Our Homes Today
Business to Business
Rural Living
Home
News
Sport
Entertainment
Lifestyle
Opinion
Competitions
Photos
Classifieds
Directory
Contact us
Education
Botany Youth MP Contest
Mt Erebus
UpsideDowns
Times Interview
Our People
Sports News
Ivan's Blog
Arts News & Events
Movie Reviews
Book Reviews
Art Beat
Crosswords
Games
Sudoku
Dining
Leisure
Motoring
Horoscopes
Settling In 2009
Readers' Letters
What's On
Send us a Letter
Front Page
News
Sports
Education
Arts & Events
Our People
Sports Events
Special Events
Find a Job
Trade Services
Send your Ad
Classified PDFs
Continuing Education
Directory Listings PDF
View Classified pages
Automotive and Marine
Dining and Entertainment
Home Decor
Professionals
Trade Services
Strictly Bridal 2010
Classified Ads
Employment (64)
For Sale (16)
General Classified (40)
Professionals (40)
Public Notices (35)
Trades & Services (420)
Real Estate (72)
FEATURES (11)
Directory (6)
News Headlines
Party for Down success
Burly blokes tackle strongman
Tenth birthday for kindy
Campaign to cut speed
PM welcomes new recruits
Police report crime drop
New ward name unveiled
Horse rescued
Draft plan for centre
Gap between sexes
NEWS BITES
Prevention key to safety
Housing without red tape
Youngsters celebrate Kiwiana
Dealing with consents
Children's day of fun
Coastguard rescue praised
Development attracts immediate interest
Dean sails in to make Scouts' day
Action plan for parking
News
Three cities better than one for Auckland region
Monday, 04 September 2006
By SIR BARRY CURTIS, Mayor of Manukau City
• Howick and Pakuranga Times
THE Auckland region has too many councils and there are strong gains to be made from efficiencies and amalgamation.
A number of councils, such as Papakura, are simply too small to be viable.
Regional transport improvements are too slow. Some councils have chronically under-funded their infrastructure and services and are now having to play catch-up at great cost.
Change is needed, but Auckland City ratepayers’ reaction to their rates rises has sparked a debate about what kind of change is needed: Reform or revolution?
I’m disappointed that many people, including the media, have jumped to the conclusion that one “super city” is the solution.
I believe it would be a disaster. While change is certainly essential, there’s much about the current system that’s successful and should be kept.
Under one large city there would be a tragic loss of democratic representation and a dangerous accumulation of power. Inevitably there would be too much concentration of decision-making and resource allocation in one organisation.
I would be greatly concerned that such an organisation could easily come under the control of one small group with a very narrow agenda.
A far better alternative is having three cities, each representing and reflecting the natural geographic communities of the Auckland region.
Local government is more than just “roads, rubbish and regulation”. It’s a part of community democracy.
Across the region there’s a tremendous diversity of communities and philosophies. Councils reflect that cultural and social diversity, allowing those voices to be heard and have input into decision-making.
It would be tragic to have that eroded, if not destroyed, by the creation of one super city.
We definitely do need more efficiency, faster transport improvements and more unity in decision-making on regional issues.
However, the results we’re seeking can be obtained without creating a monster. A super city council would effectively be a monopoly supplier of its services. There would inevitably be a loss of democratic representation by communities such as Mangere and Henderson, which have unique character and perspective.
The past record of having one large organisation responsible for everything in the region was disastrous. Take health services for example. Under the former Auckland Hospital Board, health service funding was poorly distributed and “far flung” areas such as Waitakere and Manukau were treated shabbily. The lion’s share of health spending went on centralised services in Auckland City.
Here’s my vision for the three city model. It would require the existing seven city and district councils, along with the Auckland Regional Council, to be disestablished.
The region is naturally divided into three areas that represent clearly different geographic communities, each with their own character. This pattern would naturally lead to the creation of a northern city, a central/west and a south/eastern city.
The northern city would include North Shore City, plus Rodney District and the northern part of Waitakere City. It would be known as North Shore City.
The central city would be made up of Auckland City plus southern parts of Waitakere City, keeping the name Auckland City.
It would not include Otahuhu, which is far more culturally and geographically suited to be included in a southern city. This city would take in Manukau, plus Papakura and Franklin districts, which, like Rodney, are too small to be sustainable long term. It would be known as Counties Manukau City.
The existing ARC does not work well with other units of local government in the region and in many ways is a handicap to development.
Under the three cities model, the ARC would be disestablished and its functions handed to other regional bodies that would have far greater capacity for making strategic advances. There’s nothing to be gained by retaining the ARC.
There would be three mayors, as well as an overarching regional council, made up of the mayors in a board structure with responsibility for regional initiatives.
In addition, I envisage there would be an overall regional mayor, or Lord Mayor, to represent and speak for the whole of Auckland.
The mayoral board would direct strategies in areas such as transport planning, environmental monitoring, parks and regional assets and programmes. This would give unity and remove rivalries and clashes that are holding the region back.
The board would oversee cross-boundary regional organisations with shared responsibility for services including regulation, in order to have more consistency than we have now.
Regional parks would be operated by a trust, funded by the three councils, but there should also be encouragement for bequests from estates to help with funding.
Shared services around the region would be the norm and this would include library services, IT, rating systems, economic development and transport planning. There’s great capacity for financial savings and cost reduction in sharing of services, as there’s too much duplication at the moment.
However, I anticipate the three councils would have different planning policies, so there would still be creative and competitive tension, and indeed rivalry.
As such, each city would retain its own branding and identity to reflect their individual communities.
The Auckland Regional Transport Authority would retain responsibility for public transport.
There would be no need for changing ownership of Watercare, which would continue as a stand-alone business, as it’s very efficient. Similar organisations would be created and operated as stand-alone businesses on a corporate model, controlled and owned by the public councils.
The cities would retain wards, each with a community board.
There would be reduced restructuring costs in comparison to moving towards one city.
The three cities would be big enough to generate adequate funding through rates, but they would be close enough to their communities to ensure democratic representation remains strong.
In Manukau for example, we take great pride in the variety of community input into decision-making from areas such as Otara and Howick, which are unique and proud of it.
Equally, communities such as Oratia and Remuera have strong input into their council’s decisions. That is appropriate.
I fear that input would be lost under a super city, particularly one that’s likely to be dominated by central Auckland residents and influences, with others likely to be either swamped or neglected.
In addition, consideration must be given to what would happen if the super council became dysfunctional, which occurred in Rodney some years ago.
The three city model is logical for local government because it already exists in other spheres.
The police, health boards and many sporting groups already have their areas of responsibility divided into three zones. For example, there are three police districts, Counties Manukau, Auckland City and North Shore-Waitakere.
I’ve followed the debate over local government reform with interest, particularly the claims that a super city would mean more efficiencies in and of itself. There’s no evidence for bigger being better. Having one city will not solve all problems around connectivity and cohesion in planning and resource allocation.
Research on the results of amalgamations in Australia indicates that, once a point of economic viability is reached, then perceived saving and economies of scale are often not realised.
It must also be remembered that the funding shortfalls which councils nationwide are facing will not be solved by moving to either the one city, or three city model.
The under funding is chronic and historic. A solution must involve a move away from reliance on property values as the primary basis for rating.
It’s true that often the rest of New Zealand gets the impression Auckland can’t work together, but the solution is not to create one mega city.
I believe that would create one mega social disaster.
