What coal face managers think of super city

Published in The National Business Review

The government's actions on Auckland governance are being watched with interest – and concern - by other councils

The cabinet's decisions on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance mean no one in local government should be sitting comfortably.  What happens in Auckland can happen elsewhere, too. There have always been those who argued the 1989 reorganisation did not go far enough and it is undeniable many small local authorities exist on a barely sustainable funding and community base.  Nor are the cities immune - Wellington is composed of a large number of separate local authorities and there is already talk of the need for rationalisation in that region.

The effectiveness of the present local government structure has also arisen in other contexts.  In its February 2009 report, the Minister for the Environment's technical advisory group expresses concerns whether local government structures represent the most suitable model to deliver optimal outcomes.

The commentary focuses on regional councils and recommends consideration of the issue be given in phase 2 of the signalled Resource Management Act amendments.  The proposed reorganisation in Auckland is hardly likely to be viewed with equanimity by the rest of the country. Auckland's ability to lobby and influence government will be substantial.

Auckland might not become a city state like Singapore, but the inference is there.  The rest of the country is bound to want to create its own more powerful spheres of influence, so whether government or local government led, we predict more change will follow.

Meetings and discussions with chief executives and senior managers in local government over the past few months, in Auckland and elsewhere, have invariably veered toward speculation on the outcome and effect of the Auckland exercise.

The managers of the Auckland local authorities have thus far displayed a refreshing lack of ego despite the commission's suggestions of extreme parochialism in the submissions from some territorial authorities.  It is to be expected that managers will see merit in protecting the integrity of their districts and argue for their retention in some form.  They have in most cases worked long and hard with their communities to enhance standards of living, amenities and services, and do not want those gains and programmes to disappear.  They see their districts as having distinct policies and strategies. 

But that does not mean they do not see a bigger picture for Auckland.  They want an outcome that benefits the whole of Auckland, not just their own districts.  Furthermore, while recognising the risk to their own positions, their concerns were inevitably directed toward the need to manage the transition productively, and to protect the resources that will be needed to service the new entities.

There has been speculation about the candidates for the mayoralty of the proposed Auckland Council but little consideration of the management resource needed to run this massive enterprise.  That resource is at a very real risk given the much lower level of management that will be required for local boards.  The fact that the Establishment Board is to comprise independent government appointees, and the demotion of the chief executives of the existing local authorities to a support group, will also serve to lessen their commitment to seeing the transition phase through to implementation.

For more information, please contact:

Linda O'Reilly
Partner
t: +64 9 979 2167
e: Linda O'Reilly

Last updated: April 2009

The contents of this publication are general in nature and are not intended to serve as a substitute for legal advice on a specific matter. In the absence of such advice no responsibility is accepted by Brookfields for reliance on any of the information provided in this publication.