KEY POINTS:
Prime Minister Helen Clark needs to ensure the royal commission of inquiry into Auckland's governance has teeth and is armed with the best people to do the job.
Right now, the royal commission looks little more than a useful political fig leaf for a government that does not
want to take tough decisions as far as Auckland is concerned.
The issue is far too important for Clark to leave to Local Government Minister Mark Burton to run.
It needs committed support from the big guns in Cabinet: herself, Deputy PM Michael Cullen and Economic Development Minister Trevor Mallard.
Behind the scenes in Wellington much thought is going into the make-up of the commission and its terms of reference, which are critical.
On the table (so far) is a rather anodyne statement by Burton which simply says the commission will examine and report on what local and regional governance arrangements are required for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future.
"It will provide the opportunity for a broader and independent assessment of what is needed to achieve Auckland's potential."
It's not as if there hasn't been plenty of broad and (relatively independent) assessments of what is needed to achieve Auckland's potential in the first place.
Think of the Auckland Regional Economic Development Strategy chaired by businessmen Peter Menzies and then Sandy Maier. Or, the Metro Project - co-chaired by Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO Michael Barnett and Deloitte chair Nick Main - which is now developing a plan to transform Auckland into an internationally competitive city.
Or the "big bang" Greater Auckland Council that businessmen like Stephen Tindall and Main tried to pull off last year after collaboration with the mayors of the four largest cities.
That would have resulted in business people (and possibly Government representatives) being appointed to the super governance body to bring more driving force to the politically elected councillors' deliberations.
But their radicalism lost out to the evolutionary approach favoured by the councillors and their CEOs after the mayors' courage deserted them.
It would simply be a waste of time if the commission is asked to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and examine alternatives.
Auckland has been there before.
The commission should be asked to come up with, and address, clear options:
* One Auckland super city (favoured by business). Could the model work, what would it deliver, how many eggs/egos need to be broken to get there?
* Two Auckland cities (North and South of the harbour bridge). Is this a useful intermediary step to get to "One City" over a 20-year period?
* Three Auckland cities (favoured by Manukau's Sir Barry Curtis) divided on clear "community of interest lines". Would this work or would it simply turn out to be a "second best" option for those scared of moving to a single city?
The commission should examine the various structures to represent community interests that have been advocated by groups like the Employers and Manufacturers Association which is fronting the Fix Auckland campaign.
Does Auckland really need the 50-plus community boards the EMA promotes, or, does this just add another layer of costly bureaucracy?
It should take a best-practice approach and examine where Auckland sits against regional competitors like Brisbane, and look at what's needed to catch up.
The terms of reference also need to be wide enough to canvass the hot issues that the mayors and the city-regions' CEOs could not reach agreement on during their negotiations on the Auckland Regional Project which was also endorsed by Burton on Monday.
Those negotiations resulted in "strengthened regional council" - possibly called Greater Auckland - which would add tourism management, significant events management and regional economic development to the existing roles of the Auckland Regional Council.
A "One Plan for Auckland" would be developed through the Regional Sustainable Development Forum (a committee of Greater Auckland).
But they did not reach agreement on the major infrastructure issues: Why Auckland needs a multiplicity of agencies to run costly infrastructure like transport, waste management, sewerage, water and so forth.
If the commission is to come up with an assessment of what's needed to reach Auckland's potential it needs to appoint independent working groups in all these areas whose members would not be hostage to current council ownership structures.
The usual suspects are being sounded out for what will be a lucrative brief.
There's been quite a bit of jockeying going down for either a berth on the commission itself, or, roles in driving the various working groups that are expected to emerge.
It's important that soundings are taken with key Auckland players, so the net result is not seen as a) another backdoor power-play by those in the Wellington bureaucratic power elite that fears a strong Queen city, or b) the upshot of soundings taken by Wellington lobbyists with a vested interest in a status quo.
This doesn't just mean canvassing the mayors and leading lights of the seven Auckland councils and the Auckland Regional Council (some of these people will lose their positions anyway in the October local body elections, and, are unlikely to figure strongly in the cast of contenders that put their names forward for any new Auckland governance structure that emerges for the 2010 elections).
It means taking soundings from the business people who have put their reputations on the line and contributed to the vast body of reform work that sits waiting for a go-ahead regional council to run with.
Committee for Auckland chairman Sir Ron Carter is a case in point. Sir Ron has been a voice of reason in arguing - amongst his own members and to Government - for taking a structured approach to reforming Auckland's governance.
He advised the Government not to proceed with half-measures to reform Auckland's governance - after the mayors, the councils and chief executives came up with their evolutionary approach.
Sir Ron was a member of the review panel that reported on the 1992 electricity shortage.
He also chaired the panel which reviewed the 1994 water shortage and chaired the review team on the management of New Zealand's borders.
His contention is that Auckland will get only one chance at significant governance reforms in this generation - best, therefore, to do it properly.
There are other notables with skin in the game at the Government/local authority interface.
But if the commission is to have credibility, the Prime Minister cannot leave the next stage to Mark Burton to front.
