“I loved my years as both a ward councillor and council leader: it was endlessly fascinating, demanding and exhilarating. We know that the majority of councillors say that they derive ‘enormous satisfaction’ from their role. Why on earth do we not shout this from the roof tops?”
Dame Jane Roberts, Chair of the Councillors Commission [UK], Representing the future: The report of the Councillors Commission, December 2007, p. 6 (foreword).
19.1. The Commission’s terms of reference invite it to consider what governance and representation arrangements will best “provide leadership for the Auckland region and its communities, while facilitating appropriate participation by citizens and other groups and stakeholders in decision-making processes”.1
19.2. There is no question of the importance to Auckland of strong, dynamic, outward-looking and visionary leadership. One of the key themes the Commission has taken from its review of various New Zealand cities, and its visits to a number of successful international cities, is that the right leadership can make a tremendous difference to the performance of a city.
19.3. Plainly, the personal characteristics of individual leaders matter. Qualities such as vision, strength, stamina, energy, inventiveness, commitment, personal integrity, and charisma are associated with successful leadership.
19.4. The vision and skills of the individuals who take on leadership roles at such time as the recommendations in this report are implemented will be crucial in delivering change for Auckland. It will be an important time of transformation and reform. The leaders who are part of that process will be setting the scene, building the culture, and to a large extent determining the success of the new structure. Fresh blood and fresh ideas will be required to move on from the region’s history of parochialism.
19.5. The Commission has given careful thought as to which governance structures are most likely to encourage talented new leaders to step forward, especially for the role of Mayor of Auckland. The establishment of a single Auckland Council will create the office of an elected mayor of 1.4 million people, and the opportunity to be first citizen of Auckland’s broad community.
19.6. As will be discussed in more detail below, it is anticipated that the Mayor of Auckland will be provided with sufficient powers to make a difference, and will lead an adequately resourced council with clearly articulated responsibilities at an Auckland-wide and local level. These characteristics are considered critical if the office of the Mayor of Auckland is to attract the best and most talented candidates.
19.7. In this chapter, the Commission also explores the idea of civic leadership, concluding that it involves many different types of leadership, not just political leadership. Accordingly, political leaders need to create room for, and listen to, many different types of civic leaders.
19.8. The chapter then addresses the particular functions and duties of some of the key members of the new unitary Auckland Council. In particular, it focuses on the role of the Mayor of Auckland – in part because this is the primary leadership role, but also because it will be subject to the greatest change. The roles of the chief executive officer, local council chairs, regional and local councillors, and local council managers are discussed in more detail in Chapter 15, “The Elected Auckland Council” and Chapter 16, “Local Councils”.
19.9. The chapter concludes with some general observations as to how best to support our civic leaders to fulfil their roles effectively, and how to nurture and encourage potential leaders.
19.10. The Commission notes that improved governance structures should help foster the possibility of great leadership, but cannot guarantee it. Ultimately, leadership is not a feature of formal powers, but the ability to influence widely. There are many instances of outstanding leadership operating within flawed governance systems and vice versa. For example, the Commission observed that leaders in Seattle and Toronto manage to focus on the big issues, such as sustainability, climate change, and social issues, despite convoluted organisational structures.
19.11. The Commission sought a background paper on the issue of civic leadership from Professor Robin Hambleton (Professor of City Leadership, University of the West of England, Bristol, and Director, Urban Answers).2
19.12. Professor Hambleton defines civic leadership very broadly to embrace all leadership activity that serves a public purpose in the region. He divides it into three categories:
19.13. Professor Hambleton emphasises that these three roles overlap, and that some individuals may play more than one role. He stresses that Auckland needs a high-calibre contribution from all three kinds of leaders.
19.14. Strong and resolute leadership must not be confused with arrogance; nor strength of purpose with single-mindedness. Strong leaders must also be committed to participatory leadership, and listen to other people who are engaged in and passionate about the region.
19.15. Leadership experts Brad Jackson and Lester Levy comment as follows:
Images are conjured up of tyrannical city bosses personified by Chicago’s longstanding mayor Richard M Daley.
