What's the role of Auckland Council? Is it, as Mayor Len Brown claims, to help play a part solving the problems of the world such as climate change? Or should our council actually be playing a much bigger part in reducing the financial, transport and growth pressures it places on Aucklanders?
The Statistics NZ general social survey completed in March this year found 42 per cent of Aucklanders had only just enough money to meet everyday needs, or did not have enough. This was before Mr Brown's average 9.9 per cent rates increase kicking in from July 1.
While boosting rates five times more than inflation, the mayor also presided over a $2 million cut in parks maintenance, against the advice of some of council's parks staff and virtually all local boards. Library hours were reduced for 24 libraries for "standardisation" reasons, not on any assessment of what communities actually need.
As I travel around the region, it is not the members of the so-called Flat Earth Society who are objecting to his travel to Paris, it's the members of the dozens of residents and ratepayers associations in Auckland who have to cope with the consequences of these decisions.
As these groups wrestle with their self-funded Unitary Plan mediation sessions or prepare to pay their second rates instalment next week, or sit bumper-to-bumper on one of Auckland's roads, their minds are less likely to be on what overseas travel options might help the Auckland Council address these issues.
The mayor's Auckland Plan creates this problem. It has 13 key strategic directions, climate change is one and so is transport. They look to have equal standing, despite our transport system being a much more real and present threat to our way of life in Auckland. And containing the cost of council or improving efficiency doesn't even appear as a strategic direction.
The mayor is unlikely to muse on this disconnect as he flies to Paris. He won't lead the next rewrite of the Auckland Plan and it will fall to those of us standing to replace him to be clear on the direction we will take. My direction is to focus council much better on the areas it can influence.
This isn't a debate about climate change. Citizens, businesses, councils and governments should all take action to minimise the impact we have on the planet. But the biggest climate change results will come from the largest economies in the world (the biggest contributors) agreeing to credible plans. New Zealand accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of global emissions and obviously Auckland's contribution is even smaller than that.
Two thirds of Auckland's emissions are in two areas: road transport and manufacturing and industrial energy. Significant changes are already happening in transport, such as Auckland's move to electric trains. Our other key lever around industry is land use and activity planning and we have already made decisions in the draft Unitary Plan in this area.
The Government amended the Local Government Act in 2012 to change the definition of its purpose from the four well-beings introduced by Sandra Lee in 2002 - the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities. It did this because rate increases were running at more than double the rate of inflation.
The new definition focused councils on good local infrastructure, local public services and performance of regulatory functions. It was hoped this would help reduce Auckland's rates increases " but it has so far failed. The Auckland Plan was developed under the four well-beings and further legislative change may be needed.
The Auckland Council should be supporting the efforts of individuals, business and government to deal with the acknowledged threats of a changing climate. But we can have much more influence on the financial, transport and growth climate struggles Aucklanders face each day if the current mayor, and the next one, would spend less time on the world stage.
Mark Thomas is a candidate for Mayor of Auckland.