Editorial: City leaders need to end power play

Opinion

The effectiveness of the Mayor of Auckland City does not, strictly speaking, depend on a close association with the council's dominant group. Personality and powers of persuasion can carpet over significant differences. Dame Catherine Tizard, who, like the incumbent, Dick Hubbard, was an independent, made things happen even though she was distant ideologically from her council's conservative majority.

But an independent mayor must be able to work with the dominant group. If not, the position bestows nothing more than figurehead status. As worthy and well-meaning as a mayor may be, and as many ribbons are cut, little of substance will be achieved.

Unlike Dame Catherine, Mr Hubbard came to power sharing an apparent broad measure of agreement with the City Vision-Labour group that dominated the new council. Nonetheless, severe cracks in the relationship appeared quickly, and his mayoralty has staggered under the weight of collision and contradiction. At the outset, Bruce Hucker, the leader of the council majority, announced a social blueprint without informing Mr Hubbard. The mayor's response was a failed attempt to dump Dr Hucker as his deputy.

Since that inauspicious start, there have been further inklings of an ongoing power struggle. Most recently, Mr Hubbard has been pressured to throw his support behind an affordable housing scheme, and has had control of the Civic Carpark leaky roof crisis wrested from him. Increasingly, his sizeable public mandate is being undermined by indications of ineffectiveness.

In a sense, this was always on the cards. Mr Hubbard is a political novice. Dr Hucker, in contrast, knows local-body politics back to front. Further, he has won council dominance after a long time in the cold, and only after his own chance of becoming mayor had been squashed by Mr Hubbard.

Dr Hucker withdrew from last year's election following Mr Hubbard's entry and a poll that put his support at just 3.4 per cent. Unpopularity has not, however, prompted his acceptance of a behind-the-scenes role. As the mayor sought to get to grips with his new job, Dr Hucker was busy planting his own imprint. Rather than leave the cheerleading of council policy - and of Auckland - to Mr Hubbard, Dr Hucker has set about claiming headlines for himself.

The approach is short-sighted, and not only because of its impact on the mayor's standing. John Banks wants the mayoralty back, and will challenge strongly at the next election. While he was soundly defeated by Mr Hubbard, his singular style will always attract a significant body of support, one unlikely to be matched by a City Vision-Labour candidate. And that level of support will undoubtedly increase in proportion to the infighting, wheeler-dealing and inaction that afflicts this council.

Both Mr Hubbard and the City-Vision-Labour majority need to come to terms with their respective roles if their tenure is not to end in disappointment and defeat. Mr Hubbard must be given every opportunity to develop the image, style and leadership his supporters thought he would bring. And to vigorously pursue policies, including those distinguishing him from the council majority. Dr Hucker, for his part, needs to acknowledge Mr Hubbard's mandate, and the potential cost of devaluing it.

An end to the friction is essential, not only for the parties involved, but for Greater Auckland. What happens in Auckland City has widespread repercussions. When it involves petty politicking at the expense of addressing the city's many woes, everyone suffers.