Editorial: Super City plan needs fine-tuning

Opinion

The Government's refinement of the royal commission's design for Auckland is nearly right, but not quite. The single city overlaying 20 to 30 community boards looks a better balance of power and local democracy than the commission's six subsidiary councils. But the gap between the two tiers would be wide, and that makes the electoral arrangements for the higher body more important.

The Government, conscious of the gap, perhaps, has increased from 10 to 12 the number of Auckland Council seats to be elected from constituencies, leaving eight to be elected, like the mayor, across the whole city. But why have any council seats elected city-wide?

If the purpose is to ensure that at least a core of the council takes a broad view of the city's interests, it is interesting that the same principle has not altered behaviours in Parliament. List MPs are not beholden to territorial constituencies but their behaviour is not notably different from those of colleagues representing electorates.

The 20 council seats could have electorates identical to those of 20 community boards, if the Local Government Commission settles on that number of boards. The electorates could even match parliamentary constituencies in the Auckland region. And it should be a simple matter to add two Maori seats elected from the Maori parliamentary electorates that cover the area. That would simultaneously put right two failings in the latest proposal.

The Government's explanation for not copying the parliamentary electorates is that their boundaries change, but so will council electorates, presumably, as population moves. A city of 20 constituencies, broadly contiguous with parliamentary seats and community boards, looks far more tidy than the proposal to divide Auckland into 12 wards solely for the council elections. There might be three wards on the Auckland isthmus and a fourth stretching into

West Auckland, which would have two more. North Shore might have three, Manukau three. The wards would seem too big to express the city's numerous natural communities.

They would depend on the voice of community boards and it remains to be seen how powerful that voice could be. The boards are to have responsibilities defined in legislation but no rating ability or staff to speak of. They would depend on funds allocated by the Auckland Council and could ask the council to levy a special rate in their area for them, if they dare. The recipe offers little local autonomy.

The Government envisages community boards having roles that would include dog control, liquor licensing and graffiti clean-ups. Their autonomy should go beyond those tasks. Community boards can, and should, continue to make many of the resource consent decisions that affect the character and amenities of the area but do not impinge on the wider city.

Consistency can be over-emphasised in public administration. If resource consent applicants face some different criteria from one community to the next, no harm is done.

In fact a great deal of good may result if it enables communities to keep a distinctive character, or copy criteria they see working well. One district plan for a city as diverse as Auckland would reduce all parts to their lowest common denominator.

The Government has moved with commendable haste in the hope of having the new set-up ready for local body elections late next year. But before then there needs to be some sort of reference to Aucklanders' wishes.

The way they elect their local government leaders is too important to proceed much further without clarity and consistency. This plan, with a few refinements, should win their approval.