Harold Marshall: Local empowerment still possible in era of Super City

Opinion

John Hinchcliff's piece on the Super City (June 21) was, I'm sure, intended to be "aspirational", as were the discussion documents issued by the Auckland Transition Agency several months ago.

But to use the metaphor of a previous generation, "fine words butter no parsnips". Since then, the bill has become an act and we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

Yes, there have been democratic gains over earlier versions. But there are still large gaps, particularly around the powers of the local boards.

One can understand the rationale behind the reluctance to empower local or parochial entities within the context of greater Auckland. The problems Auckland has faced due to the fragmented, piecemeal and competitive territorial governance over the recent past is the most serious issue the current legislation aims to address.

The fear was, clearly, that permitting even a hint of local empowerment in the legislation would produce more of the same.

So what are we to make of local boards and what is necessary to enable these to work as the act intends? Conceptually they are integral to the Auckland council, though distinct from the "governing body".

Communities with a sense of ownership of their board and a demand for excellence in the people elected to it have the opportunity, now, to "make something" of their board. The very looseness of the defined scope can work in the communities' favour.

"Parochial" has come to have a negative connotation in some circles. But commitment to local issues is a prerequisite to the development of pride in one's environment and "place shaping", as the royal commission has it.

Specific local issues are by definition "parochial". That is not where the problems are likely to arise: but local body power blocks derived from party political agendas are - as John Hinchcliff emphasised, too. They will produce the same old ... same old.

New faces for local issues, preferably independent, and a fresh approach are essential. A good board as a centre of local excellence that grasps the wider picture should quickly earn the respect of its constituency, the confidence of the governing body and receive the delegated authority suggested in the Act. However, as much as one dislikes the anti-democratic thrust of this situation, it could work, given goodwill and excellence on both sides.

Boards should and will, I believe in the end, be empowered to control all matters of local concern. Success here depends upon the relationship between the boards and the council support staff seconded to them.

It is pleasing to see these responsibilities outlined in much more detail in the Act commentary. The select committee and the Transition Authority have plainly grasped the rightness of the notion that council staff supporting a local board must be located locally and be accessible to the board.

Control by the local board of the quality of development, through planning and consenting staff, preparation of plans and agreements, social development, liquor outlets and the like will require staffing to levels comparable to cities with comparable populations.

The median board area population is about 60,000 with some well over 100,000. Local boards must look to their support staff also for access to council-controlled organisations in monitoring the delivery of services locally.

The human face of the service is the heart of an excellent relationship between the providers and the users. The new accommodation should be ample, central, visible and accessible in each board area, and emblematic of democracy in action.
Sir Harold Marshall is an advocate for Mt Albert as a "good place to live", a committee member of the Mt Albert Residents Association (and an expert in acoustics design and research).