11.1. This chapter seeks to define the core problems with local governance in Auckland. In this chapter, the Commission
11.2. Other chapters of this report describe governance issues relating to specific matters including transport, planning, and the three waters (water, wastewater, and stormwater).
11.3. By world standards, Aucklanders are fortunate in their local government institutions. They have enjoyed continuous local democracy, and rule of law, for 150 years. Councillors and staff bring to their jobs a high level of integrity and a genuine desire to serve their communities.
11.4. Much in Auckland local government works, and should be retained. There is much to commend in the way territorial authorities deliver their core service functions, and represent their communities. Existing councils have developed strong programmes in various fields, for example, Manukau City Council in relation to social development, and Waitakere City Council in relation to environmental sustainability. The Auckland Regional Council (“ARC”) has been an active guardian of Auckland’s natural environment and green spaces.
11.5. In Auckland’s councils the Commission saw many people with flair, enthusiasm, and commitment working for their communities, their cities, and their region, at both political and administrative levels. It is fair to say that many were themselves frustrated by current structures and saw changes as necessary and desirable.
11.6. One of the Commission’s key considerations has been to ensure that existing strengths are recognised and not lost in any restructuring.
11.7. While acknowledging the strengths of local government in Auckland, there are widespread concerns about the workability of local government arrangements. Submitters referred to the things that confront them daily, holding councils responsible for a number of practical problems including the following:
11.8. Some of these problems clearly arise from local government performance; others may do so to a greater or lesser extent.
11.9. For the Commission, practical issues such as traffic congestion are important in two ways: first, they are evidence of the underlying defects in local governance; secondly, the need to resolve them has been a strong influence on the Commission’s recommendations for redesign.
11.10. The Commission believes that most, if not all, of the specific, day-to-day problems noted above arise as a result of two more fundamental, systemic problems:
11.11. The next section of this chapter discusses these two broad issues in more detail.
11.12. The first fundamental problem is perhaps also the most obvious: Auckland has no proper regional governance structure.
11.13. As noted in Chapter 3, “Auckland’s Existing Local Government Arrangements”, Auckland local authorities currently comprise the ARC and seven independent territorial authorities. Each has jurisdiction over a defined land area, as shown in Figure 3.2.2
11.14. The land area under the jurisdiction of the ARC encompasses the cities and districts of the Auckland territorial authorities, but in constitutional terms the ARC is not a superior body with broad powers of governance and control over these seven territorial authorities. Rather, the ARC is a special-purpose body, carrying out a narrow range of functions. Apart from a few specific instances, such as the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, policies set by ARC do not bind territorial authorities.3 The ARC has been criticised for its inability to exercise broad leadership, yet it has no structural or constitutional power to exercise such a role.
11.15 Territorial authorities were also criticised by a number of submitters for parochialism and inability to work together in the interests of the region. It was said that the current councils lack unity of purpose (see Box 11.1), and a willingness to think outside their own boundaries. While they readily engage in joint regional policy making (together with the ARC), each council advocates for its own interests and, it would appear, they are sometimes selective about which aspects of regional agreements they implement. This reflects in part the fact that councillors’ electoral responsibilities are to the people of their city or district, not the wider Auckland region. The very nature of the roles of the territorial authorities and their elected members can make it difficult for them to act in the best interests of the region as a whole.
11.16 Disputes between councils arise frequently over urban growth and the development and sharing of key infrastructure, including roads, water, and waste facilities, and cultural and sporting amenities.
11.17 Auckland’s fragmented governance structure also inhibits its ability to coordinate with central government. Plainly, it is more difficult for central government to engage with Auckland when there is no single, readily identifiable entity with which to engage; alignment between central and local government strategy would be much more likely if Auckland local government had the capacity to speak with a single voice.
11.18 The inability of Auckland’s local government to relate effectively to central government and its institutions is important for a number of reasons, including the ability to attract the investment Auckland needs to attain its potential. Lack of capital investment in key infrastructure is the cause of many of the problems raised by submitters, for example, poor public transport and traffic congestion.
11.19. As well as being ineffective, a fragmented system of local government is inefficient. Submitters complained about the costs of dealing with different district plans, standards, and other regulations across the region. The result is that citizens and businesses get poorer services than they hope for, at a higher cost than necessary. There is waste. The effects create costs that none can afford, and are felt by all stakeholders:
11.20. The Commission’s observations concerning the lack of regional governance in Auckland are not new. The eight Auckland councils themselves identified this in the first published draft of the Mayoral Forum’s report, Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance, which contained the following observations:
11.21. Auckland local authorities have responded to this fragmentation by creating a plethora of joint committees and groups, with the objective of coordinating their decision making and administration. As part of its submission, North Shore City Council provided to the Commission a list of 25 external organisations in which North Shore councillors participate and a further, non-exhaustive, list of 100 national and regional teams and working parties involving Auckland councillors and staff. The relevant excerpt from the submission is attached to this chapter as Appendix 11.1.
