KEY POINTS:
Asking local body leaders to hold hands and come up with a joint recipe to reform Auckland local government was a bit like expecting the Tongan royals to suddenly embrace democracy. No one likes to surrender power.
What is amazing about the Auckland governance exercise is that the
chief executives of Auckland's eight councils have managed to agree not just to a single report, but to one that has a chance of being endorsed by their political masters right across the region.
Of course to achieve that, the joint proposal released last week had to be as bland as unsalted porridge. Which won't please those, like the radical Champions for Auckland, who are demanding revolution now.
But given the contentious and sometimes undemocratic ideas being floated by the more extreme advocates of change, maybe the approach that the chief executives are promoting is the safer way to go.
What the authors home in on is that whichever path the reform of Auckland local government takes, success will depend on "the full and active engagement of central government, including the introduction of additional funding sources".
The structural reforms being proposed are, to put it mildly, minor. Which is hardly surprising given that the amalgamation of local councils was taken off the menu before they sat down to discuss change. Also shelved were any plans of transferring responsibilities - and funding - from or to the regional council.
Instead, the focus was put on creating "an entity with the mandate to act for and speak on behalf of the region with central government" on issues such as transport, regional facilities, economic development and social issues. The emphasis was to achieve this "with the least cost" and disruption.
So what is proposed? Top of the pile is a new regional entity, the Greater Auckland Council. To be directly elected, it appears to be very like the Auckland Regional Council. One suspects the name change is solely to make it more palatable to those who have done battle with the ARC. The GAC would, we are told, have a broader role and responsibilities and have access to new funding.
Beneath it would be an advisory Regional Sustainable Development Forum, comprising elected representatives from local councils and, when appropriate, from central government and non-governmental organisations.
Designed on the existing Regional Growth Forum, it would advise the GAC on regional strategies. Its fundamental task would be to create "One Plan" for Auckland. This would not be a binding greater "district plan", but more a mission statement linking and integrating regional plans for roading, housing, urban development - you name it. Central Government would be expected to co-ordinate and work with the "One Plan".
The GAC would be funded by regional rates, by the income from the investment of Auckland Regional Holdings and by new "funding instruments". Among those suggested are ideas first proposed for financing the ill-fated waterfront stadium - regional fuel tax, regional development levies and a departure tax.
The GAC's added responsibilities would include regional tourism and events management and funding of regional facilities and amenities such as, presumably, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, surf life-saving, Auckland Museum and possibly, if Auckland City Council was willing, the zoo and the public art gallery. This would remove the need for the regional funding bill being promoted on behalf of various cash-strapped regional organisations.
The Government has shown itself keen to reform Auckland governance - in particular, to strengthen the regional council.
Whether asking the turkeys to come up with a recipe for their own roasting was a smart first move is questionable. But as with the truncated stadium debate, in the brief time allotted by Government for the region to respond, Auckland has risen to the occasion and delivered a coherent response.
Over the next week or so the local politicians will vote on whether the response is united as well.
In a perfect world, I'd have favoured a regional council, by whatever name, with more teeth than proposed. But if the reforms, as proposed, can be endorsed without major revolt and upheaval, maybe the easy path - given that it's going in the right direction - is the smart one to take.