Fortunately, for every Daley there are so many other less well known but authentic, archetypal executive mayors. One of these is Al Duerr, the quiet and unassuming mayor, who led the city of Calgary in a conciliatory manner during a period of rapid growth and prosperity over a 12-year period.
It is important to have faith that the citizens of Auckland will recognise which candidate for executive mayor will strive to disseminate, not concentrate, leadership. That is, they are able to help citizens recognise their civic responsibility and encourage them to make an active contribution toward creating a world-class city.3
19.16. Many leaders – great and small, formal and informal, celebrated and unsung – comprise the civic leadership of Auckland. Local government leaders, whether they are elected or managerial, need not only to work well together but also to collaborate creatively with a wide range of community leaders who are not formally part of the government system. The Auckland City Mission, the Selwyn Foundation, and the Salvation Army are just some of the organisations contributing to leadership on social issues within the region. School boards provide another important area for community involvement and local leadership. Think tanks and other knowledge-based institutions, such as the Committee for Auckland, can also provide inspiration and new ideas.
19.17. In his research paper, Professor Hambleton comments,
It follows that the old hierarchical model of city leadership – the city “boss” determining policy for services controlled and delivered by the state – is long past its sell-by date, even in cultures where the city boss style of leadership had become fairly embedded. … An important challenge for all political leaders is, then, to develop their skills and effectiveness as facilitative leaders, rather than “top down” leaders. The importance of being able to reach out to other stakeholders and local people in an effort to influence decisions made by others in order to improve the local quality of life is difficult to overestimate.4
19.18. He goes on to say,
In some situations a powerful, directly elected mayor or council leader can give the impression of exercising decisive leadership of the entire city with other actors having relatively minor roles. This discussion has suggested, however, that it is more likely that, in any given city, there is a pattern of dispersed leadership. In modern conditions of social complexity power is fragmented and this means that civic leadership involves a process of connecting the fragments. Elected politicians, appointed officers, business leaders, non-profit organisations, religious groups, community representatives and figures from higher education can all be found carrying out leadership roles in modern systems of urban governance.5
19.19. An effective leader, therefore, is able to convene a broad range of people to exercise civic leadership. In this regard, the Commission was impressed with the approach taken by the Mayor of Toronto, Canada (David Miller), and the Mayor of Lewisham, United Kingdom (Sir Steve Bullock), each of whom is able to wield significance and influence by convening groups, experts, and taskforces, and by governing through networks and partnerships. Both work across organisational boundaries; if an issue affects their city, they do not hesitate to become involved and influence the outcome.
19.20. The Mayor of Lewisham, in particular, has a long history of participation as a councillor in local government, and chaired the local hospital for a number of years. He is described as a natural facilitator, able to explain to people why he makes the decisions that he does. He places a high value on procedural justice (for example, keeping people informed), as well as on actual outcomes. He is known for the transparent way in which he operates and his willingness to take on board multiple points of view.
19.21. In Auckland, and New Zealand, we certainly have the capacity for outstanding leadership.
19.22 The style of leadership in New Zealand can be quite different from leadership styles in other parts of the world, but it is often highly effective. One possible reason for differences in our leadership style is that New Zealand has one of the lowest “power distances” in the world (referring to the degree to which we accept leaders as being intrinsically worthy of respect, socially superior, or even rightfully in charge of important things).6
19.23. As a result, many of our most well-known leaders have had to develop the confidence to lead without relying on the trappings of pomp and ceremony, which can appear both inauthentic and arrogant. According to a recent article in the New Zealand Listener,
Mike Moore used to appear in public in his carpet slippers. Dick Hubbard has been known to drink cask wine. Sir Robert Muldoon was listed in the Wellington phonebook. Tim Shadbolt towed his concrete mixer behind the mayoral limo.7
19.24. The Commission has been advised that two of New Zealand’s most effective mayors are Tim Shadbolt and Bob Harvey. (Bob Harvey in particular has been recognised internationally for his leadership skills.) The Commission received advice that both mayors are charismatic, and that although they tend to operate on a consensus model they are sufficiently comfortable in their leadership roles that they are prepared to stand up and acknowledge when something has not worked as planned. Their communities have a sense that they are genuine, and stand for some broad principles.
