April 2009
The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance ("the Commission") considers there is a case for change in Auckland. In its report presented to the Government on 25 March 2009, it recommended a restructure of local governance in Auckland, creating what many are calling a "Super City" with a strengthened Auckland Council looking after the entire Auckland region supported by six weakened local councils (which have less power than the current city and district councils). The Commission stated in its report that it considers that the recommendations should be adopted in their entirety, with urgency to be ready for the 2010 local body elections.
The Government released its decision on the Commission's recommendations on 7 April 2009. It accepted a move to a single city, but made several key changes to the Commission's recommendations, including rejecting the six proposed local councils and instead creating 20-30 local boards (broadly similar to the existing community boards).
The Commission was established by the Government in October 2007 to inquire into the local government arrangements in Auckland. The Commission's broad terms of reference were to investigate and report on:
- the current and future well-being of the Auckland Region and its communities; and
- the Region's contribution to wider national objections and outcomes.
The Commission received over 3,500 written submissions and heard approximately 500 of those submitters in 2008. The Commission also undertook extensive research of its own that contributed to its recommendations which span a report of over 800 pages.
The Commission's report was released publically on 27 March 2009. The full report is publically available on the Commission's website, www.royalcommission.govt.nz.
Click here to review the Government's decision on the Commission's recommendations.
A big shake up is recommended for the way Auckland is locally governed. The Commission recommended that the current Auckland Regional Council ("ARC"), the seven territorial city and district councils and all community boards (with two exceptions) be abolished and replaced by a completely new structure. This recommended new structure would see a new regionally responsible council created, to be known as Auckland Council, which is to be supported by six smaller local councils.
In the Commission's view, the establishment of a single, region-wide unitary authority will aid in achieving strong and effective governance as well as overcoming current fragmentation and co-ordination problems, and allowing for more decisive and visible leadership.
The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation to have one unitary Auckland Council govern Auckland as a whole, as the highest tier in the local governance hierarchy. However, the Government has rejected the recommendation to have six local councils in favour of 20‑30 community boards.
Auckland Council
The proposed Auckland Council would assume all local government responsibilities in the region, having the powers and responsibilities of both a regional council and territorial authority. The Auckland Council will operate as a unitary authority under the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The Commission proposes that Auckland Council will produce, manage and a implement one long-term council community plan, one spatial plan, one district plan, one rating system and one rates bill. The centralised strategy, planning and implementation of these key region policies is considered by the Commission to provide the ability for Auckland to have "one voice", the current lack of which was one of the main criticisms that came out of the submission process. The Commission has emphasised that the Auckland Council not be a strengthened ARC but that it is a completely new entity, as it considers that ARC's experiences as a regulatory body does not equip it as an operation and service delivery organisation.
The Government has endorsed Auckland Council producing one long-term council community plan ("LTCCP"), one land use plan, one regional infrastructure investment plan and one economic development plan.
Auckland Council's core functions as proposed by the Commission can be summarised under three key heads:
- Regional policy and plan making;
- Regional network/service delivery; and
- Administrative Services.
The Commission proposes that the Auckland Council is to be an elected body, using a new electoral constituency structure. The total number of elected councillors is 23, plus an elected mayor. The Commission's proposed constituencies and ratios are as follows:
- ten elected region-wide;
- eight from the four urban wards;
- two from the two rural wards;
- two from the voters on the Māori electoral roll;
- one appointed by the mana whenua.
This structure where some councillors are elected region-wide and some from identified wards is an interesting compromise to address issues raised in the submission process. For example, there were concerns expressed that if all councillors were elected from identified wards there would be a risk that politician's "patches" would be protected to ensure re-election rather than region-wide issues being promoted. Conversely, there were concerns of there not being enough community input into decision making (with some sharing the view that the current community boards were not effective in this respect). The Commission appears to have sought to reach a solution to ensure that the region's needs are not compromised by local political agendas, while ensuring that regional interests are prioritised.
The Government has decided to have a total of 20 elected councillors on Auckland Council plus a mayor. The Government has decided to reject the Commission's proposed constituency structure (including rejecting the three Maori councillor seats, which the Government states can be provided for under alternative procedures under the Local Electoral Act 2001) and rather adopt the following:
- eight councillors elected at large across the region; and
- 12 elected from wards.
The Commission recommends that all staff, all assets and all liabilities from the existing councils within the Auckland region be transferred to the Auckland Council so that it will control all council assets and employ all staff. The Government has endorsed this approach.
