12.1. In the preceding chapter, the Commission identifies and discusses what it considers to be the problems that need to be addressed in future governance arrangements. This chapter sets out the principles that have guided the Commission in making its recommendations. Chapter 13 describes the alternative models for structural reform considered by the Commission, with subsequent chapters setting out the local government arrangements that the Commission recommends should be adopted for Auckland.
12.2. As noted in the Introduction to this report, the starting point for the Commission is its terms of reference, and in particular the requirement that the Commission should recommend local government arrangements for the “foreseeable future in order to maximise, in a cost effective manner,—
12.3. Items (d) and (e) listed under “Relevant matters” in the terms of reference, are the basis for the Commission’s review of Auckland’s governance arrangements. They require the Commission to consider
12.4. Items (d) and (e) provide noteworthy guidance to the Commission on the scope of its role, and relevant considerations for it. Item (d), with its focus on current ownership, governance, and institutional arrangements, and funding for public infrastructure, services, and facilities, anticipates that the Commission will understand and consider
12.5. Item (e) anticipates that the Commission will need to consider the implications for representation and consultation consequent on governance changes. In doing so, the terms of reference contemplate that the Commission will recommend arrangements that balance the need for Aucklanders and the region’s diverse communities to have a voice, on one hand, with the capacity of representatives to exercise leadership on the other.
12.6. How local government is structured matters in terms of the well-being of communities and the region. As one report on possible governance reforms in Toronto identified, structures affect the cost and effectiveness of services by enhancing or limiting the ability to introduce cost savings and innovation in delivery.2 Structures determine how much access people and communities have to the system and their ability to influence decisions about the services and initiatives they value. Finally, local government structures affect the capacity to plan and make strategic decisions and investments on an integrated, region-wide basis.
12.7. The decision-taking capability of local government is particularly important in Auckland because of the scale of the city-region. The choices to be made often have a high degree of complexity. Aside from the need to balance regional and local interests, council decisions can involve large sums of money and have long-term implications for the region and, given Auckland’s role in the New Zealand economy, for the country as a whole.
12.8. The problems discussed in the preceding chapter highlight the need for a governance structure that facilitates the coordination of a number of key functions on a region-wide basis. These include regional planning, infrastructure planning and investment (roads, public transport, water, and wastewater), economic and social development, and environmental protection. In addition to the need for new structures that will allow for better coordination of region-wide functions, many submissions to the Commission called for the diversity of the communities of the region and local choice to be respected. The Commission has sought to reflect this dual focus on regional effectiveness and local choice in the principles it has articulated below, and the model it has recommended.
12.9. The Commission was urged by a number of submitters and people with whom it met to be “bold”, and was told that it has been given a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to resolve what are perceived to be major shortcomings in Auckland’s local government arrangements. Others counselled caution, pointing to the uncertainty of outcomes that attends organisational changes.
12.10. As will be clear from chapters which follow, the Commission has considered all aspects of local government in Auckland in detail, and a range of alternative structures, including models proposed to it, and possible models of its own devising. The Commission has sought to be forward-looking, and to recommend arrangements that are capable not just of meeting immediate needs, but also those that are foreseeable over the next 20–25 years, at least, and beyond.
12.11. None of the cities the Commission visited, namely Brisbane, Melbourne, Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver, or London, offered a single system or model that could be applied to achieve improved competitiveness, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability in Auckland. Learning about the strengths and weaknesses of governance arrangements in these cities was, however, instructive for the Commission in developing its own recommendations for Auckland.
12.12. The experience of other major cities suggests that it is rarely possible for a traditional city council (operating at a sub-regional level) to represent the needs of a region. In the cities the Commission visited, it was recognised, and the Commission agrees, that strong governance at a regional and/or national level is desirable to coordinate a number of key functions at a regional level including planning, major roads, public transport, water and wastewater, economic development, and maintaining environmental standards. Strong regional governance was not always present in the cities the Commission visited, for example in Seattle, but was an aspiration.
12.13. Interestingly, even with very convoluted structures, it is possible to make cities work with the right leadership. The visionary leadership of Ron Sims in King County (of which Seattle City is part) was evidence of this. Uniformly, in all cities visited by the Commission the importance was emphasised of having strong, dynamic, outward-looking, and visionary leadership at regional and local levels. At the local level this achieves “leadership of place”, as Sir Michael Lyons said.3 In developing its approach the Commission identified the importance of creating the right environment for local government leadership to flourish, in particular by providing appropriate executive powers, and a clear organisational mandate for efficient and effective decision making. The Commission noted also the greater scope for involvement of community leaders and the private and not-for-profit leaders in developing Auckland’s future path, ideas that are explored in more detail in Chapter 19, “Leadership”.
