Three perspectives on Auckland

There are a number of interesting perspectives offered on the Royal Commission’s report on Auckland governance.

Former ACT party MP Muriel Newman quite clearly has serious concerns that the impact the Local Government Act has had on the construction of the report.

Of key importance in all of this is the fact that the main reason for a change in the efficiency, performance, and cost of local government over recent years is the amendments to the Local Government Act made by Labour in 2002. These transformed local government from having a focus on maintaining infrastructure, providing core services and carrying out regulatory activities, to being responsible for the social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being of their communities. In addition, they were given the power of general competence, which enabled them to undertake virtually any activity they fancied, even if it had little to do with their core functions.
But rather than ask the Royal Commission on Auckland to consider the effects of this legislation during their inquiry, the Labour Government specifically excluded any investigation of the Local Government Act 2002 from their terms of reference.

Local government expert Owen McShane is concerned that a unitary government for Auckland is fascist model of governance with one Uber-Mayor, one Uber Council and One Uber Plan.

The promotion of a single Uber-City with a single Uber-Mayor, reflects the classic fascist advocacy of “strength through unity.”
 The term ‘fascism’ comes from the Latin fasces which were a symbol carried by the early Estruscan Lictors – an axe wrapped in a bundle of bound sticks. The bundle of sticks reminds us that a collection of sticks can be broken one at a time, but when bound together the sticks become strong.

Former Labour Minister of Local Government Michael Bassett who oversaw the amalgamation of local government in the 1980’s has a somewhat different take on the report.

It sometimes reflects its authors’ slender knowledge of the finer points of Auckland’s local body history and politics. But it is much better than the proverbial curate’s egg: the report is good in many parts. The one city idea recognizes several things. Auckland needs a unified voice that the 29 councils prior to 1989 never provided, and the eight councils since then proved themselves unable to deliver. As one wise old dog said to me many years ago, the most difficult thing with local government is to “melt the mayoral chains”.