The recent NZ Herald lead article, ‘Super City showdown’ (3 December 2014) asking ‘Who’s in line to challenge Len Brown?’ fails to ask the right questions. It takes for granted that the current structure should continue, when in fact the whole of that incredibly disjointed, overly expensive and undemocratic Auckland Council should be drastically altered.
The devout disciple of Friedman economics and powerful business, Rodney Hide, who, with the encouragement of the then National led government imposed this monstrosity on 1.5 million people, certainly achieved the aim of a business and bureaucratic dominated machine.
So the first question to be asked is, not who should be Mayor, but how should a Mayor be elected? In fact, should we even have a Mayor of the current type with so much power and so little accountability?
Furthermore, the idea of a person who has to stand for election right across the region means that only very few people have any chance of doing this. It requires very deep pockets, and either those people need to risk large amounts themselves, or ask others to fill their pockets.
The consequences of this system are, that only a tiny gene pool of the rich and famous could possibly fund their campaign. The alternative, that others make major contributions to mayoral hopefuls will mean that the contributors will be expecting favours from their chosen candidate, if that person is successful. Not a sound basis for good government or good, objective decision-making.
The alternative is to have no election for a mayor. Instead, the election of councillors from wards around the region should continue as usual. Once elected, the Councillors meet and determine which of their number is the best person to lead the council.
This is not a fanciful or unproven idea, it is in fact what existed for 40 years in the original Auckland Regional Authority and its successor, the Auckland Regional Council. It has also been the pattern for other regional councils. It is also the pattern for many other organisations, including chairs of Boards of Directors and political parties.
This system has the following advantages:
- It avoids the problems and dangers of the present system as outlined above;
- The council Chairperson is very much part of the council (and not separated from it with special powers, like the present structure);
- The Chair must also retain the confidence of the majority of Council, so is forced to act in consensual and co-operative way, not as a semi-dictator. If the Chair fails to do that, or commits a major misdemeanour, then there is no need for and expensive by-election with attendant disruptions. The Council simply replaces the Chair with its new choice.
The second critical factor needing improvement in the electoral system is that ratio of elected members to electors and to staff, which is hugely out of kilter. The few councillors are in very weak position in the face of a huge staff. Democratic control and input is further significantly reduced because so much of the Council’s asset base is effectively under the direct control of the several euphemistically labelled “Council Controlled Organisations.” (CCO’s).
These organisations are under separate unelected Boards of Directors who determine all of the basic policies and modus operandi and which make many of their decisions out of the public eye on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.
This system also fails one of the key themes put forward prior to the forced amalgamation in 2010, which was that Auckland needed a single integrated decision-making body to glue all the bits together. Well, that’s not what has happened, or what is likely to happen under this disjointed, unintegrated mess of separately operating empires.
The management and staff of these organisations (such as Watercare, Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Property Ltd, Auckland Waterfront Development, Auckland Tourism, Auckland Regional Facilities, etc.) are all responsible to their Boards or Trustees first and foremost, not to the “governing body” or council with its meagre numbers of elected councillors. In total, there are more appointed Board members of the CCOs than there are elected councillors. So it doesn’t take too much brainwork to guess who is really running this ‘super city.’
Surely it is more important to seek improvements to the structure of this Council including removing the position of Mayor, than to muse about who might be the next Mayor sitting at the top of this unstable, unaffordable and undemocratic structure.
9.12.14