Editorial: Role of local boards will be crucial

John Banks said 'Local boards must have the power, influence, responsibilities and the budget to meet the needs of their residents and ratepayers.' Photo / Herald on Sunday

Opinion

One of the defining qualities of candidates for a newly united Auckland Council later this year will be the role they would give to local boards. Will these elected bodies be mere supplicants to the superior council or will they have sufficient autonomy to provision, design and maintain their suburb as its residents desire?

Everything the Super City planners have done suggests the former. Legislation has constituted the local boards as subsidiaries of the council. The statute defines the council as a two-tiered entity comprising a governing body for the region and local boards of as yet unspecified powers. Scheme statements suggest the boards will be mere conduits for information between the governing body and citizens, but they will need to be much more.

Their role will be set out in more detail soon by the Auckland Transition Agency, the body charged with the nuts and bolts decisions of amalgamating seven city or district councils into one. But whatever the agency decides will need to be endorsed, or can be rewritten, by the governing body elected in October. So far the signs are promising.

The two declared candidates for the mayoralty, John Banks and Len Brown, have both addressed the prospects for boards. Mr Banks declared in a New Zealand Herald article, "Local boards must have the power, influence, responsibilities and the budget to meet the needs of their residents and ratepayers". They could, for example, make decisions about off-licence liquor outlets in their locality, he said.

It was a good example. Just about any subject suggested for local decision will run up against the bureaucratic mindset that demands standardisation and co-ordination of all things. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance was of that mind and so are the officials advising the Minister for Local Government. So probably is the Auckland Transition Agency.

They might all say that licensing of liquor outlets cannot be left to local boards because there could be consequences outside the locality. One board's refusal of licenses could add to pressure on another. Adverse effects of a licence could be felt in neighbouring areas.

But do those matter so much as to outweigh the virtues of allowing each area to decide its priorities and character? Each can strike its own balance between peace and quiet or a local social life. A united city can be stronger for permitting a fair degree of autonomy and diversity within it.

Mr Brown's website offers the Manukau council's proposed list of activities for local determination. They include licensing of liquor, gambling, prostitution, management of local roads, footpaths, cycleways, trees on public land, libraries, swimming pools, museums, art galleries, public toilets, camping grounds, beach control.

Most of these roles will require money that will have to be allocated by the council. Boards have not been given independent revenue. But they could be allocated a bulk fund to spend on projects and services of their own choosing. Thus, says Mr Banks, Manukau could maintain free swimming pools without that being a cost to ratepayers in, say, Orewa.

The threat to local autonomy, though, may come from the removal of most day-to-day decisions from elected bodies at any level. Appointed agencies are being set up to do most of the city's work. The elected council's role could be largely limited to writing policies and long-term plans. Local boards could find themselves confined to writing subsidiary plans.

Voters want their representatives at all levels to make the concrete, often contentious, decisions they care about. Election candidates await the transition agency's interim allocation of powers with interest. But they should be prepared to do better.