The Commission proposes that the Auckland Council would have an elected mayor with increased powers. This election would be region-wide. There has been some criticism in the media that this approach will lead to a popularity contest for Auckland's "celebrities". An elected mayor has the potential to be a strength for Auckland but it is crucial that they have the essential policy, strategy and delivery skills to "run" a regional city. The Government has accepted this recommendation to have a region-wide elected mayor to head the Auckland Council.
One key aspect of the mayor's proposed increased powers is the ability to appoint his or her deputy mayor and the various committee chairs. The mayor will also be responsible for proposing the Auckland City budget and strategic direction, and staffing the mayoral office.
The mayor will be supported by a CEO, who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Auckland Council.
The Commission also recommends that there be a new Minister created, the Minister for Auckland, who would be a senior cabinet Minister. The Government has rejected this recommendation and instead has decided to establish a temporary Cabinet Committee to oversee the transition to the new Auckland Council, which will be chaired by the Minister for Local Government.
Local Councils
In addition to the Auckland Council, the Commission proposed to maintain local democracy through six elected councils operating within the unitary Auckland Council. That is, not separate from but supporting the Auckland Council. "Local councils" would oversee the delivery of delegated services and would undertake local engagement in four urban and two rural districts (based on the existing council territories of North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau Cities, and Franklin and Rodney Districts). These local councils would not be autonomous bodies and would not enjoy the open-ended power of competence under the Local Government Act 2002.
The Commission's proposed local councils would be responsible for local service delivery but importantly the Auckland Council would be prohibited from delegating regional strategy planning; levying rates; making by-laws; and making regional or district plans or changes.
The local councils would be elected in a ward based system and the number of councillors is intended to be a ratio of one for every 20,000 people. A chair would be appointed by the elected councillors and one of the chairs biggest roles would be to speak at full Auckland Council meetings (but they would not have voting rights). A new councillor would be brought in following the appointment of the chair, which would be the next highest polling candidate in his/her ward.
The primary purpose of the local councils would be to "place-shape" to ensure that its area is a great place to live and work. One of the local councils' tasks would be to produce a three yearly community action plan, which would be referred to Auckland Council for adoption. The local council would not have the power to levy rates, so in order to fund a project in the community action plan they will be able to request the Auckland Council to set rates for those projects, but the levies will be targeted to the specific community.
The boundaries of the new local councils were proposed by the Commission to be largely centred on the existing council territories of (with some important boundary adjustments) Rodney District, North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, and Manukau Cities, and Franklin District, thus enabling new local councils to utilise existing infrastructure and service centres. The Commission proposed to rename many of the councils as follows:
- North Shore becomes Waitemata;
- Auckland becomes Tamaki-makau-rau;
- Huna is the new Franklin (and includes the rural parts of Manukau and Papakura);
- Waitakere retains its name;
- Manukau retains its name and includes the urban parts of Papakura; and
- Rodney retains its name.
The Government rejected the Commission's recommendation to create six local councils and instead has decided to have 20 - 30 community board type bodies. The boundaries and number of these new bodies is to be determined by the Government prior to the 2010 elections.
One interesting ability of the proposed local councils under the Commissioner's proposal is that they would be able to make submissions on any draft region-wide plans, policies, and service standards of the Auckland Council. The report states that this would "advise" the Auckland Council of relevant community views and needs. It will be interesting to see whether the Government will decide to enable the new 20-30 local boards to submit on Auckland Council's documents. This could potentially cause issues where local boards use the RMA to hold the region to ransom over local issues, by challenging and potentially delaying regional planning initiatives.
Community Boards / Local Boards
The Commission recommended that the community boards be abolished in the new governance model with the exception of the Great Barrier (5 members) and Waiheke Island Community Boards (5 members), which are recommended to be retained, with wider delegated powers. The Government's decision to create 20‑30 local boards (similar to the old community boards) instead of the Commission's proposed sixed local councils is to give the public more access to decision making through increased grassroots democracy.
The Government has decided that the boards' role will be to advocate to Auckland Council for their local area but will not have the power to independently raise revenue or hire staff. They will have the opportunity to have input in Auckland Council's plan, but the form or capacity of such input is not clear at this stage.