12.14. Also evident in a number of leading cities is an emphasis on long-term vision, with local government leadership and organisation unafraid to consider the big issues including declining resources, globalisation, and climate change, and committing to address the challenges of managing growth and making the transition from liveability to sustainability. In confronting the challenges of the future, cities such as Vancouver are seeking to build on the good decisions of the past, taking their cities on an evolutionary rather than revolutionary path. The Commission saw the need in Auckland to sharpen the focus of planning and growth management, to ensure that the region best positions itself for the future. It also needs to be able to partner with central government to address broader issues of pressing importance, including economic growth, infrastructure development, and social well-being.12.15. Cities visited by the Commission had adopted a variety of mechanisms to ensure that local input and effective communication with citizens was achieved. Communication and engagement were universally recognised as important, but so too was the need to find new models by which this might be achieved. While there will always be a place for formal consultation mechanisms, many leaders were looking for ways of connecting more broadly with citizens and beyond the usual participants in council-initiated processes. It was also recognised that process is not an end in itself, and that debate must be cut off at some point, and decisions made.
12.16. The Commission mentions specific and very useful findings from its overseas study throughout this report. The overall conclusion reached by the Commission was, however, that the best system for Auckland needs to be designed specifically for Auckland, taking the best of what exists and building on it, and understanding Auckland’s history, its values, and most importantly, the desired future for Auckland. There is no perfect answer. However, good and bad features of existing arrangements, here and overseas have helped the Commission identify where improvements need to be made and a principled basis for making them.
12.17. In approaching its task, the Commission has sought to develop principles to guide its assessment of alternative governance models and to assist it to develop a preferred option which aligns with these principles. The principles identified by the Commission take into account the terms of reference, reflect the findings of the Commission’s investigation, including its overseas inquiries, and address the core values and characteristics that the Commission believes should be embodied in new local government arrangements for Auckland. They are as explained below.
12.18. The new structure should encompass the interests of the entire Auckland city-region and foster a common regional identity and purpose. Auckland needs an inspirational leader, inclusive in approach, decisive in taking action, a person able to articulate and deliver on a shared vision, and who can speak for the region. The new structure should support better coordination of key services and infrastructure, and foster integrated planning and decision making. The urban core should be recognised as critical to the economic vitality of the region, and rural values and areas protected.
12.19. The structure should deliver maximum value within available resources, in terms of cost, quality of service delivery, local democracy, and community engagement. It should allow services to be delivered locally, where appropriate. It should also be more efficient than the current system, and provide improved value for money.
12.20. Roles must be clear, including where decision making should be regional and where local. Appropriate accountability must be achieved for delivering outcomes, use of public funds, and stewardship of public assets. Institutions should work in an open manner and should communicate clearly about their activities, how much they spend, and the results.
12.21. The structure should respect and accommodate diversity and be responsive to the needs and preferences of different groups and local communities. It should be inclusive and promote meaningful public participation. It must be nimble in responding to change.
12.22. It is important to acknowledge that there are inherent tensions among these principles. Stronger Auckland-wide local governance, for example, can be achieved only at some cost to local responsiveness. Designing a local government structure involves trade-offs, and the optimal balance is ultimately a question of judgment. This tension is implicitly recognised in the terms of reference establishing the Commission, which variously directs the Commission to consider and balance national, regional, and local interests, current and future well-being, and public benefit and cost-effectiveness.
12.23. The preferred structure needs to represent a reasonable and workable balance in terms of the principles articulated by the Commission, and the requirements set out in its terms of reference.
12.24. The Commission’s firm view is that a new start is required, with fresh institutions, to signal and deliver a clean break from the past. Aucklanders do not want the same face of local government with a hasty makeover, and the Commission is not recommending that. The impression the Commission has formed, from all it has heard and from all those to whom it has spoken, is that Auckland is ready to get behind a fresh new body, with a different vision, mandate, focus, and quality and, the Commission believes, with the possibility of fresh leadership at all levels. The Commission believes it has achieved the right balance and a workable model in its recommendations.
1. See Appendix A: Terms of Reference.
2. Greater Toronto Area Task Force, Greater Toronto: Report of the GTA Task Force, January 1996, Ontario, p. 159.
3. Lyons, Sir Michael, Lyons Inquiry into Local Government: Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government, Final Report, The Stationery Office, London, March 2007, p. 185.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |