Where to next, Auckland?

Next year Auckland needs to appoint mayor with vision who is able to re-establish public faith in the office.

What's the worst thing that could happen to Auckland? Compared to a volcanic eruption under the Harbour Bridge, the prospect of Aucklanders electing an ineffective mayor at the 2016 local body elections is hardly the stuff of nightmares.

There is already a selection of possible candidates widely discussed in the media, though it's too early to say for sure who the frontrunners are going to be. Other than Penny Hulse, the present deputy mayor, those touted as potential candidates have a distinctly white male look. So, what happened to the city's growing "diversity"?

Does it really matter who wins anyway? The mayor, and the elected governing body as a whole, arguably have little power when weighed against the inertia of a large bureaucracy and prescriptive laws. And the sheer size and relative autonomy of council-controlled organisations that manage transport, water and most of the commercially significant assets mean there is less democratic control of Auckland's future than ratepayers may imagine.

Auckland Council also has limited influence over central government, even though decisions made in Wellington - for example, how many migrants get residency here - will significantly affect the future of the city. And the council can plan sophisticated urban spaces but, if developers don't see those designs as economically viable, they won't get built. A visionary mayor could easily become a lone voice that no one is listening to.

So, regardless of whether you prefer a centre-left or centre-right mayor, or someone more radical, when you cast your vote next year, ask yourself if your chosen candidate can really be effective. The mayor needs to lead a team of outspoken councillors and a powerful chief executive, while balancing and influencing external and internal political forces that may be beyond his or her control. As the leader of a large and populous urban and rural domain, that person must speak for the whole 'city', in all its diversity, and to articulate an ambitious, but realisable, vision for its future.

Mayor Len Brown has set the pace so far. He didn't cave in to political pressure when outed for having an affair but these revelations have tainted the mayoralty itself in many people's eyes. The next mayor will need to re-establish public faith in the office.

Transparency around the conduct of the mayor's office, as well as the mayor's professional behaviour, will have to be uppermost in his or her mind. Furthermore, he or she will need to consolidate the new unified Auckland governance model that was inaugurated in 2010.

Auckland is bedding in a unitary plan and a unified budget. Politically, these processes have made Auckland's problems more visible and the arguments around them louder. But the unification of Auckland governance is necessary if we are to grapple with those problems coherently.

In short, Auckland is going up a gear. The next mayor and the elected councillors and local board members will all share responsibility for dealing openly with the differing needs and values of Aucklanders, and the differing visions for how the city should be planned and developed.

Suburban sprawl or intensification; motorways or trains; eighteen-hole golf courses or parks and houses? As the city grows, the debates won't get any easier. Hence we need civic leaders who can engage with the people and understand complex problems and the consequences of different policy solutions.

Auckland's success is essential to New Zealand's success, and Auckland is the destination for most of the skilled migrants that New Zealand attracts. Auckland needs a mayor who includes and does not alienate diverse audiences, who can articulate a realistic, but exciting, vision for the city, and who can bring a large number of often fractious and hard-nosed people to the table and get them talking positively.

There is one last thing to consider. No one asks for higher rates, but be wary of those who talk simply of cutting them. For every dollar cut, they should give an account of what will be lost or foregone from the council's public services. Remember, there's always a long-term cost incurred in not doing something.