19.25. For the same reasons, Mayor Vicki Buck was successful in Christchurch, and before her (and from a different political corner), Sir Hamish Hay. Manukau City has also benefited from some very dedicated, long-serving, and effective mayors, including Sir Lloyd Elsmore (1968–1983) and Sir Barry Curtis (1983–2007).
19.26. The Commission has heard that other highly effective mayors include Peter Tennent in New Plymouth, who is an excellent public advocate, is always very positive and is not sidetracked by petty political debates, and Michael Redman in Hamilton, who was highly successful at building a coalition amongst his councillors. He listened to them, respected their views, gave them authority and focused on city-wide views. (Michael Redman has now chosen to take on the role of Chief Executive Officer of Hamilton City, but the progress he made in the mayoral position is being continued by his successor, Bob Simcock.)
19.27. In the course of this inquiry, a number of people mentioned to the Commission the forward-thinking leadership of Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, and the quiet effectiveness of Phil Warren when he led the Auckland Regional Council from 1992 until his sudden and untimely death in 2002.
19.28. It is interesting to reflect that Sir Dove-Myer Robinson became involved in local government only because of concern regarding a pressing environmental issue of his time. For the first half of the 20th century, raw sewage was dumped into the sea at Ōrākei. As the city grew, this sewage became increasingly offensive, and in 1931 it was decided that Auckland’s sewage would be conveyed by an undersea pipe to Browns Island and discharged, largely untreated, into the Rangitoto channel. The bitter debate over this
“Browns Island affair” launched a previously unknown businessman, Dove-Myer Robinson, into local body politics. He concluded that the best way to fight this proposal was to take over the system, which he proceeded to do.
19.29. He and his followers were elected to Auckland City Council and halted the Browns Island project. They called in a panel of international experts who recommended the revolutionary technology of oxidation ponds and for these to be located at Mangere. Sir Dove-Myer Robinson was elected mayor in 1959 and was re-elected to that office for a record six terms.8
19.30. The most visible leader in the new, proposed structure will be the Mayor of Auckland. This role will be significantly broader than that of any of the current mayoral positions. It will require a real step change in thinking; broad, strategic, inclusive leadership will be vital.
19.31. In saying this, the Commission acknowledges the excellent work already carried out by the mayors of the Auckland region, past and present, within the bounds of their existing roles. The new Auckland Council will need to draw on the existing strengths and achievements across the region, such as Waitakere’s “eco city”, and the flowering of Pacific culture in Manukau City.
19.32. A great mayor can act as a powerful focal point around which a city can begin to foster civic pride and confidence in itself. Ideally, the Mayor of Auckland will be outward-focused and able to think outside the immediate concerns of the Auckland region. He or she will be able to put Auckland’s issues in the context of national and global concerns, and will be able to strategise and see what other regions and other countries are doing better. This will be particularly important as issues such as climate change and other environmental concerns alter the priorities of local government and the responses that are required.
19.33. The Commission considers that one of the most important mayoral roles is to be the primary “vision holder” for the region. By “vision”, the Commission is referring not to glib public relations branding exercises, logos, or slogans. Rather, it is the articulation of a “nuts and bolts” manifesto or statement of intent, with which voters can either agree or disagree and vote accordingly. A mayor who is voted in on a platform of well-understood and well-articulated principles has real visibility, a real mandate, and a proper basis on which to exercise power.
19.34. Professor Hambleton comments that leaders who can set out a convincing and hopeful vision for their area, and who follow through with specific and practical action in line with the vision, can be expected to enjoy a stronger electoral support than those who seem more interested in obtaining and holding onto the power of office.
19.35. The Commission proposes that the Mayor of Auckland should be elected at large by the people of Auckland.9
19.36. Currently, the mayors of each of the seven territorial local authorities in Auckland are elected at large, that is by their cities or districts as a whole.10 By contrast, the chairperson of the ARC is elected not by the public, but by the regional councillors at the first meeting after the public election of the councillors.
19.37. There are advantages and disadvantages with each model.
19.38. A mayor who is elected by his or her peers and colleagues may be in a better position to work with the team and rely on their support. This model also helps to avoid the risk of celebrity, “presidential style” campaigns based on the force of personality and public profiles rather than policies.