Boundaries
The boundaries of the Auckland region proposed by the Commission are to remain unchanged to the north and for the Hauraki Gulf. In the south the Commission recommended that the boundary between the Auckland and Waikato regions will be changed in two ways:
- The area currently in the Waikato region north of the Waikato River, including Tuakau, Pokeno, and Mercer, is to be included in the Auckland region.
- The area currently in the Auckland region and Franklin District, bordering the Firth of Thames from Matingarahi Point to Whakatiwai, is to be included in the Waikato region.
Adjustments to territorial authority boundaries are proposed by the Commission to reflect the new regional boundary. The Commission would see Papakura consumed by Manukau and Huna; and the parts of the Franklin District that will be outside the new Auckland region, including Onewhero and Kaiaua, will be transferred to Waikato District. These boundary adjustments would impact on those with properties or interests in this area. The amended boundaries may involve consequential changes to the district and regional planning regime and ratings system for these areas.
The Government declined to make any final decisions on the boundaries stating that these are particularly complex issues to be dealt with in regard to the southern boundaries. It has committed to final boundary decisions being confirmed in time for the 2010 elections.
Under its terms of reference, the Commission was not able to make any "recommendations on the quantum of central or local government funding needed to support the Auckland region". One issue it did comment on was that many rate payers did not understand the rating system. Interestingly, the Commission did go as far as to say that the Auckland Council should have a uniform rating system ("rating valuation basis and level of any uniform annual general change") for the whole region, as opposed to the many different systems employed across the Auckland Region at present. It also recommends a single rates bill rather than the two currently paid.
In terms of the funding and financial aspects of the proposed new Auckland Council, the Commission recommends that the Auckland Council be responsible for budgeting control, asset management, debt management and revenue raising. All financial assets and liabilities would be held by the Auckland Council (with any existing assets held by district or city councils being transferred). This will have an impact on any company or body that is owned, partly owned or controlled by the ARC or any of the district or city councils. The Government has accepted this recommendation.
This will have particular relevance to any body that is a council organisation or a council controlled organisation. The transfer of assets to the Auckland Council may in some cases mean that what was previously a council organisation becomes (through the joining of council interests) a council controlled organisation. This type of change will produce new relationships and is likely to give rise to new operational or practical challenges.
The Government chose to specifically comment on rates in its decision, where it confirmed that one rates bill was appropriate across the region, which fund both regional activities, and local services and activities for local boards to carry out their functions. The Auckland Council will also have the ability to levy locally targeted rates on request from a local board for local projects.
This region wide charge could provide a significant opportunity for businesses to continue to influence rating and development contributions policies in the Auckland region. Refer to part 3, 7 and part 4, 20 of the Commission's report and page 20 of the Government's decision for further details of the proposed changes.
Transport
Major changes are proposed by the Commission in relation to transport in Auckland. The primary objective of the restructure is for all transportional elements to come under one centralised body that would be a council-controlled organisation under the Auckland Council. This body will report back to the Infrastructure Committee of the proposed Auckland Council.
The Commission recommends that ARTA be abolished and replaced with a new Regional Transport Authority ("RTA"), proposed to be in partnership with both the New Zealand Transport Agency and ONTRACK. The RTA will jointly plan and manage the State Highways and arterial roads in the region with NZTA, and will take over the control and planning of regional arterial roads which was the domain of territorial authorities. In terms of rail, the Report proposes a joint approach to issues, including system development, train control and maintenance.
RTA's key focuses will be regional transport (including public transport), strategic planning and regional arterial roads (local roads will be the domain of local councils with an overview by the new RTA). The aim is that all transport elements (including roading, rail, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists) be under the management of this new body. It is to be governed by a Board appointed by Auckland Council, and will be a Council controlled organisation.
It is proposed that it will also be responsible for preparing Auckland's Regional Public Transport Plan. RTA will take over all public transport infrastructure and develop a regional public transport plan. The Commission also considers that priority should be given to developing an integrated ticketing system.
The lack of a clear strong CBD to Airport link was seen by the Commission as a key issue that will be addressed by the RTA. The Commission's report also notes that successful operation of the Port depends on rapid and convenient access and an integrated transport system (especially road and rail) and this is another matter of high priority.
The Government has endorsed the Commission's recommendation in relation to the creation of RTA (as a council-controlled organisation) but has rejected the proposed joint relationship with ONTRACK and NZTA.
The Government also decided that control over local roads will be held by RTA, not by the lower tiers of local governance.
Electricity
The Commission recommends that the Auckland Council works closely with consumers, the industry and central government agencies to develop an energy strategy that also addresses climate change issues. The Commission set out the following list that it considers the Auckland Council should be responsible for in relation to electricity issues:
- Assessing the energy industry's performance and the implications for Auckland.
- Monitoring essential service and public infrastructure risks.
- Ensuring its decision making is consistent with central government policy.
- Advocating Auckland's needs to the industry players and to central government agencies.
- When necessary, obtaining independent expert advice to provide public assurance on security of supply for the region.
- Keeping Auckland's communities resilient and prepared for any interruption to electricity supply.
The Commission acknowledged submissions that pointed out that consenting processes need improvement to allow the energy section to make significant investments, which will allow generation to happen. The Commission considers that this particular issue has been responded to by central government through its national policy statement on electricity transmission (2008).
The proposed energy strategy may provide an opportunity for businesses to be involved in the creation of regional policy.
Water
The Commission has recommended a fundamental change to the way water, wastewater and stormwater services are supplied to the Auckland region. Currently, there is one wholesale supplier of bulk water in Auckland (Watercare) which supplies bulk water to six of the seven territorial authorities (Franklin District Council has its own water supply scheme). Watercare also provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to four of those six councils (North Shore City and Rodney District Councils undertake their own wastewater treatment and disposal). All seven territorial authorities currently provide retail water and wastewater services in their districts through council controlled organisations, private companies or directly. There is currently no detailed plan for stormwater management and funding at a regional level as each of the seven territorial authorities owns and operates its own stormwater assets.
Essentially, the Commission has recommended that the currently fragmented water services industry in Auckland be integrated, and that Watercare assumes statutory responsibility for all water and wastewater services in the entire Auckland region. This means that the water and wastewater operations (including assets and relevant staff) of all abolished local authorities would be transferred to Watercare, at no cost. This includes the water and wastewater operations of the Rodney, North Shore City, Waitakere City, Papakura District and Franklin District Councils, Metrowater and Manukau Water Limited.
The Commission sees improved demand management as a key reason for integrating responsibility for both bulk and retail water and wastewater services in one entity, Watercare. The Commission reasons that the funding of capital works relating to water supply and disposal by that one entity will mean there are financial incentives to keep demand within steady, planned parameters. Further, the Commission suggests statutorily requiring Watercare to promote demand management.
Other recommendations consequent to the vertical integration of water services in Watercare include:
- Watercare should become a council-controlled organisation wholly owned by the (new) Auckland Council (currently Watercare is a council organisation with its ownership shared between six councils). The Auckland Council should have overall responsibility for setting policy objectives and strategic direction for water services. Long-term planning and investment decisions should be made by Watercare's (expert) board.
- Watercare should also be involved in the planning and delivery of stormwater services, but it is envisaged that Auckland Council will set regional priorities and determine the extent to which responsibility for delivery of stormwater services should be shared between local councils and Watercare.
- The statutory obligations governing Watercare's current pricing regime should continue and there should be uniform charges for water and wastewater across the region.
- A light-handed regulatory approach should be adopted, with the potential for stronger regulation if required over time. The framework within which Watercare currently operates should continue and, in addition, an Auckland Services Performance Auditor should be appointed. This position would have oversight not only of the water services industry, but all Auckland Council activities.
These recommendations form part of the wider Commission view that an integrated approach to planning and investment in infrastructure is essential at the regional level in Auckland. In the case of water, the Commission believes that these arrangements will lead to better demand management, better environmental management, and cost savings.
Accordingly, the Commission recommends legislative amendments to:
- grant Watercare the power to provide retail water and wastewater services;
- require Watercare to promote demand management; and
- establish an Auckland Services Performance Auditor.
The Commission also recommends that the role of the Māori Advisory Group which currently consult and advise on Watercare plans and projects should continue and be safeguarded in legislation.
The integrated approach proposed for water services will require a number of legislative amendments to several statutes under which Watercare and water services in the Auckland Region are managed. These statutes include the Local Government Act 1974 and Resource Management Act 1991.
The Government has accepted the recommendation to integrate water and waste services in principle though Watercare. It is considering in more detail some aspects of stormwater.
Overall, the vertical integration of all water and waste water services under Watercare should go a long way towards providing a coordinated and consistent approach to policies and management of water and waste services in the Auckland region.
