, and Richardson, Mary, Part 10, “Auckland Community Boards”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009.
16. Richardson, Mike, “Setting Community Boards in Context”, in Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, pp. 387–472.
17. Local Government Act 1974, Part 44C, section 707ZZZR (Watercare); Local Government Auckland Amendment Act 2004, sections 6–37 (Auckland Regional Holdings and Auckland Regional Transport Authority).
18. Waitakere City Council, Annual Report 2006/2007, p. 3 (available at www.waitakere.govt.nz, accessed February 2009).
19. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Franklin District Council, p. 3. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
20. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from North Shore City Council, pp. 47–52. See also Chapter 11, “Defining the Problems”, Appendix 11.1.
21. The shared services initiatives are set out in Chapter 32, “Achieving a High-Performance Auckland Council”.
22. Regional Sustainable Development Forum, One Plan for the Auckland region, October 2008 (see www.aucklandoneplan.org.nz, accessed March 2009)..
23. Auckland Chief Executives Forum, “Shared Services – Councils of the Auckland Region”, 1999, overview available at www.northshorecity.govt.nz/your_council/projects/ shared_services_agreement.htm (accessed February 2009).
24. Auckland Mayoral Forum, “Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance Proposal”, December 2006, pp. 8–9.
25. “Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance: Final Report June 2007”, pp. 10–17 (available at www.aucklandoneplan.org.nz, “Regional Governance”, accessed February 2009).
26. Regional Sustainable Development Forum, One Plan for the Auckland Region, Version 1, October 2008 (available at www.aucklandoneplan.org.nz, accessed February 2009).
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |