National’s ‘super city’ for Auckland is not working
Opinion: Emeritus Professor Ian Shirley
Recently the New Zealand Herald published an article by a member of the National Party under the heading: “National’s ‘super city’ for Auckland is not
working’. The article describes
how in 2008, the newly elected government in Wellington ignored the report of the Royal Commission – “its politicians
got it wrong … and imposed their own mangled monstrosity on our largest metropolis”. The problems identified in the
article refer to the way in which the current structure fails to engage the citizens of Auckland in the governance of
the region and it singles out the Council Controlled Organisations because of the way in which they operate at ‘arms
length’ from the governance of the city. These limitations were evident in 2009 when Fran O’Sullivan accused Local
Government Minister Rodney Hide of making a ‘pigs arse’ of the reforms and they underpinned my critique of the new
structure at a national policy-makers conference in Wellington in 2010.
Although the substance of my presentation was widely distributed to the news media the only report that made it into the
mainstream media was an article by Edward Rooney
, the regional news editor at NZME. The following extract is taken directly from Rooney’s article:
“A couple of weeks ago, a university professor who has been intimately involved in Auckland’s development over the past
decade launched a largely unnoticed broadside at what he describes as the demolition of local government in Auckland.
Professor Ian Shirley, Pro-Vice Chancellor of AUT University, and Professor of Public Policy…addressed the National
Policy makers Conference 2010 in Wellington. He argues that local government in Auckland will be replaced with “a
corporate structure where the major beneficiaries will be the exclusive brethren of big business, merchant bankers and a
narrow range of consultants dominated by legal and accountancy firms”.
Professor Shirley says the minister of Local Government’s plan is a badly conceived strategy that effectively undermines
local government in Auckland. “It ignores history, fails to connect in any meaningful way with the diverse populations
and neighbourhoods of the region and has established a corporate framework and process that will not gain the trust of
ratepayers”. According to Professor Shirley the policies are driven by a form of economic fundamentalism [that] equates
‘governance’ with managing a ‘business’ and reduces democracy to a token engagement in the decision-making systems of
local and regional government.
Professor Shirley says the 21 local boards proposed will be toothless. “The current prescriptions for these boards and
the minimal allocation of support services makes it clear that the boards will be largely irrelevant in
decision-making”. Further, 75 per cent of Auckland’s public assets will be transferred to Council Controlled
Organisations with the majority of directors for the CCOs appointed by government ministers. “In this case, CCOs stand
for Corporate Controlled Organisations with the elected members on local boards having little say over how those assets
are used…Overall the proposed new structure for Auckland’s governance fails to address the distinctive characteristics
of Auckland, its population profile, and its potential”.
Tragically, the conclusions reported in that presentation, based as it was on an extensive research programme, are
widely acknowledged today even by National Party members advocating a review of the ‘super-city’ structure in 2018. In
my view the last thing Auckland needs is another review of the governance system. What we need is central government
action to address the major deficits in the region and a commitment by Wellington to fulfil its role in the so-called
partnership with the local and regional government of Auckland.
Governance was not the fundamental problem facing the Auckland region in 2009. It was an obsession for politicians and
bureaucrats based in Wellington and whilst the Royal Commission was tasked with a review of local and regional
government in Auckland the report produced by the commission was extremely broad and delivered the new National
government with a comprehensive assessment of major obstacles to regional development. In a report last year
The Policy Observatory framed these obstacles as three major deficits.
The first is a deficit in Auckland’s infrastructure that has been incurred largely because of central government failure
to fund infrastructure and utilities over several decades. The failure is most evident in transport where the National
Government has consistently opposed major attempts to advance public transport in the region. This opposition was
evident when the original design for the Harbour Bridge was downgraded and as a consequence ‘clip ons’ had to be added
to cope with the volume of traffic. And later when Mayor Robbie advanced his plan for a rapid rail system the Muldoon
government scuttled the initiative opting for increasing the volume of cars and the clogging of motorways. The third
example concerns the formation of Auckland Transport, the central government silo with its own legislation and over
which the Auckland Council has little control. This allows government ministers to determine transport policy in the
region and so continue to build motorways whilst undermining Council’s attempts to advance public transport and generate
regional funding for infrastructure.
The second is a deficit in democracy, frequently referred to by citizens in council generated surveys and graphically
evident in the decision-making processes of the council controlled organisations. The reality today is that the
representative structure that has been put in place is the worst example of representative governance in Australasia.
Not only do councillors fail to represent the different cultural and social groups that make up greater Auckland, but
the small group of elected councillors are expected to serve nearly twice as many people as any other local authority in
the country and four times as many as local bodies in South Australia. There are not enough councillors to serve the
current population let alone the projected population over the next 20 years. Local boards lack the authority and
resources to deal with the neighbourhoods they represent and the various panels that have been set up to address
population diversity are effectively outside the governing body of council. This is patently evident with CCOs such as
Auckland Transport – AT has been effectively governed by successive Ministers of Transport pursuing central government’s
love affair with motorways whilst at the same time pouring cold water over those advocating a coherent public transport
system or proposals by the Mayor and council aimed at generating regionally-based funding for infrastructure and
The third is a social deficit most evident in Auckland’s housing crisis, in the widening disparities in income and
wealth, in the significant differences between ‘work rich’ and ‘work poor’ households and in neighbourhoods increasingly
separated between those who can afford access to affordable housing and core services such as health and education and
those who can’t. The failure to address this deficit can be seen in a series of downstream effects such as New Zealand’s low wage economy
, the exclusion of future generations from owning their own homes, a series of negative social indicators such as the
incidence of domestic violence and child abuse, the suicide rate especially among young people, the spate of robberies
at dairies and service stations that have dominated recent news headlines and the expansion of prison populations. NGOs
and community-based services are stretched to the limit while government ministers are seemingly intent on pacifying
criticism, diverting the attention of the news media with puerile pursuits such as tipping for hospitality services and
blaming the transport shambles on ‘big projects’ or the council itself.
These deficits cannot be addressed by council policies alone and that is patently evident when we consider who drives
policy choices such as the ‘gung ho’ approach to immigration, the demolition of state houses, the stark inequalities
between different communities and neighbourhoods across Auckland, the gridlock on regional motorways and the
environmental decline evident in the creation of ‘poo harbour
’. These obstacles require the engagement of central government but as our research demonstrates the greatest obstacle
to the development of Auckland is the failure of central government in Wellington to honour its so-called partnership
with the council and its inability to address the economic and social deficits of the Auckland region.
We don’t need another review of governance. What we need is a cleanout in September of the Wellington swamp that
delivered us ‘the super-city’ and a structural change to those policies that continue to undermine the development of