19.39. On the other hand, while it is essential for the mayor to be able to work as part of a team, it is equally important for the mayor to take on a true leadership role. The two are not mutually exclusive.
19.40. In his research paper for the Commission, Professor Hambleton supported a directly elected mayor for Auckland on the following basis:
19.41. On balance, the Commission considers that competition for office, through an election at large, is more likely to result in strong, effective leaders. The Commission considers that it is important for the mayor to be elected on the basis of a well-understood platform of policies. In addition, as Professor Hambleton notes, a mayor who is elected directly has a broader legitimacy with a mandate from the people, and is therefore better placed to make decisions and to act on them. Direct election would also allow the promotion of a mayoral platform or manifesto, with the disclosure of policies and ideas before the election.
19.42. The Commission notes that both the Mayor of Lewisham in the United Kingdom and David Miller in Toronto believe that their mandate derives from being elected to represent their cities. This gives them broader freedom rather than rigid adherence to a legislative role – especially if they were elected on the basis of a policy manifesto.
19.43. Concerns were raised that a direct election would favour the wealthy, who could effectively buy their way into power as a result of greater resources.
19.44. In part, this concern is addressed by section 111 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, which introduced caps on campaign expenditure in local elections. The maximum amount of permissible expenses varies from a maximum of $3,500 (if any local government area over which the election is held has a population smaller than 5,000), to a maximum of $70,000 (if any local government area over which the election is held has a population of 250,000 or more).
19.45. Although the permitted expenditure at the higher end of the range is considerable, the Commission envisages that genuine, viable candidates will be able to draw on financial and other support from various groups within the community.
19.46. The remuneration of the mayor and other elected members will continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority, as discussed in Chapter 16.
19.47. The Commission recommends that the Mayor of Auckland should be given some additional powers and duties, on the basis that effective leadership requires sufficient powers and fiscal resources to get things done.
19.48. Currently, Auckland’s mayors operate under what is known as a “weak mayor” model, in which the mayor shares governance and control with other elected members of their councils. The Local Government Act 2002 provides that mayors should chair council meetings, but otherwise affords them few powers over and above the general powers given to all councillors.
19.49. Moreover, there is no formal job description for mayors. The Act contains a fairly detailed description of the role of the head of the management arm of local government (the chief executive officer), but no real description of the role of the head of the political arm of local government (the mayor).
19.50. The Commission has considered a number of international models for the role of the Mayor of Auckland.
19.51. Some very large and complex cities such as New York, Chicago, and London have “strong mayor” governance systems, which separate executive and legislative functions. The mayor works with the city council or Greater London Authority (as the case may be) but is separate from it and there is a clear division of authority.
19.52. Mayors in these cities have wide-ranging executive powers, are clearly seen to be in charge of the city government, and are held to account by the electorate. They have formal authority to control policy and budgets, and to appoint staff, while the councils have the function of scrutinising the mayors’ actions – similar to the parliamentary system of government and opposition.
19.53. The Mayor of the City of New York has been described as the “King of New York”. Amongst other things, the Mayor’s Office administers all city services, public property, police and fire protection, most public agencies, and enforces all city and state laws within New York City.
19.54. In London, the mayor has a general power to do anything that will promote economic and social development, and environmental improvement, in London. It is also the responsibility of the Mayor of London to set the annual budget for the four functional bodies in the Greater London Authority – the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the London Development Agency, and Transport for London. The London Assembly (an elected body within the Greater London Authority) has a scrutiny role only in relation to the mayor’s proposals.
19.55. The Commission rejects the adoption of a “strong mayor” model for Auckland. It considers that it is desirable for the Mayor of Auckland to muster majority council support for his or her policies before being able to implement them. This is consistent with New Zealand’s central government model.
19.56. In addition, “strong mayor” systems are derived from a very different political heritage to ours. The adoption of a strong mayor model in Auckland would require major institutional change and public education for it to be acceptable.
19.57. Nonetheless, the Commission considers that the New Zealand mayoral system has gone too far in the opposite direction. In Auckland (and New Zealand more generally), the almost complete lack of formal mayoral powers can sometimes cause problems. For example, the council, not the mayor, has the statutory power to set up standing, special and joint committees and subcommittees. The council appoints the committee chairs, and the deputy mayor. The mayor can also be voted out of any role in the management and monitoring of the chief executive officer.
19.58. Currently, mayors are dependent on collegial relationships and majority support to achieve their preferred committee structures, chair appointments, and deputy mayor. Ideally, the deputy mayor and committee chairs would consist of people who support and work constructively with the mayor, and who would not undermine the mayoral position. Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, this is not always the result.
Most mayors had the experience of opposition and political manoeuvring including ousted mayors being voted in as deputy mayor and ‘opposition leaders’ given executive committee positions. It is in committees that much of the business of council occurs, and committee chairpeople are subleaders in the administrative interface, influencing the selection of agenda items and the outcome of deliberations. When chairpeople represented councillor opposition to the mayor, the mayor’s ability to execute council leadership across a wide variety of council activities was undermined.12
19.59. This lack of formal power is in direct contrast to high community expectations of leadership and influence from mayors. Communities tend to expect that the buck stops with the mayor, not with the chief executive officer or with councillors.
19.60. Accordingly, the Commission recommends a middle path, in which the powers of the mayor are strengthened to ensure that he or she has the ability to achieve what was set out in the pre-election manifesto, but are subject always to final approval from council.
19.61. Perhaps the most important recommended change is that the Mayor of Auckland should be given the ability to decide which councillors will fulfil certain roles within the Auckland Council, including the position of deputy mayor. The mayor should also appoint the chairs of committees (at the regional level only), and have the right to appoint herself or himself to those positions. The Mayor of Auckland should be a member of all standing committees ex officio (as of right).
19.62. The Commission believes that these changes are important so that the Mayor of Auckland can build a team of individuals with whom he or she will be able to work constructively. The mayor needs to have confidence in those people, and vice versa. The Commission considers that there is a direct parallel between the Mayor of Auckland being in a position to select people to fill these key positions in the local government context and the Prime Minister allocating Cabinet portfolios in the central government context.
19.63. In addition, the Commission considers that the Mayor of Auckland should have the power to propose the budget, and should initiate and formulate policy for consideration and approval by council. The mayor should also propose the draft long-term council community plan and the draft annual plan to the Auckland Council. Again, in all cases, the final decisions should be made by the council.
19.64. The Commission also recommends the establishment of a properly resourced mayoral office, staffed by a small number of personal advisers appointed by the Mayor of Auckland. It is important that this group is kept small and that their role is clearly delineated to prevent the possibility of conflict with other council staff. The Commission expects that the mayor’s advisers will operate in a manner similar to the personal advisers of Cabinet ministers; their role will be to support the mayor’s work, not Auckland Council’s work.
19.65. In summary, therefore, the additional mayoral powers should be as follows:
19.66. This proposed model, which involves the Mayor of Auckland initiating budgets and policy for consideration by council, differs from the current model where councillors (or council staff) often initiate policy and develop the draft budget. Councillors and staff (through the chief executive officer) will continue to have the right to initiate policy.
19.67. The Commission also recommends that the Mayor of Auckland seek ways to interact with ratepayers including
19.68. The Mayor of Auckland will also be expected to form a close working relationship with members of the Cabinet Committee for Auckland, and in particular the Minister for Auckland, and to meet regularly with him or her.
19.69. The Commission considers that these measures will assist in ensuring that the Mayor of Auckland is accountable to the public, will help citizens feel more connected to the Mayor of Auckland and to local government processes, and will help raise the visibility of the mayoral office.
19.70. Outlined below are the other leadership roles to be undertaken by people in key positions in the Auckland Council structure.
19.71. The chief executive officer is the leader of the management arm of the Auckland Council. He or she is responsible for its day-to-day running and implements the council’s policies and objectives (within the budgetary constraints established by the council).
Elected members themselves do not build a public swimming pool or issue library books or treat sewage, or issue a building permit. The employees of the local authority, led by a Chief Executive, implement the elected members’ decisions.14
19.72. The chief executive officer is the only person directly employed by the local authority, and each year the local authority and the chief executive officer agree on objectives to be achieved by the chief executive officer during the course of a year. This is recorded in a document called a performance agreement.
19.73. The role of the chief executive officer is already set out in detail in the Local Government Act 2002. Among the provisions of section 42(2) of the Act, the chief executive officer is responsible to his or her local authority for
19.74. The Commission does not consider that any significant changes will be required to the role of the chief executive officer. The main difference will be one of scale of responsibilities and, accordingly, an increased focus on leadership.
19.75. Under the proposed new structure, the chief executive officer will have overall responsibility for all Auckland Council staff and the implementation of all Auckland Council policies. There will be only one chief executive officer for the entire Auckland Council. At the local level, each council will have local council managers, who will report to the chief executive officer of the Auckland Council.
19.76. In addition to the mayor, the Auckland Council will comprise 23 councillors, to be elected/appointed in the manner described in Chapter 15.
19.77. These 23 councillors will play important leadership roles for the region. Their key focus should be on developing “big picture”, long-term strategy/policy, and setting goals. It is essential that they remain conscious of the strategic importance of their roles, and that they do not become sidetracked into issues of day-to-day service delivery, or, worse, political point-scoring.
19.78. The Commission believes that providing for a mixture of councillors who are elected at large by the entire region and councillors who are elected on a ward-based system will prove to be advantageous.
19.79. It is anticipated that the councillors who are elected at large will help to provide a broad, region-wide perspective, and will assist in ensuring that the overall culture of the council is truly regional.
19.80. The role of councillors who are elected by ward will be to provide a more focused, place-based perspective, although not at the expense of an overall regional strategy or vision. The Commission expects that the two representatives from each ward will work closely together.
19.81. As discussed in Chapter 22, “Māori”, the two elected Māori councillors will have a role to play in providing a Māori perspective on issues and acting as champions of Māori generally. The representative of mana whenua15 will have important obligations to discharge in relation to manākitanga16 and kaitiakitanga17. Nonetheless, it is crucial that these roles are much broader than this. Each of these three councillors will need to be involved fully in considering all issues.
19.82. The six local councils will not have a mayor. They will each consist simply of elected councillors, elected in wards. The councillors will choose a chair from amongst their number to act as the leader of their community.
19.83. The current legislation does not contemplate the role of “local council chair”; legislative amendment will be required to establish this position.
19.84. The chair of each local council will be appointed in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.18 Upon appointment, the chair of a local council will cease to have any formal role as a representative of the ward from which he or she was elected; the next highest polling candidate in the same ward will be deemed to be elected as one of that ward’s representatives in place of the chair (see Chapter 16).
19.85. The chair of a local council will be the first amongst equals. To a large extent, he or she will have the same role as other councillors, with limited additional powers: to chair the meetings, to exercise a casting vote, and to be the council’s spokesperson.
19.86. Local council chairs will also be entitled to attend all full Auckland Council meetings, at which they will have speaking, but not voting, rights. One of their most important leadership obligations will be to articulate and promote the views of their community to the Auckland Council.
19.87. As discussed in Chapter 16, the Commission recommends six local councils for the Auckland region. All of the councillors at the local level will be elected on a ward-based system.
19.88. The number of members in each council will range from six (Rodney and Franklin) to 22 (Tāmaki-makau-rau). With the exception of the single member representing the Hauraki Gulf islands in the Tāmaki-makau-rau Council, the members of each council will consist of a number of two-person wards (that is, two councillors representing each ward).
19.89. The councillors serving on the local councils will have a more local, place-based perspective than the councillors on the Auckland Council. They will be highly focused on community engagement, and will need the trust and respect of their communities in order to fulfil their roles effectively.
19.90. As with the Auckland Council, the Commission expects that where there are two members per ward, those two individuals will work closely together.
19.91. The Commission considers that it is crucial to support and assist civic leaders to fulfil their roles effectively.
No one until very recently actually thought that politicians … needed training and support at all. We were supposed to go from the egg state of candidate to the caterpillar state of back bencher alone and unaided. We were then supposed to go from the larval state to the brilliant butterfly of leadership with the assumption that because we had got there we must be good at it – whatever it may be.19
19.92. Many countries have leadership programmes for elected councillors and for appointed officers. In the United Kingdom, IDeA has run an Academy for Councillors for many years and also provides a range of management development programmes for officers. One key feature of the IDeA approach to local government is peer review. This involves respected peers visiting and working with a council for an intensive period. It has proved extremely effective as it involves leader-to-leader exchange and development.
19.93. One British report suggested that councils should support councillors to develop their skills by offering
19.94. In the New Zealand context, important professional development work is carried out by Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers. Professor Hambleton suggests that it is worth considering whether such bodies could be encouraged to strengthen their civic leadership development offerings.
19.95. The Commission considers that this would be very useful. It believes that structured peer-support sessions amongst the country’s mayors and chief executive officers would be particularly valuable. It has recommended in this report that the Mayor of Auckland bear greater personal responsibility, but it appreciates that it may be a difficult and lonely experience to act as the primary flagbearer for the region, without room for public doubt or hesitation.
19.96. The Commission considers that former mayors and chief executive officers should also be invited to provide confidential advice and a listening ear to incumbents, in a structured environment.
Chief executives often speak about the isolation that they experience in their roles. It is among peers that they experience a safe environment in which they no longer feel the need to show leadership that they can expose cock ups, near misses and darkest fears.21
19.97. Finally, it is also important to consider how to nurture and strengthen leadership talents across the region.
19.98. One submission that commented extensively on leadership suggested that in order to attract high-calibre leaders in the long term, strategies should begin with leadership education in schools.22 This could include “civic” courses in school curricula, designed both to increase awareness about civic participation and engagement generally, as well as to grow leaders from the ground up.
19.99. Other commentators have suggested that leadership development programmes should focus on elected members, community leaders, people involved with non-governmental organisations, workforces, ethnic groups, and the elderly, as well as the school context.
19.100. Research in Britain shows that knowledge and understanding of councillors among teenagers is particularly low, and that only 3.5% of councillors are aged less than 30. Lack of generational renewal is looming as one of local democracy’s most severe challenges.
19.101. There are, however, many inspiring examples both nationally and internationally of local authorities engaging with schools or using other initiatives to interest young people in local government. Some examples from various New Zealand councils are listed below:
19.102. Nationally, Local Government New Zealand is also running a long-term programme called “Growing Active Citizens”.23 Its flagship project to date has been Kids Voting, which saw 8,000 students across the country take part in parallel 2007 local government elections.24 As part of the programme, students discuss candidates’ real-life promotional material and media coverage, and candidates are sometimes invited to give classroom presentations. Students vote around the same time as their parents. The Kids Voting programme provides voting papers with the actual candidates’ details, together with counting sheets and ballot boxes.
19.103. There are also many broader leadership programmes emerging which are designed to bring together leaders and potential leaders from different sectors to engage in shared learning and idea exchange. One example is the British-based organisation known as Common Purpose. Founded in 1989, it provides geographically based leadership programmes, bringing together future potential leaders from a given city.
19.104. The recent Outward Bound multi-ethnic course is another excellent example. Ethnic communities within greater Auckland worked with the Human Rights Commission and Outward Bound to nominate participants whom they considered had the potential to become leaders within their communities. Participants took part in a 21-day course at Outward Bound in the Marlborough Sounds.25
19.105. Another useful way in which to encourage civic leadership is to provide accessible, practical information to potential councillor candidates. In New Zealand, support for potential candidates varies from council to council, supplemented by some excellent material provided by Local Government New Zealand.
19.106. The Commission was impressed with the information and support given to potential candidates in Victoria, Australia. The Municipal Association of Victoria hosts a website dedicated to providing information to potential candidates (www.standforcouncil.com.au), and arranges a number of information sessions at different locations. It also publishes a detailed information booklet (also available online) which includes practical tips on campaigning, such as doorknocking, and using the media to best advantage.26
19.107. The Commission considers that investment in forward-thinking schemes such as those discussed above is essential to ensure the future success of the Auckland region.
19A The Mayor of Auckland should be given the following additional powers and duties:
19B The Mayor of Auckland should hold a minimum of four annual meetings with members of the public (Mayor’s Days), deliver an annual “State of the Region” address, and meet with the chairs of local councils on a monthly basis; those responsibilities to be incorporated in legislation. The Mayor will also convene quarterly plenary meetings of all members of the elected Auckland Council, local councils, and community boards.
19C Leadership support and development programmes for elected councillors should be strengthened.
Transition19D In designing the structure for the Auckland Council, the Establishment Board should make provision for the establishment of an appropriately staffed office for the Mayor of Auckland, with a small number of personal advisers to be appointed by the Mayor.
19E The Establishment Board should appoint an interim Chief Executive for the Auckland Council.
1 Appendix A: Terms of Reference, “Relevant matters”, (e)(ii).
2 Hambleton, Professor Robin, “Civic Leadership for Auckland: An International Perspective”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, pp. 515–552.
3 Jackson, Brad and Levy, Lester, “Do ‘super’ mayors thwart local leadership?”, National Business Review, 10 October 2008, p. 28.
4 Hambleton, Professor Robin, “Civic Leadership for Auckland: An International Perspective”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, p. 527.
5 Ibid., p. 534.
6 According to the Globe Project study of the leadership styles of 17,000 managers in 62 countries, discussed in an article by Jane Clifton, “Follow the Leaders”, New Zealand Listener, Vol. 206, 25 November–1 December 2006.
7 Ibid.
8 Lee, Michael, “Strangers in the 21st Century: Auckland and New Zealand Politics Without Bruce Jesson”, lecture on behalf of the Bruce Jesson Foundation, Maidment Theatre, Auckland University, 6 October 2008. (Sir Dove-Myer Robinson served as mayor from 1959 to 1965 and from 1968 to 1980.)
9 The Commission’s proposal that the Mayor of Auckland should be elected at large will not require legislative amendment. The definition of “unitary authority” in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 suggests that the electoral processes applicable to a territorial authority (including section 19B(1) of the Local Electoral Act 2001) will apply also to a unitary authority.
10 Section 19B(1) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 provides that the mayor of a territorial authority is to be elected by the electors of the district as a whole.
11 Hambleton, Professor Robin, “Civic Leadership for Auckland: An International Perspective”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, p. 545.
12 Evans, Margaret, “Leadership and the Role of the Mayor in New Zealand”, MA thesis published by University of Waikato, 2003, p. 28.
13 This annual address should include a section on the results of environmental monitoring (see paragraph 8.19 in Chapter 8, “Environment, Urban Design, and Heritage”) and a section on progress on the regional social well-being strategy (see paragraph 9.200, in Chapter 9, “Promoting Social Well-Being”).
14 Local Government New Zealand, The Knowhow Guide to Governance under the Local Government Act 2002, Department of Internal Affairs and New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers, Wellington, 2003, p. 24.
15 Mana whenua – local Māori with ancestral ties to the land.
16 Manākitanga – a sacred obligation to care for all people within one’s rohe, including taura here (Māori with ancestral ties outside the area) and non-Māori.
17 Kaitiakitanga – guardianship; the responsibility for caretaking.
18 Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Part 1, clause 25.
19 Kemp, Councillor Richard, Liverpool City Council, “Magic – the sparkle of political leadership”, in IDeA and Leadership Centre for Local Government, Local government leadership – creating political value: a collection of essays, London, 2008, p. 14 (available at www.localleadership.gov.uk/docs/political_value.pdf, accessed February 2009).
20 Councillors Commission [UK], Representing the future: The report of the Councillors Commission, Communities and Local Government Publications, Wetherby, 2007, p. 101 (available at www.communities.gov.uk/, accessed February 2009).
21 Bennett, Mike and Orr, Kevin, “Connoisseurs of complexity: leadership and storytelling”, in IDeA and Leadership Centre for Local Government, Local government leadership – creating political value: a collection of essays, London, 2008, p. 29.
22 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Jo Brosnahan. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
23 See www.lgnz.co.nz/projects/SocialandCommunityIssues/GrowingActiveCitizens, accessed February 2009.
24 See www.kidsvoting.org.nz, accessed February 2009.
25 See www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/outwardboundmulti-ethniccourse.php, accessed March 2009.
26 Available at www.mav.asn.au/CA256C320013CB4B/Lookup/c2c/$file/Citizen2Councillor.pdf, accessed February 2009.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |