So Rodney Hide is banging the one-Auckland drum...
Shock horror, I largely agree with him. A well governed Auckland would probably have fewer Councils and be more effectively dealing with the infrastructural challenges the City faces.
And there is in Wellington something of the issue he talks about. It is very convenient for central government that Auckland is not united and powerful. I am far from convinced that it is convenient for Auckland, or good for the city or the country.
A well functioning Auckland *would* challenge Wellington more. But only a born and bred Wellingtonian would think that was a bad thing.
I think Auckland should have fewer councils but certainly more than just one council.
Posted by: Jane | Monday, 25 June 2007 at 03:51 PM
everyone supports fewer councils except probably the councilors.
What do we have to do to get it done?
GNZ
Posted by: GNZ | Monday, 25 June 2007 at 06:40 PM
GNZ wrote:
everyone supports fewer councils except probably the councilors.
I reply:
Excuse me? I don't recall the last call for an Auckland Supercouncil -- you know, the one Hubbard & Co. cooked up in secret, with no electoral mandate and holes you could drive the Queen Mary 2 though -- being received with much enthusiasm. I'm not ideologically opposed to further local body amalgamation, but I'd like some folks to actually think it through.
And what you and Rodney call 'united and powerful', Jordan, might well be 'even more unaccountable, bureaucratic, and prone to small power blocs riding their hobby horses without any proper scrutiny and restraint' from a slightly different POV.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia | Monday, 25 June 2007 at 09:38 PM
Jordan
Imagine the major cut in staff numbers. What sort of support frameworks would be put into place to during such decimation of a single employment sector? Would you also support a call to trim some central Govt departments through making entire entities redundant?
I'm a bit concerned that Rodney has a grand plan to amalgamate the Council operations and then go and do something foolish like regulate it's spending and make the rate payers really really happy.
Posted by: burt | Monday, 25 June 2007 at 11:23 PM
Why is making rate payers happy foolish, Burt?
Posted by: Jane | Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 12:54 AM
Problem with Auckland is the two tier governance system in place. The four cities plus another layer called the ARC.
Heck, three really if you add central government (who have a minister dedicated to Auckland affairs - not clear if she is responsible for just Auckland City or the whole isthmus).
Lets get rid of at least one level of bureaucracy. Preferably the four cities.
Yep, the major reduction in unproductive employees would reduce my rate burden, yippee.
Hopefully they will find better employmment in our productive sectors.
Posted by: Gerrit | Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 06:38 AM
The city and district councils need abolishing and their powers transferred to the ARC (for city wide planning and issues) and the community boards, which should become far more accountable and able to take local decisions.
Waiheke, of course, should become independent, and a taxhaven.
Posted by: Uroskin | Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 12:42 PM
Wind the clock back to the old borough councils in Auckland.System worked great in comparison to this Michael Basset cock up.
Posted by: Red Fred | Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 09:06 PM
I think keep the city/district councils should be kept and the ARC should be abolished.
By the way, it would be stupid for Waiheke to become either independent or a tax haven. Were you actually serious about those suggestions, Uroskin?
Posted by: Jane | Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 10:56 PM
ok... councilors and you, craig :)
but you are right that it should be done carefully and a super council might not be the end result - the problem is that it isn't being doone at all
Posted by: GNZ | Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 06:20 AM
I think an independent tax free 'heke would be cool. Especially if they legalised drugs..
It's much bigger at 92km2 than:
- Monaco (2km2)
- Gibraltar (6km2)
- Guernsey (78km2)
all of which are independent states (more or less).
The revenues from a million dollar annual company registration tax would easily pay for the tunnel to allow Aucklanders to commute to their jobs in the flourishing financial services industry.
Posted by: rich | Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 05:12 PM
lol, Rich
Posted by: Jane | Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 06:50 PM
Rich
If Labour had any sense they would jump on this idea. 'heke could be the NZ Hong Kong allowing full reign of socialism in NZ with the rabid right cast off to their own free market. I think it's a great idea.
Jordan, what do you reckon?
Posted by: burt | Thursday, 28 June 2007 at 12:06 AM
Auckland's problem appears to be (I am in Wellington) conflict of interest related to an overlap of responsibilities. Thus deadlock.
An outsider might think one council would solve the problem - but would Wellington really amalgamate Porirua, Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt and Wellington into one council (how many outside Wellington City would want this).
A regional council is supposed to deal with the overlapping areas for the region and maybe some clear transfer of role and assets/funds to the regional council for this should occur.
Posted by: SPC | Friday, 29 June 2007 at 08:38 PM