The Royal Commission recommended the mayor hold at least four annual meetings with the public and deliver an annual 'state of the region address'. Photo / Michael Craig, File
OPINION
The Supercity was not just about changing organisational structures.
The Royal Commission's report also addressed the people dimension. It stressed the importance of having the right people as mayor and councillors. It emphasised the leadership role of the Mayor – developing a vision and implementing it.
In my view, in the four elections held since 2010 for the Supercity, Auckland voters have has chosen the mayors - and councillors - wisely.
Len Brown articulated the vision of Auckland as a liveable city and persuaded a reluctant government to partly fund the city rail loop. Phil Goff, as an experienced political hand and former minister, understands the need for tradeoffs, knows how to run a council and to manage the relationship with central government.
Good councillors have been elected from both the right and the left. Desley Simpson and Chris Darby who respectively chair the important finance and planning committees are highly competent councillors across this spectrum.
It is sometimes said that the Auckland mayoralty is the second most powerful position in New Zealand - after the Prime Minister. Hardly.
While the mayor appoints the deputy mayor and the committee chairs and proposes the annual budget and long-term plans they have only one vote of 21 around the council table. Getting these plans and their related strategies passed and then implemented requires a good analytical brain, persuasion, taking good advice and relating to the elephant in any council meeting – central government.
The mayor must be able to work constructively with councillors – and with senior management.
Consider carefully which mayoral candidates have the personal qualities to do this.
The mayor must also relate well with Auckland's diverse citizenry which now includes roughly 25 per cent Asian, 15 per cent Pasifika and 11 per cent Māori.
The mayor must be visible to the public across the whole city - getting out and about. They need to show empathy as well as action.
The Royal Commission report recommended that the mayor hold a minimum of four annual meetings with members of the public and deliver an annual "state of the region address". What does each candidate think about this?
The mayor is also the public face of the city – not only in Wellington but across New Zealand and internationally. They need to speak well and make us proud.
How does each candidate measure up here?
The mayor needs to understand the important role played by council staff. Attacking or upbraiding them will not produce results.
Mayoral candidates' policies should be based on facts and financial literacy. A candidate saying Auckland is financially broke, when the law requires the council to have a balanced budget each year, suggests neither applies in their case.
There are questions would ask, based on my experience.
After 10 years of the Supercity, it's time to take stock of what is working and what isn't. This should be driven by the council, not the government. Do the candidates agree? Would they conduct a review of Auckland's rating system as part of this?
We can assume that all candidates support better public transport – but perhaps more for other people. How will they work to improve it? Do they favour free public transport – in my view a good mechanism to address cost of living challenges – and if so how do they think the cost can be met?
Some candidates promise to reduce rates by cutting bureaucracy and concentrating on "core services". In my view they are delusional. Auckland City has made plenty of savings already. And do they consider "core services" include sporting grounds, libraries and art galleries?
Relatedly, candidates who complain about Auckland's debt and promise to reduce it are in my view, financially illiterate. Debt is a sound way of financing long-term assets and Auckland's debt is within prudential limits. Query them on this.
For me, the Port of Auckland is exactly where it should be – in Auckland. Moving it to Whangārei would involve huge economic and environmental costs. Clearly, it needs to work much better – and those cars need to be sent from the wharf to Wiri or wherever as soon as they are unloaded. The comings and goings of a working port can surely be visually interesting. What do they think?
Climate change is the existential challenge of our time. Particularly, if we have younger people in our lives, we should be doing everything we can for them to reduce emissions. That will also save us cost in the long run. What concrete plans do the candidates have on climate action?
The Royal Commission recommended that two Māori members should be elected by voters on the parliamentary electoral roll plus one member appointed by the mana whenua forum. What are the candidates' views on Maori representation on Auckland Council?
These are the hard questions I suggest voters should be asking. We deserve good answers. In fact, Auckland deserves nothing less.
• David Shand was a member of the 2008-9 Royal Commission that recommended the setting up the Supercity, chair of the 2007 Inquiry into the Local Government Rates and a former OECD and World Bank official.
The boy’s family and friends came together this week to farewell him at his home.
Comments