11.22. It might be argued that some or all of the councils should be able to take a more visible leadership role, based not on constitutional power but on political acumen and
There is no overall, compelling vision for Auckland region. Instead there is a collection of often conflicting sub-regional priorities. The vision statements of the existing councils illustrate this. The eight councils within the Auckland region have eight different “visions”:
One submitter noted,
These statements … point to a form of competitiveness that is a direct result of the current system … The effect of all seven competing with each other means that there is duplication of time and resources which is ineffective and inefficient from a regional perspective. While there is clearly a need for the voice and identity of local communities to be expressed there is also a need to identity the factors that are common in a unified vision for Auckland. Without defining and committing to these commonalities we are likely to continue to have at best a confused and fragmented image and at worst a competitive tension between the Councils within Auckland.
Source: Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from The Future Auckland Leaders Group, pp. 1–2 (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
11.22. It might be argued that some or all of the councils should be able to take a more visible leadership role, based not on constitutional power but on political acumen and moral suasion. The Commission’s view, however, is that regional governance should not have to rely for its success on voluntary agreements or the special skills of individual leaders, but should be built on a sounder footing.
11.23. Certainly to date, despite significant effort and expense, the eight Auckland councils have been unable to overcome their structural limitations in order to act collectively in the best interests of the region. Although some progress has been made as a result of voluntary cooperation, the case studies set out in Boxes 11.2 to 11.9 highlight the ongoing problems.
The uneven implementation of the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (“RGS”) provides a good example of the difficulties of implementing regional strategies, owing to the need to rely on cooperation from eight independent councils. The Commission’s understanding of the circumstances in which the RGS was developed, and the challenges attending its implementation, is set out below.
The RGS was developed cooperatively and adopted by all councils in 1999. It was intended to change development patterns so that new development occurred within compact and more densely developed growth centres within the existing metropolitan area, instead of the traditional low-density urban expansion in greenfield areas. The RGS preferred development serviced by public transport over development that was car dependent.
The reasoning behind the RGS was that, although growth can bring great economic and social benefits, it also places pressure on infrastructure and utilities (roads, pipes, power, and public transport), the natural environment and heritage, housing availability, and on social and community facilities (schools and medical services).
Source: Taken from “Auckland’s growth”, an introduction to the RGS on the ARC website (available at www.arc.govt.nz/auckland/aucklands-growth/aucklands-growth_home.cfm, accessed March 2009).
The RGS was a non-statutory document and its implementation was a problem from the start. Parliament passed the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 to require all councils to amend their plans to give effect to the RGS. ARC included the metropolitan urban limit in the regional policy statement, but territorial authorities retained most responsibility for implementation. An evaluation in 2007 found that while some progress towards implementation had been made, significant challenges remained, including the following:
Source: Regional Growth Forum, Growing Smarter: The Auckland Region in the 21st Century, July 2007 (available at www.arc.govt.nz/auckland/aucklands-growth/aucklands-growth/evaluation-of-the-regional-growth-strategy.cfm, accessed March 2009).
Box 11.3 Railway level crossings
The improvement of the Auckland rail network, including greater frequency of services, is a current regional transport priority. More frequent train services need to be accompanied by improvements to a number of road/rail level crossings, however, which are the responsibility of territorial authorities. Territorial authorities have been slow to make the necessary upgrades, and the ARC is unable to require them to act.
The improvement of the Auckland rail network, including greater frequency of services, is a current regional transport priority. More frequent train services need to be accompanied by improvements to a number of road/rail level crossings, however, which are the responsibility of territorial authorities. Territorial authorities have been slow to make the necessary upgrades, and the ARC is unable to require them to act.
The Regional Land Transport Strategy (“RLTS”) relies on voluntary cooperation across agencies including ARC, territorial authorities, New Zealand Transport Agency, and Ontrack. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (“ARTA”) is the only entity that is actually required to give effect to the RLTS, which causes problems.
