WHAT IS WRONG WITH AUCKLAND COUNCIL?
Unfortunately there’s a lot wrong. The Act which set up the Auckland Council has made it certain to fail.
A. The problems:
1.The legislation:
Instituting a ‘strong Mayor’ system, separated and insulated from the councillors is to divide the house.
There are too few councillors to represent 1.6 million Aucklanders and to counterbalance a huge bureaucracy (currently about 8,000.)
2 Major disconnects:
Most of the council’s legitimate functions and its assets have been carved off and put under the effective control of so-called Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). The separation and defiance of the unelected Board of the Port Company, and ATEED sending off expensive appointees to overseas posts, shows how uncontrolled and unco-ordinated these separated bodies are from one another and from the “governing body.”
Further, not only is the Mayoral office separated from the main Council, and the CCOs (also separate entities,) there is no effective connection with the public, their needs and wants. Instead there is a phalanx of different bodies with different boards, managements, philosophies, aims and processes.
The public are considerably confused, disempowered and discontented.
- Domination by staff and minimal democratic input:
Another major difficulty for the democratic representatives (our councillors) is the domination of the staff, who are supposed to serve the council and the public. In my view, it seems the staff have been imbued with the culture that they are to take control of the organisation.
From the outside at least, that seems to have become unbridled power with senior staff, with examples surfacing at times, such as staff having the audacity to refuse councillors information to which they are entitled and need to properly carry out their functions and for which they are accountable.
With a weakened democratic arm and the dispersal of so much decision-making across the private enterprise dominated CCOs, there is little chance of a cohesive, co-ordinated policy led by the council.
- Token consultation – results ignored:
Consultation of the public has been poor, sometimes skewed and almost disdainful. Much is of a token nature with a narrow focus on both the ‘information’ provided to the public, the choices they are offered and the number consulted. (Often only pre-determined “stakeholders.”)
Two examples are the failure of the ‘information’ about the Long Term (financial) Plan to reach large numbers of ratepayers, and the alleged ‘skewing’ of some matters relating to proposed extra taxes or imposts.
Another example was consultation feedback relating to the Public Open Space section of the Unitary Plan. There were three top priorities identified by the public.
When the officers were asked why none of these very proper requests from the public were not reflected on the staff’s proposals re POS, the reply was: “Because the staff don’t agree with them!”
So much for the token consultation.
The lack of good, open, objective communication between Mayor and council, between CCOs and these bodies and council, from officer to elected representatives and from council and local boards and their electors, is fraught with problems.
These deficiencies erode democracy, good decision-making and the credibility of the organisation(s). Other effects include reduced accountability, transparency and political standards.
5.Secrecy and remoteness from the public:
The absence of the matters described above together with unnecessary secrecy, disconnects in the information flow and refusal to supply timely and accurate information lead to suspicion and concerns as to honesty and could possibly encourage attempts of some to enter into corrupt practices.
6. Bigger organisation – inflated salaries, ideas and rates:
The proposed budget seeks to place an impossible burden on Aucklanders, while requiring all sorts of cuts to valued services, and gives the Mayor, Councillors and government an excuse to start selling our assets (eg. QE II Square and the intention to sell $630 million worth of public open space over the next 10 years.) That’s probably just the beginning.
Why? Largely because of the fixation of a few (including the Mayor) on the central rail link – the most expensive, inflexible and backward looking of all possible transport options – rather than choosing modern, highly flexible, and much cheaper options.
- Dominance of the Planning Priesthood.
The Unitary Plan is incomprehensible (even to some planners and lawyers) and the ordinary public do not have the training or the resources to deal with it. It is a repressive piece of chicanery. It thus enables even speedier action and results for those with resources way beyond those of the people to be bulldozed out of the way.
The Plan is one-sided with the overriding theme of intensification on a grand scale – almost anywhere and everywhere within the urban limits.
Again, illogical and diametrically opposed objectives are pursued. Speedy intensification and increased population of Auckland, while simultaneously trying to reduce traffic congestion! Any glaring conflict here?
These are some of the most fundamental problems of this Council ‘model.’
- The Possible Solutions:
Because so many of the problems flow from this faulted ‘model’ and the legislation which set it up, the first, but most difficult task is to get the politicians in Wellington to admit that major changes are necessary. Political parties find it extremely hard to say they made an error, especially one as big as this.
If that mountain can be climbed then the following changes would greatly improve local government for Auckland:
- A simpler, more cohesive and more efficient structure (possibly using some elements of the Royal Commission’s recommendations.)
- There must be a considerable strengthening and increase in the democratic arm of Council and clear lines of control from the elected members over the affairs of Council
- The Council (un)Controlled Organisations should be abolished and replaced by business units or departments within Council, with direct oversight by Council, and policy decisions on their operational directions decided by the Council
- These changes have to be matched by a real change in the culture of the Council staff, ensuring their commitment to serving the Council and the public and in doing so to ensure that both of these bodies receive timely, accurate, relevant and objective information from which good decisions can be made. The accountability for this has to be placed clearly and firmly on the shoulders of the CEO and carefully monitored by a special Council committee to deal with the CEO’s contract, objectives, performance and salary.
- Accountability and a minimising of secrecy must be taken seriously by staff and Councillors.
- There should be no position of Mayor or a Mayoral office. The system should be changed to mirror what has been the situation for Regional Councils. This means there is no election for Mayor across the region. Instead, elected Councillors decide who, from among their number, they wish to lead the Council and so their Chairperson. The advantages of this are several, but the two most important are that the Chair is an integral part of the Council, not a separate power, and secondly, if the Chair loses the confidence of the Council or the public, then a replacement can be voted in replacing the incumbent. There is no major cost for a new election, no interregnum, and this system helps ensure much stronger integration between the ‘leader’ of the Council. In a way it’s not too different from the way leaders of central government parties are chosen, or become Prime Ministers.
If these changes could be effected, we would have a better integrated, more efficient, more democratic organisation, an increase in accountability and democratic inputs and outputs. There would be a more public and service focussed staff, which, under Council direction would ensure more comprehensive and informed consultation of the public – who pay all of the bills.
So, if people are unhappy with the present system, focus on the real cause: a bad model, imposed on Auckland by Parliament. Only Parliament can fix it and that’s where the pressure needs to go.
(Brief background: The author: 21 years Councillor. 6 years ARA officer. Held Senior Executive positions in 3 Statutory Boards. Holds post-graduate Dip. of Local Govt & Administration, and a BA from University of Auckland.)