12 June 2009
Media release
Millions sucked from cities and districts under flawed Super City plan
Research revealing hundreds of millions of dollars will be sucked from Auckland’s cities and districts as a result of
the Government’s flawed Super City plan underscores why it must be revisited and the second tier strengthened, says
Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesman Phil Twyford.
“University of Auckland public economics lecturer Rhema Vaithianathan has used the Royal Commission’s modelling and
adapted it to reflect the changes the Government plans to impose, to determine the economic impacts on the cities and
districts outside of Auckland City.
“The Government’s plans will result in a massive centralisation of resources within Auckland City and the research shows
how detrimental this will be to the other cities and districts economically and in terms of jobs,” Phil Twyford says.
Dr Vaithianathan’s work calculates:
• Rodney: annual regional GDP falls by up to $74 million and 270 job losses
• Waitakere: annual regional GDP falls by up to $139m, over 680 job losses
• Manukau: annual regional GDP falls by up to $189m, 702 job losses
• Franklin: annual regional GDP falls by up to $41m, 113 job losses
• North Shore: annual regional GDP falls by up to $162m, 658 job losses
“The negative economic impact is likely to be even greater than this analysis shows, as it is also likely that council
contracts that currently go to small local businesses will be lost. These contracts will be centralised and will
probably go to larger firms which can operate across the entire region.
“The Government hasn't been upfront about this, but Aucklanders deserve to know how the changes will affect them and
their communities.
“Labour has consistently supported the idea of a unitary council but, like the Royal Commission, supports a model which
gives local councils the powers and resources to deal effectively with local issues,” says Phil Twyford.
“This would lead to less centralisation than the Government model, fewer lost jobs outside of Auckland City and less
loss of spending in local communities. “
ENDS