The RLTS proposes that “travel demand management” should be employed to address Auckland’s congestion problems. (Travel demand management can include a wide range of policies to reduce car use, by encouraging cycling, walking, public transport, car pooling, providing traveller information, ramp signalling, tolling/road pricing, and reducing availability of parking at some destinations.) ARTA said in its submission,
ARTA, tasked with implementing the RLTS, is not able to ensure the delivery of the travel demand initiatives that the strategy demands. Territorial authorities would be the main implementers of local travel demand management initiatives, but these projects and activities are not being brought forward for funding. ARTA does not have the ability to require that these projects are brought forward. The lack of a link between strategy and delivery, and the fragmented nature of the delivery agencies, is resulting in these critical initiatives not being delivered.
Source: Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from ARTA, p. 13.
Box 11.5 Disputes over planning issues
Tensions arise regularly between the ARC and territorial authorities about planning issues, and in a number of cases these have led to litigation. The Commission does not comment on the merits of these cases, but observes that it seems regrettable that solutions could not be agreed to save ratepayers having to fund the legal costs on both sides.
Box 11.6
Northern Busway
The Northern Busway provides an example of the slow decision making and significant transaction costs that arise when the planning organisation (in this case the ARC) needs to rely on the agreement of numerous other agencies for implementation.
The busway was opened in 2008. It is a dedicated road for buses that parallels the northern motorway from the Auckland Harbour Bridge to Constellation Drive. The busway appears to be working successfully, but took 21 years from conception to delivery. The Auckland Regional Authority adopted the busway strategy in 1989, but neither it, nor its successor the ARC, had power or funds to build it. Transit New Zealand supported the busway in principle but was not concerned with the operational aspects of stations and access ways. The North Shore City Council (the largest part of the busway is in North Shore City) did not originally support the project, but changed its policy and was able to secure funding in 2000.
In 2002 an agreement was reached between ARC, Auckland City Council, North Shore City Council, and Transit New Zealand as to the responsibilities of each agency, and construction finally commenced.
The lack of an overall regional governance structure leads to regulatory inconsistencies between councils. These inconsistencies – even at apparently trivial levels such as engineering standards for pipes, roads, and turning circles – can be costly and confusing for Aucklanders, add significantly to transaction costs, and potentially impact on regional growth.
Developing Auckland’s Rail Transport (“DART”) is a series of railway construction projects being led by ONTRACK. The following summary is taken from the submission of Ontrack relating to this:
Box 11.8 Rugby World Cup 2011At DART 5, a new rail bridge is being constructed across Whau Creek, and in essence, this project involves the same construction works in both Auckland City and Waitakere City, but on opposite banks of the Creek. … the two territorial authorities approach the management of the same range of effects differently and respond differently when processing similar applications. The consequence has been differing Resource Management outcomes across the DART network, duplication of effort and delays in processing of applications.
At DART 5 two different [outline plans] … and resource consent applications were required from the two territorial authorities for works that were separated by a distance of only metres. Two different statutory plans meant different information was needed to support the applications, even though the works (and their effects) in each council were, in essence, the same. The councils attached different conditions to their approvals and took differing lengths of time to process the applications.
Source: Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from ONTRACK.
In November 2005, New Zealand was selected as the host country for the Rugby World Cup tournament to be held in 2011. This is a major sporting event that will attract a large worldwide television audience and many visitors to New Zealand. Auckland is the host city for some of the matches, including the final. The organising committee estimated in 2006 that Auckland stood to gain around $240 million in additional gross domestic product. Expected visitors to New Zealand included as many as 66,000 international supporters, 2,500 international media, and up to 2,500 corporate and VIP guests throughout the tournament.
Source: Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd, “2011 Rugby World Cup bigger and better”, media release, 15 September 2006 (available at www.edenpark.co.nz, “News”, accessed March 2009).
Clearly the Rugby World Cup is an event of sufficient significance to demand the attention of Auckland councils, but the councils at first appeared slow to respond to the challenge of preparing for it. This was evidenced in November 2006, when the Government proposed to the ARC and Auckland City Council that a new rugby stadium be built on the Auckland waterfront, and offered to share funding for this. ARC rejected the proposal outright and voted for a redeveloped Eden Park, while the Auckland City Council gave qualified support for a waterfront stadium but in a different waterfront location. In response, the Government withdrew its proposal.
The Commission has no comment on the merits of the waterfront stadium. But the events revealed that, a year after the tournament was confirmed, the councils directly affected had no agreed strategy for the Rugby World Cup, and Auckland was unable to realise any value from the Government’s proposal. For its part, the Government appeared to be seeking a partnership to advance matters, but found no one ready and able to partner with it.
More recently there have been signs that the position has improved. The first version of the One Plan, adopted by councils in October 2008, calls for a programme of action to ensure that in preparing for and hosting the Rugby World Cup 2011 the region captures the full potential of the event. The aim of the programme would be “to create an ongoing legacy across economic, social, cultural and environmental components of the event to equip the Auckland region as a global visitor and events destination”. Whether opportunities have been lost as a result of delay has yet to be seen.
Source: Regional Sustainable Development Forum, One Plan for the Auckland region: Version 1, October 2008 (available at www.aucklandoneplan.org.nz/one-plan-programmes/, accessed March 2009).
Box 11.9 Lack of central government alignment with the regional growth strategy
The placement and quality of schools has an important effect on the implementation of the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, especially the strategy of concentrating development in town centres. In its submission to the Commission, the Auckland Regional Council called for greater alignment of central government decision making with the RGS. The ARC claimed that the Ministry of Education had placed new schools in locations less likely to support the development of high-quality town centres. Similarly, ARC said that other Government departments, counter to the objectives of the RGS, had placed new offices with large staff numbers away from town centres. Examples were given of Ministry of Education schools in Flat Bush and Mount Wellington, the Inland Revenue Department office in Highbrook, and Archives New Zealand office in Mangere.
The Commission has not investigated the particular examples cited by the ARC in its submission, but observes they appear to reflect a need for Auckland’s local government to work more closely with central government departments and visa versa.
Source: Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from ARC.
11.24. The second broad problem identified by the Commission is a lack of genuine engagement with communities. This issue is not necessarily confined to Auckland local government, but the Commission has identified it as a problem that needs to be addressed in the context of improving Auckland governance.
11.25. The need for community engagement is well expressed in the following quotation (which refers to central government, but applies equally to local government):
Complex social, economic and environmental issues facing society today cannot be tackled by government alone. To address these concerns, central government agencies need to form effective relationships with communities, through engagement with local government, the community and voluntary sector, businesses and citizens.5
11.26. In other words, community engagement is an important component of “governance” as that term is explained in the introduction to this report. It is also central to giving effect to democratic values articulated in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002, and may contribute to more efficient allocation of resources, by determining community preferences.
11.27. The submissions received by the Commission on community engagement paint a mixed picture. Considerable time and effort has been invested by councils in formal public consultation, and surveys suggest that people in Auckland want to participate in local government.6 But the Commission observed fairly widespread public disengagement from local government in Auckland, and research indicates a belief that the ability to influence is limited.7 A sense of “consultation fatigue” was strongly expressed through submissions to the Commission.
11.28. The term “consultation” has a variety of meanings in everyday speech. In the context of a council making decisions under statute, consultation has a narrow meaning, being a prescribed set of procedures set out in the relevant legislation.8 For example, councils are required by the Local Government Act to use a “special consultative procedure” in developing their draft long-term council community plans (“LTCCP”), requiring that they advertise for submissions, and receive and hear submissions before deciding to adopt their plan.
11.29. Councils also need to consult on less significant proposals, although the nature and extent of the consultation is a matter for their own discretion.9 In carrying out their consultation obligations, councils are guided by a set of statutory principles, which cover matters such as information disclosure and methods of encouraging participation.10 Councils also have guidelines from court decisions to follow.11
11.30. The Commission’s impression, based on the reports cited below and submissions made to it, is that councils may view consultation as a legislative requirement undertaken reluctantly, instead of an opportunity to engage their communities in forward planning. A “compliance” focus tends to emphasise procedure rather than substantive engagement, and to encourage comment on what councils are already doing rather than involving people in debate about future options.
11.31. The LTCCP consultation process provides a good example of this. The Auditor-General has criticised local government (generally, not specifically in Auckland) for failing to engage in “the right debate” – the need for consultation relating to a proposed LTCCP to focus on “the important issues, options, and implications of the future focus of a local authority …”.12
11.32. The report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry also describes current statutory provisions on consultation and planning as “onerous, complex, and confusing”, and calls for “better-designed, rather than more, consultation …”:13
The consultation arrangements are increasingly viewed by councillors, council staff, and the public as consuming large amounts of time and resources to little benefit. This burden must be reduced, by greater use of more targeted consultation. The Panel recommends that the current consultation process be replaced by more selective and streamlined consultation arrangements.
11.33. The process of consultation needs to be understood as one form of community engagement, and to be tailored to increase its value as a method.
11.34. Inadequate consultation is one manifestation of poor community engagement, resulting often in unnecessary delay and compliance costs. But consultation is only one of a range of techniques to achieve effective community engagement and relationship-building with communities, in the sense described above. It has strengths for particular purposes, but also a number of weaknesses. In the words of one of the Commission’s interlocutors in Seattle,
Giving citizens 30 seconds at the microphone is not engagement. Local government leadership needs to take the lead, rolling up its sleeves to work in partnership with neighbourhoods.
11.35. In the Commission’s opinion, while there may be a need for changes in the way councils consult, and the matters on which councils choose to consult, there is a wider need for councils to engage with their public in other ways. The evidence of dissatisfaction about consultation suggests a need to reassess the balance between public participation and consultation on the one hand, and efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness on the other.
11.36. The Commission considers that the proposed Auckland Council’s approach to consultation at elected Auckland Council and local council levels should be based on the objective of ensuring informed decisions are reached in an effective and efficient way. Consultation is not an end in itself, but a means to enhance decision making.14 While engagement between local councils and their communities must be ongoing, the formal processes should not be open-ended. Once the options have been canvassed and discussed with communities, councils should consider their views with an open mind, then make a decision and implement it.
Box 11.10 Community engagementCommunity engagement can take many forms and covers a broad range of activities. Some examples of community engagement undertaken by government agencies include
Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria) (available at www.dse.vic.gov.au).
11.37. A clear distinction must also be drawn between matters on which people need to be informed and those which require consultation. People should be asked to devote time and energy only to issues in respect of which they can realistically expect to have some influence. Debate should focus on the major matters and choices to be made by local government. Consulting on “business as usual” where there is little scope for major change is not an effective use of time and resources. The Commission considers that greater transparency and more proactive information dissemination in many areas of local government activity, including spending and operation as outlined in Chapter 20, “Funding and Financial Management Arrangements”, will contribute to improving public knowledge of and confidence in decisions made by the Auckland Council.
11.38. Box 11.10 lists a range of methods of community engagement identified by the Auckland City Council submission, with Box 11.11 describing the tools used by the Rodney District Council to connect with their communities in the absence of community boards. Appendix 11.2 to this chapter gives examples of what the Commission learnt about consultation and engagement from its overseas travel. The alternative mechanisms identified by Auckland councils, and the different ways in which local government has sought to engage with communities in other leading cities may be of interest for the future.
Box 11.11 Community engagement tools in Rodney District
Rodney District Council has no community boards. It uses other methods of consultation including the following:
Source: Richardson, Mike, “Setting Community Boards in Context” in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009.
11.39. The Commission observes that the internet provides an avenue for consultation and engagement that is currently underutilised by Auckland’s local authorities. It provides a low-cost, wide-reaching and timely mechanism for connecting with people, as discussed in Chapter 27, “Information and Communications Technology”.
11.40. All councils except Rodney and Papakura District Councils have community boards. A number of submitters expressed confidence in them, arguing that they should be retained and their powers enhanced. Others saw no continuing need for them. Those who supported the retention of community boards often mentioned their value in supporting grass roots democracy by providing a forum for local neighbourhood consultation and representation, and addressing local concerns.
11.41. On the other hand, a number of submitters proposed that community boards be abolished, saying that they were ineffective, and created an additional and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and costs. Some questioned whether community boards were truly representative, suggesting they are too easily captured by activists or people with special issues to advance. In its submission Auckland City Council included research findings that indicated a low level of public recognition or understanding of community board work.15 Some submitters distinguished urban community boards, which they felt could be abolished, from those in remote areas such as rural areas and islands, which served a more useful function and should be kept.
Box 11.11 Community engagement tools in Rodney DistrictRodney District Council has no community boards. It uses other methods of consultation including the following:
Source: Richardson, Mike, “Setting Community Boards in Context” in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009.
11.42. The Commission’s observation, based on submissions and research commissioned by it, is that the performance of community boards has been variable, with some such as Devonport Community Board having demonstrable support from their communities. Others appear to have been less successful. The Commission also observes that a number of councils in the Auckland region confer fewer delegated powers on their boards than is the case in other regions, which may have contributed in part to their relative ineffectiveness.16 Some councils are further reducing the scope of their boards’ delegations (see Box 11.12).
Box 11.12 Disempowerment of community boards in Auckland City
In 2008, Auckland City Council decided to reduce the delegated powers of its community boards. On a number of topics the community boards’ decision-making power was reduced to a right merely for one nominated community board member to be consulted by council staff before a decision was made by council. Community boards retain a power to allocate funds to small local improvement projects (“SLIPS”) in accordance with an annual grant from council (currently about $400,000 in total for all 10 community boards in Auckland City) and in accordance with the council guidelines. The Commission received advice that community board members expressed frustration that the grant was insufficient because of the high cost of implementing projects using council contractors, and the need to use SLIPS funding to “top up” underfunded core council projects.
Source: Richardson, Mike, “Setting Community Boards in context”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 422.
11.43. The consideration of the problems identified in this chapter have informed the Commission’s thinking on the type of of local government reform required in Auckland, a subject developed in the next chapter. As will emerge, part of the Commission’s vision for the future is to retain and build on the strong elements of the current arrangements while addressing the shortcomings discussed above.
Appendix 11.1: Regional CooperationThe following lists were supplied to the Commission by North Shore City Council in an appendix to its submission.
A Council representation on outside organisations
1. Auckland Regional Physical Activity & Sports Strategy (ARPASS Strategic Partners Group)
2. Auckland Regional Transport Authority Appointments Panel
3. Auckland War Memorial Museum/Museum of Transport and Technology Electoral College
4. Bruce Mason Centre Trust Board Advisor
5. Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee
6. Hauraki Gulf Forum
7. Historic Places Trust (Auckland Branch Committee)
8. Local Government NZ (Zone 1 Meeting Reps)
9. Local Government NZ (Metro Sector Group)
10. Marine Education & Recreation Centre Board (Merc)
11. NS Centre for Maritime Education (Trustee)
12. NS Crime Prevention Reference Group
13. NS Domain and Nth Harbour Stadium Trust Appointments Committee
14. NS Events Centre Trust Board Advisor
15. NS Heritage Trust (Trustee)
16. NZ Local Authority Traffic Institute Inc (Trafinz)
17. Northern Corridor Steering Group
18. Regional Land Transport Committee
19. Regional Sustainable Development Forum
20. Territorial Authority Economic Political Network
21. Torbay Historical Society (Vaughan Homestead Mgt Committee)
22. Tourism Auckland Trust Board
23. Waitemata Harbour-Cleanup Trust
24. Watercare Services Ltd Shareholder Representative Group (including voting at AGMs on Council’s behalf)
25. Youth Council Advocate
B National teams, regional teams and working parties
NSCC note – This list is included for illustrative purposes and is not exhaustive.
1. Additional Harbour Crossing
2. ARC Regional Land Transport Technical Advisory Committee
3. Auckland Business Care Enviro-Smart Steering Group
4. Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group (CDEMG)
5. Auckland Co-ordinating & Executive Group (CEG)
6. Auckland Environmental Education Forum
7. Auckland Lifelines
8. Auckland Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Group
9. Auckland Region Chief Executive Officers’ Forum
10. Auckland Region Shared Services – Libraries (Elgar)
11. Auckland Region Shared Services – Three Northern Councils
12. Auckland Region Waste Forum
13. Auckland Regional Contracts – Health and Safety Subgroup
14. Auckland Regional Contracts Group
15. Auckland Regional Dog Liaison Committee (Operational)
16. Auckland Regional Physical Activity and Sport Strategy Implementation Group (ARPASS)
17. Auckland Regional Road Safety Co-Ordinators Group
18. Auckland Regional Stormwater Management Group
19. Auckland Regional VIN (Visitor Information Network)
20. Auckland Road Managers Forum
21. Auckland Sustainable Business Forum
22. Auckland Territorial Authority Officers Building Act Discussion Group
23. Auckland Traffic Management Liaison Group
24. Auckland Utility Operators Group – Road Code Group
25. Auckland Water Industry Operators Performance Reporting Project Team
26. Be A Tidy Kiwi
27. Bitumen Contractor Association Forum
28. Broadband Liaison Group
29. CDEM Public Education Group
30. Construction Clients Group
31. Create Your Own Eden Working Group
32. Creative Cities Regional Arts Group
33. Emergency Management Committee (EMC Northern Zone)
34. EN Health Group
35. Food Safety Authority Working Group
36. Hauraki Gulf Forum
37. Ingenium
38. Leisure Managers Forum
39. Liquor Liaison Group
40. Local Government New Zealand – Packaging Accord Working Party
41. Local Government NZ (Zone One Meeting Representatives)
42. Local Network Operators Group (LNOG)
43. Mayoral Forum
44. Metro Chief Executives Forum
45. Migrant Settlement/Investing in Children and Youth Development
46. National Construction and Demolition (C & D) Waste Reduction Steering Group
47. National Enviroschools Programme
48. National Envirosmart Steering Group
49. National Local Government Property Managers Committee
50. National Road Pricing Study Regional Technical Advisory Group
51. National Working Group on Recruitment and Branding
52. North Harbour Physical Activity Strategy – NHPAS
53. Northern Busway Liaison Executive
54. Northern Corridor Steering Group
55. Northern Sector Planning Group (Water/Wastewater)
56. Northwest Sector CE Forum
57. North-West Wildlink
58. Police Liaison Sub Regional Group
59. Pool Safety Coalition Group
60. Regional Alcohol Policing Project
61. Regional By-laws Group
62. Regional Community Facilities Group
63. Regional Contaminated Sites Group
64. Regional Cycleways Group
65. Regional Development Directors Group
66. Regional Discharges Criteria Group
67. Regional Drinking Water Incident Co-Operation Plan (RDWICP)
68. Regional Enviroschools Programme
69. Regional Graffiti Working Party
70. Regional Land Transport Committee
71. Regional Open Space Forum
72. Regional Rural Fire Co-ordinating Committee
73. Regional Transport Executive Group (TLA Transport Directors) (RTEG)
74. Regional/TLA Hazards Liaison Group
75. Responsible Auckland Group
76. Road Controlling Authorities Forum (Transit Sponsored)
77. Roadsafe Auckland
78. Safe Summer Campaign
79. Safer Community Council (Regional/NSCC)
80. SOLGM Legal Compliance in Rating Module
81. SOLGM Legal Compliance Working Party
82. Sports Field Officers Forum
83. Stormwater Liaison Group
84. Strategic Directors Group
85. Te Ruru Korero
86. Territorial Authority Cultural Heritage Liaison Group
87. Three Waters Vision
88. Toi Whenua
89. Top Eight (previously Top Five)
90. Tourism Auckland Board
91. Traffic Management Unit
92. Transport/Urban Form
93. Treatment Plant Managers Forum
94. Upper Waitemata Harbour Water Quality
95. Urban Form, Design and Development
96. Wai Care Regional Steering Group
97. Waitemata Harbour Clean Up Trust
98. Watercare – TA Water Demand Management Group
99. Watercare Services Ltd – Shareholders Representative Group (SRG) (Officers Advisory Group)
100. Working Group Developing ‘Code of Practice’ for ‘Working in the Road’
Commissioners observed that successful interaction with communities in the international cities they visited was characterised by a commitment from local government to making consultation meaningful and substantive rather than a process imposed upon stakeholders. To create this in Auckland will require a change in both attitude and process for Auckland’s local government. The Commission identified the key factors for successful engagement as having engagement that is ongoing and multilevel.
Engagement must reach the right people, those with a genuine concern and knowledge about a particular issue. Achieving this requires agility, in terms of how, when, and where, local government interacts with its communities. Councils in New Zealand and overseas report that they often found it difficult to reach people beyond the regular participants in consultation processes. Meeting the needs of Auckland’s increasingly diverse population will required tailored approaches. For example, young people may be more responsive to internet-based tools; identifying the needs of minority ethnic groups may require culture-specific mechanisms.
The process followed by Vancouver in developing its CityPlan is an interesting case-study in how one council managed to achieve broader engagement with its citizens, reaching beyond those who were more regular participants in council consultation processes.17
In January 1992, Mayor Gordon Campbell announced the city “will commence a new city plan. It must be a plan that reflects the Vancouver of today and, even more importantly, that projects a Vancouver for tomorrow”.18 Council wanted the plan to address all issues facing the city and to involve a broad range of people including those who do not normally participate in city planning. This became the mandate of CityPlan.
The CityPlan process started in November 1992, with the mayor inviting people from all parts of the city – including members of clubs, business associations, resident groups, and interested members of the community – to meet him in small groups called “city circles”. Their task was to suggest ideas for Vancouver and how to make them happen.
Over 450 city circles involving some 5,000 people were formed. Youth formed 150 of the circles. More than 70 circles involved multicultural groups who participated in languages other then English. The circles worked for three months to prepare ideas. Artists helped the groups display their ideas at a three-day “Ideas Fair”. Over 10,000 people came to the fair. The ideas raised issues and choices for Vancouver. During 1994 thousands of citizens helped make difficult choices for Vancouver’s future. They talked about whether the city should grow or not. They talked about city services and who should pay for them.
During the three-year process, over 20,000 people actively participated in preparing CityPlan and more than 100,000 people said they “felt involved”.19 In 1995 Vancouver City Council adopted CityPlan as a new vision for Vancouver to guide policy decisions, corporate work priorities, budgets, and capital plans.
Notably, CityPlan also changed the way the city council developed and delivered community services. CityPlan creates “integrated service teams” which link city staff with neighbourhood residents. Community police offices locate staff in the neighbourhood to work with residents and businesses. Citizens participate in defining the services they need and in resolving local problems.
After examining engagement mechanisms across a number of international cities, the Commissioners concluded that a variety of techniques need to be adopted to suit a variety of contexts. It was emphasised to the Commission that the success of these mechanisms depended on variation – changing the format regularly so that citizens remained interested – and on animating the civic debate by engaging beyond “the usual suspects”. The Commission identified a number of ideas that could be applicable in Auckland:
1. The written submissions made to the Commission are summarised fully in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009.
2. See Chapter 3, “Auckland’s Existing Local Government Arrangements”, p..
3. The regional policy statement is made by the ARC under the Resource Management Act 1991, and does bind territorial authorities; in their district plans they are required to “give effect” to the regional policy statement (section 75).
4. Auckland Mayoral Forum, Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance: Proposal for Consideration by the Councils of the Auckland Region, 4 December 2006, pp. 8–9. The final report (Auckland Mayoral Forum, Strengthening Auckland’s Regional Governance, June 2007) was presented to the Government in June 2007 as a reform proposal. It proposed the creation of a strengthened regional council with an expanded role and funding tools with a standing committee called the “regional sustainable development forum” involving all councils, central government, and mana whenua (local Māori with ancestral ties to the land), which would produce the “one plan”.
5. Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, It’s More Than Talk, December 2008 (discussion document available at www.ocvs.govt.nz/, accessed March 2009).
6. Data collected for the Big City Quality of Life Survey indicate that across Auckland, slightly more than half the people surveyed (between 56% and 63% depending on the district) wanted more say in their local authority. (Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Charles Crothers, pp. 16–17.)
The Department of Internal Affairs 2006 survey of public knowledge about local government found that compared with other parts of New Zealand, Aucklanders have a lower appreciation of the importance of the services provided by their local authorities and a slightly higher feeling that “most local councils waste ratepayers’ money”. Yet more Aucklanders wanted to become involved in local government than do other New Zealanders. (Department of Internal Affairs, Public Knowledge About Local Government, June 2006, pp. 62, 90, and 94 (available at www.localcouncils.govt.nz, “Research”, accessed March 2009).)
7. Low turnout at Auckland’s local body elections (an average of around 38% in 2007) is one indicator of public disengagement. Auckland’s turnout is well below the 79.5% participation rate for the 2008 national election and also below the national average of 52% for the 2007 territorial authority elections. (Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Charles Crothers); New Zealand General Election, “2008 election official results”, available at www.elections.org.nz; “Local Government Statistical Overview”, available at www.localcouncils.govt.nz.) Furthermore, a survey by the Auckland Regional Council found that less than a third of those surveyed (30%) agreed that the ARC gives the public enough say in the decisions that affect them, and only 43% agreed that they had confidence that the ARC makes decisions that are in the best interests of the region. (Auckland Regional Council, Environmental Awareness Survey 2006/07 Final Report, August 2007, p. 2.)
8. For example the Local Government Act 2002, sections 83–88; Resource Management Act 1991, First Schedule.
9. Local Government Act 2002, section 79(1).
10. Local Government Act 2002, section 82.
11. For example, Wellington International Airport Limited v Air New Zealand [1993] 1 NZLR 671.
12. Controller and Auditor-General, Local government: Results of the 2006/07 audits, June 2008, pp. 23 and 25 (available at www.oag.govt.nz).
13. Local Government Rates Inquiry, Funding Local Government, Wellington, August 2007, pp. 16 and 243.
14. Marshall, Adam, Linking Governance and City Performance: A Review of the Evidence Base, Centre For Cities, 2005, p. 2.
15. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Auckland City Council, Appendix 1, p. 2. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
16. Richardson, Mike, “Setting Community Boards in Context”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, Part 9, section 6.
17. McAfee, Anne, “City Plan” (available at www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-city-plan.asp/).
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. www.seattle.gov.
21. www.toronto.ca.
22. www.londoncivicforum.org.uk.
23. Governing Toronto Advisory Panel, Background Paper – Civic Engagement and the City of Toronto: Review and Reflection on Current Practices and Future Approaches, City of Toronto, November 2005, p. 13 (available at www.toronto.ca/governingtoronto/pdf/robinson.pdf).
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |