Fran O'Sullivan: Auckland, a most suitable case for political agreement

If ever Labour and National wanted to publicly demonstrate that they were prepared to put competition aside in the national interest, they should put dysfunctional Auckland at the top of their list as a candidate for concerted action.

It's obvious from yesterday's public comments by Finance Minister Michael Cullen and National's John Key that the pair are basically on the same page when it comes to dealing with the morass of issues affecting the country's biggest metropolis.

But neither side has been prepared, yet, to get into a public scrap with the competing mayoral egos and bring some rationality in the form of one super-city.

In some quite frank comments, Cullen has given a strong indication that central Government would be prepared to give the process of centralisation in Auckland a big shove.

He's had to deal repeatedly with the frustrations brought about by trying to bring some sense to the Auckland infrastructure agenda and must long for the day when central Government has to deal with just a single authority.

But he's set some conditions.

Top of the list would be the requirement that a basic consensus is formed at the local authority level before the Government is asked to pass legislation to amalgamate greater Auckland's five major cities.

Then there's the issue of his Auckland parliamentary colleagues to take into account.

Notably, though he does not say so out loud himself, that includes the position of Prime Minister Helen Clark, who has an Auckland electorate seat and may not be too tickled at the notion of dealing with a local authority with real punch to wield in Wellington.

Key also concedes the need to address the tangled issues that make Auckland inefficient.

But getting both sides to line up on the issue might prove difficult without some politicians who have the national interest in mind and can drive a joint agenda which could not be upset by the small parties that have to be factored into the equation when getting a parliamentary majority.

Quite a few of the 200 or so businesspeople at yesterday's breakfast launch of this year's Mood of the Boardroom report told me after the event that it was a shame National and Labour couldn't join forces to run a referendum on the MMP system this year.

MMP, as the report illustrated, is a mixed bag as far as business is concerned. Some chief executives believe the Government would not be undertaking a major review of business taxation without the compromises forced on it by United Future leader Peter Dunne after last year's election.

Some 74 per cent of CEOs surveyed were concerned about MMP's impact whereas just 21 per cent were not concerned.

This stance is replicated among small- to medium-sized business heads, where 71 per cent of those canvassed from Business New Zealand's membership had issues with MMP in practice and just 25 per cent did not.

Cullen and Key suggest a formalised grand coalition of the two parties wouldn't fly. But if the two parties can form a bipartisan consensus on external trade and foreign affairs, why not try something closer to home?

Yesterday's Mood of the Boardroom debate was not the fiery set-to the pair displayed in their pre-election match.

There was mutual respect on offer.

Getting the pair on the same side as far as Auckland's future is concerned would probably do as much for growth as tax cuts.