Discussion: Regarding Auckland
318 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Kiaora to Mikaere's proposal.
The Green Party, in its submission to the RC, made a similar suggestion. If the commission decided on a smaller Auckland (metropolitian) council with executive powers, then:
"All the Community Council members form an electoral college, immediately after the local body elections, to vote for the members of the Auckland Metropolitan Council." (on pg 27)
The Greens also proposed two Maori Community Councils, based on electorates decided by Mana Whenua.The trick to getting the representation and governance right in Auckland is to create a relatively powerful super-city council, but also to ensure it is tightly bound to local or neighbourhood level representation as the source of it's legitimacy and accountability.
That's where the Royal Commission and the National government both failed.
-
If the commission decided on a smaller Auckland (metropolitian) council with executive powers, then:
"All the Community Council members form an electoral college, immediately after the local body elections, to vote for the members of the Auckland Metropolitan Council." (on pg 27)
The Greens also proposed two Maori Community Councils, based on electorates decided by Mana Whenua.
What an appalling idea.
So instead of voting for who might be the best person for my community board, I vote for the person who will choose the mayor I want.
And the other one is even worse. If I want resource consent to build an extension, I go to one local authority. If my Māori-enrolled neighbour wants one for the same type of extension to her house, she has to go to a separate body, who might apply the rules in different ways...
-
My source at Parliament came back regarding current levels of ethnic diversity on Auckland region's councils. This is gathered from news articles and personal statements, so is far from complete, but it looks roughly like this:
Rodney District Council - 13 councillors
1 MaoriNorth Shore City Council - 16 councillors
Waitakere City Council - 15 councillors
1 ChineseAuckland City Council - 20 councillors
1 Maori,
1 Samoan,
1 half IndianManuaku City Council - 18 councillors
1 Maori
1 Maori/Samoan
1 Samoan/Niuean
1 Polynesian/European/AsianPapakura District Council - 9 councillors
1 MaoriFranklin District Council - 13 councillors
1 IndianAuckland Regional Council - 13 councillors
So whilst rather inconclusive as to overall ethnic diversity, it does at least indicate that non-white councillors can get elected, even in that most-traditional honky enclave, Auckland City. As expected Manukau has the greatest level of diversity, but Auckland's actually far more diverse than one would've guessed.
Not perfect, certainly, and certainly not representative based on population, but also not all white. -
Graeme, you probably need to read the submission to understand properly what it means.
So instead of voting for who might be the best person for my community board, I vote for the person who will choose the mayor
The Greens opposed having a mayor - one of the current problems is that we elect somebody who thinks they have a special and different mandate from their fellow elected representatives. A chairperson elected from within the council "first among equals" would be preferable.
If I want resource consent to build an extension, I go to one local authority. If my Māori-enrolled neighbour wants one for the same type of extension to her house, she has to go to a separate body, who might apply the rules in different ways
Not at all: the "community councils" were proposed to be the ultimate source of legitimacy, representation and accountability - and should be connected as closely as possible to local communities. They wouldn't have regulatory powers, employ staff, or govern local authority organisations.
I think a problem in this whole debate is the tendency to "frame" it in terms of what we currently understand councils to be (and to do), rather than thinking more deeply about what they really ought to be.
We use the term "council" to refer to both a group of elected representatives and the organisation that they govern. But is it necessary (or even useful) for the former to govern the latter, when they might not have the skills needed for corporate governance?
-
May I recommend Jane Clifton's column in this week's Listener. Nicely put, I thought.
-
*sigh* I have enormous respect for Pita Sharples, but the fucker does insist on making it difficult if he really thinks this is "legislative racism". And while I was (and remain) dubious about the 'super-city' idea, I support anything that the cock-polisher pretending to be the Mayor of North Shore objects to as a matter of principle.
-
"community councils" - were proposed ... They wouldn't have regulatory powers, employ staff, or govern local authority organisations.
Oh! So completely impotent then?
