KEY POINTS:
I'm no bush lawyer, but it stands to reason that if the stadium project might grind to a halt through lack of public consultation, then the fast-track review of Auckland governance could be on shaky legs as well.
Yesterday, Auckland University constitutional law expert Bill Hodge and Victoria
University law lecturer Dean Knight said the lack of public consultation in the rushed debate over the stadium was open to court challenge.
In their opinion, requirements under the Local Government Act to consult were not being observed.
If that is so, then what about the equally frenetic and basically secret scramble to respond to Government demands that Auckland's councils come up with plans to reform the governance structure of the region?
The Local Government Act clearly states "a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter".
More to the point, the act requires this consideration of community views to be an ongoing process, identifying consultation points such as "the stage at which the problems and objectives related to the matter are defined" and "the stage at which reasonably practicable options are assessed and proposals developed".
Further, affected persons "should be encouraged by the local authority to present their views to the local authority". In other words, there is a requirement to consult throughout the decision-making process, not just at the "take it or leave it" end-stage.
To give some politicians their due, this lack of consultation (as far as the governance debate is concerned at least), has been a matter of concern.
At the November 9 meeting of the Auckland City Council, Citizens and Ratepayers councillor Doug Armstrong moved "that council note that the current deliberations on this important issue are devoid of public and ratepayer input. Accordingly council resolve to formally convey to government and other Auckland territorial local authorities ... that it considers that no change should take place without support for that change being tested by a referendum ... "
Labour councillors Richard Northey and Bruce Hucker, the deputy mayor, managed to have this watered down to get a unanimous resolution that noted the lack of public and ratepayer input and "accordingly" agreed "to convene public hearings on possible changes to Auckland regional governance in order to test and listen to public views and the level of public support for various options" and to convey the results to the Government "before it makes decisions on any potential legislative or structural change".
However this belated consultation will not take place until next February at the soonest, long after Auckland City and the region's seven other councils dispatch their recommendations off to central Government. Whether this meets the legislative requirement for Auckland City to consult before it makes a decision is surely debatable.
Also belatedly consulting is the Auckland Regional Council, which this week, at the behest of chairman Mike Lee, advertised a public meeting this Saturday at the ARC's council chamber.
It is "scheduled for 10am to 1.30pm (or later if necessary)" and consultees are asked to forward a copy of any submissions beforehand.
The indecent haste surrounding governance reform was sparked off by the "Big Four" mayors going feral in early September and proposing the formation of a greater Auckland council sitting over the top of three new, and largely impotent, city councils.
The regional council struck back with a plan for an enhanced version of itself. In response, central government ordered the warring parties to come up with a reform package and get it to Wellington by early December. Any later, and there would be no time for legislative changes in time for next October's local elections.
On November 3, a joint working party duly issued a discussion paper proposing ways to strengthen regional governance. The eight councils were supposed to have responded by Monday this week.
The governance working party were supposed to analyse these replies and come up with a final recommendation which was to be sent back to councils for further comment by this Friday. This deadline has now been set back a week.
Which is hardly surprising. From what I can make out, there is still strong division about the path ahead.
Public consultation might have clarified things but we don't know because so far ratepayers have not been trusted to have an opinion.