In order to achieve more integrated planning solutions, the Commission considers that Auckland must have a connected and systematic approach to thinking about urban design for the city. The Commission considers that there is an issue of poor quality urban design across the whole region. It proposed that the Auckland Council establish an Urban Design Panel (comprised of architects, urban designers, and representatives of business, education institutions and not-for-profit social sectors) to review all major developments throughout the Auckland region, and have the power of sign-off for major developments. A Heritage Advisory Panel is also proposed to assist the Auckland Council with the identification of heritage buildings and places, and the formation of appropriate rules for the new district and regional plans.
The Commission also considers that the interface between the city centre and the waterfront is one of the most important issues facing Auckland and that more needs to be done to increase public enjoyment of the waterfront.
The Commission recommends that there be a committee of the Auckland Council, to be known as the "City Centre and Waterfront Committee", to (among other things) develop a policy in relation to the city centre and waterfront, particularly in relation to development, urban design and planning. The Commission also recommends that a City Centre and Waterfront Community Board be developed to execute functions delegated by the Auckland Council such as solving local problems, and that a City Centre and Waterfront Development Agency be developed to undertake planning and any further development of the waterfront area.
The Government has decided to endorse the creation of a Waterfront Development Agency but there will not be a separate community board for the waterfront and central city area.
A spatial plan for the Auckland region is considered by the Commission as the starting point for protecting Auckland's environment, heritage and good examples of urban design. The plan would identify the areas for urban growth and redevelopment and areas that should be retained as rural. It would also address other areas such as the parks network, environmental goals and notable heritage features and buildings.
The Commission intends that such strong regional guidance is needed to maintain coherency while the implementation will be carried out largely by local councils. The Government has not commented on whether the local boards will pick up this implementation role.
The Commission recommends that Auckland needs a "robust, considered and consistent" planning regime to support its ongoing growth. So alongside the spatial plan it recommends an infrastructure investment plan and one district plan. Much was made of the need to simplify the language and controls in district and regional planning documents. The current district plans are intended to remain in force until the new single district plan replaces them. It is unclear how the Commission sees plan changes or variations that are being processed under the RMA will be affected by the creation of the new plan.
The Government has endorsed the single regional planning documents the Commission recommended.
Recommendations on the transition to the proposed structure
The Commission proposes, by the next local body election in October 2010, the formal dissolution of the Auckland Regional Council and all seven territorial authorities in Auckland, and the creation of a new single unitary authority called the Auckland Council. The Commission recommends that existing councils continue to operate effectively until the 2010 elections, by which time the staff, as well as all assets and liabilities from the eight abolished councils will be transferred to the Auckland Council.
To make the changes occur as smoothly as possible, the Commission proposes that an independent and experienced Establishment Board be assembled to lead the transition. This Board is proposed to be supported by a proposed Transitions Management Group comprised of the CEOs of the existing Auckland councils, Watercare Services Limited, and ARTA.
The Government endorses the recommendation that the changes proposed be made in time for the 2010 local body elections and that an independent Establishment Board be appointed by the Government. A Transition Management Group comprised of existing council chief executives, Watercare Services and ARTA, with a possible independent chair, is to support the Establishment Board during the transition. The existing councils powers will be restrained up until the 2010 elections.
Changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002 in response to the transition
The Commission's recommendations on planning issues align with the Government's intentions to amend the RMA as highlighted in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009. Indeed, the reorganisation proposed by the Commission will hopefully streamline planning processes further in Auckland through the single unitary Auckland Council, one long-term council community plan, one spatial plan, one district plan, one rating system and one rates bill.
Changes are also proposed by the Commission to the Local Government Act 2002 and include prescribing the roles and functions of the unitary Auckland Council, and amending the requirement of the Auckland Council's annual report under the Act to include separate sections on the operations of the elected Auckland Council and each local council.
The Government has not made any specific decisions on legislative changes in the decision it has released.
This publication is included in Russell McVeagh's website on the Internet: www.russellmcveagh.com
The publication is intended only to provide a brief summary of the subject covered. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such without first obtaining specific professional advice based on your unique circumstances.
Russell McVeagh has New Zealand's longest established and most experienced environmental and resource management practice. We are here to work with you, and if you require any advice or further information on the matters dealt with in this publication please contact the partner/solicitor in the firm who normally advises you, or alternatively contact:
Derek Nolan
|
RUSSELL MCVEAGH |