-
If biculturalism is the first step towards multiculturalism, and if biculturalism is served by Maori seats, then multiculturalism must be served by all seats being allocated to other ethnicities.
But that isn't what biculturalism is about, James. It is about recognising that we have a shared history, and that our stories intertwine. In my understanding, anyway. A bicultural nation is not necessarily the same as a multicultural society. I would find the concept of members of each ethnicity on this, or any, "supercouncil" highly tokenistic, and somewhat superfluous. Especially as, and once again this is only my limited understanding of what's been proposed, there will still be local representative boards, which will, assumedly, be comprised of people of all sorts from that local community, or borough, or whatever it is they are calling them. And as one who has studied the Treaty pretty extensively in the past, it would seem to me that the tenets of the document - and this is open to interpretation of course - are primarily partnership, reciprocity, communication and consultation. If that is the case, then we have a constitutional obligation, do we not? So yes, I'm all about tangata whenua being a partner in the formation of this super duper mega metropolis. And let's not forget that Tamaki Makaurau is nothing if not a very important part of this nation's pre European history. Much warred over, hard won - what has changed? On another tangent, did I hear right? Will the ARC be no more? That worries me.
-
That Jackie was Hyde's argument... 'three Maori councillors would be tokenistic, so let's have none, but we may allow them to have a little advisory committee that we can ignore'.
In my view we have a national governance structure that is based on biculturalism flowing from the treaty (in the absence of a constitution), but we have an increasingly multicultural community. This is a dichotomy that seems to be perfectly appropriate and acceptable. The suggested Maori positions had nothing to do with race and everything to do with governance and guardianship. Those members would undoubtedly have struggled in the decision making processes, but at least their voices and concerns would be heard at the top table.
And yes... the ARC is abolished along with all of the rest.
-
... Mayor of North Shore...
Craig... that is a very unkind thing to say about the leader of your community!
-
... Mayor of North Shore...
Craig... that is a very unkind thing to say about the leader of your community!
.....and so it begins :)
-
So completely impotent then?
In the government's proposal, yes. In Mikaere's proposal, the community boards are the source of Councillors. Big difference.
If biculturalism is the first step towards multiculturalism
It isn't. Two different things.
-
Firstly, I work for the ARC - and I know my job will go - I always expected it to.
I fully support the concept of significant positive change in Auckland Governance - I just feel what we have been given a "negative" change in Governance. Power in Auckland will be held by only a handful of people who, if a FPP electoral system is used, could well have a "mandate for change" with around 35% of the vote.
What really worries me though is a significant item buried away on page 31 of the Government's response on the transition period.
Here the Government has chosen to ignore the recommendation for a 4 year transition and, with no real rationale as to why, gone for a 18 month transition. This is exactly what the Royal Commission (6MB) warned against given the experiences of places like Toronto that rushed their mergers and are still sorting out the mess ten years on. As the RC notes on the recent Victorian mergers which occurred over a similar period of time:
33.19 Amalgamation of councils in Victoria was achieved by disbanding existing councils and appointing commissioners (three for each new council) and interim chief executives to establish and run the new council. This occurred over an 18-month period and, as one commentator told the Commission, provided an unprecedented opportunity to change business practices, and rationalise and update systems and infrastructure, without officer or political interference. The Commission has concluded that this approach, and the effective suspension of local democracy, would not be acceptable in Auckland. It notes, however, the importance of using the opportunity provided by a reorganisation to transform working practices and systems, and of ensuring the Establishment Board has adequate powers to achieve this.
The only way such a short transition period can work is if the new super city is based on, probably, Auckland City's systems (for good and for bad). One has to wonder who lobbied for this change?
So we will miss a grand opportunity to cherry pick the best systems from across all eight councils and deliver leading practise in council services and processes.
The devil is in the detail here and the trouble is for most of us we will become aware of many of the problems such a rush merger will cause when they are unavoidable.
-
Does anybody remember the "Stronger Auckland" project?
There's a residual mention of it on the Auckland City Council website, but the primary website itself has quietly disappeared.
This was back in 2006-07, when the Labour government gave the city councils of the Auckland region an opportunity to sort things out among themselves and develop their own proposal for reform.
The proposals put forward were so limp-wristed and incompetent that the Royal Commission was established to do unto them what they couldn't do unto themselves.
The failure of the Stronger Auckland project raises some interesting questions:
> Did the Mayors and Councils not think the government was serious?
> Did the government honestly think the mayors could resolve the problem amongst themselves?
> How well advised were the Mayors and Councils by their officials?I wonder if any of the people involved in the "Stronger Auckland" project are now regretting that lost opportunity, or reflecting on their own contribution to its failure.
-
That Jackie was Hyde's argument... 'three Maori councillors would be tokenistic, so let's have none, but we may allow them to have a little advisory committee that we can ignore'.
I'm agreeing with you Roger. What I was saying was that I don't see the need for representatives of other cultures (Niuean etc) to be represented, necessarily.
-
the Government has chosen to ignore the recommendation for a 4 year transition and, with no real rationale as to why, gone for a 18 month transition.
Fran O'Sullivan thinks the urgency is related to the Rugby World Cup. That might explain the tilting of the balance in favour of central government control of most key decisions, but it may simply be an underlying belief about who gets to decide.
People think about authority differently. As we have discussed previously, George Lakoff's strong father/nurturing mother model may shed light on choosing swift, top-down processes rather than measured, inclusive, bottom-up ones. Just listen to the language coming from Key, Hide and others.
And here's Fran's list of contenders for the crucial role of heading the Establishment Board:
Sir Ron Carter, the long-term champion of the Committee for Auckland; Oxford University's John Hood, who was an active driver for a competitive Auckland; NZ Post's John Allen; Fletcher Building chairman Roderick Deane and Deloitte chairman Nick Main.
-
Myself, I believe that Key, Hide and others simply do not understand governance and citizenship.
-
Meanwhile in totally unrelated news, foo is misconstrued.
-
Myself, I believe that Key, Hide and others simply do not understand governance and citizenship.
I disagree. I think they understand them perfectly well. They just don't like them because they get in the way.
-
Admittedly, that was a generous interpretation on my part.
Wonder what corporate governance representatives like the Institute of Directors make of this?
-
Oh, and the Herald has a few minutes of streaming video of Key talking about Maori representation and why an advisory board is better than dedicated seats. Think it's the same as that earlier audio clip, but better quality (and with body language).
-
Jenni McManus reports roundtable guest Stephen Jennings declaring that MMP should be dumped because it interferes with decisiveness.
We need political leaders who can lead and manage change. "They need to be able to make policy choices quickly and efficiently," Jennings says. "We know what kind of political behaviour our current constitution generates: gradualism, populism and the quasi-corruption arising from disproportionate pandering to tiny minorities."
Apprently a handful of rich white businessmen does not count as a minority.
-
Oh, Te Standard makes the same point.
-
Oh, Te Standard makes the same point.
And it is a very sound one. They bother me as much as any other group of righteous ideologues.
Even leaving aside Jennings' participation in such a rotten economic phenomenon as the Russian oligarchy, his pronouncements seem banal to me. It really is a bit like the 90s, when the Roundtable would get airtime for any old fringe character it cared to fly in.
-
Craig... that is a very unkind thing to say about the leader of your community!
Its rather unkind of Mr. Williams to display an apparent inability to open his mouth and show that he's not functionally brain dead.Perhaps its a good thing the media has pretty much given up taking local government seriously, because the shame would be unbearable.
So we will miss a grand opportunity to cherry pick the best systems from across all eight councils and deliver leading practise in council services and processes.
Well, when you've got people like Bob Harvey and Len Brown throwing around words like "sabotage" I don't think a lengthy transition would make any difference. When was the last time any political elite gave up power willingly? And should we be a little sceptical about the "democratic" concerns of people whose own mandates could be considered rather scanty?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.