News release

8 Comments
07 April 2009
John Key: Auckland Local Governance: Making a great place greater

The Government has announced high-level decisions on Auckland governance which will see the creation of a unitary Auckland council while protecting and enhancing community representation, says Prime Minister John Key.

"Our plan will allow Auckland's civic leaders to think regionally, plan strategically and act decisively in a way that has not happened for the past six decades," Mr Key said.

"All New Zealanders have an interest in the success of the Auckland region, which requires decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities and services to cater for its people.

"Auckland is an important engine for New Zealand's economic growth. As such, it must have a simple and effective system for making regional decisions and implementing them smoothly.

"That's what the new governance structure has been designed to achieve," Mr Key says.

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance found many of the things holding the region back related to the way the city was run. It explored problems that get in the way of people's enjoyment, and sometimes make life difficult such as endlessly increasing rates, suffocating red-tape, transport bottlenecks, delayed development, and lost opportunities.

The Prime Minister says the new governance structure has to serve Auckland's many local diverse neighbourhoods and its diverse needs. 

"The Government has decided on a framework for governing the region which balances the need for elected representatives to be able to think strategically on behalf of the whole region, and for local communities to have a strong voice on issues closer to home. 

"We have created a new strengthened entity called Local Boards which will advocate for their local communities.

"The combination of the new Auckland Council and the Local Boards will lead to better connections across the region, better value from rates and central government funding, and community control of what matters in our neighbourhoods.

"The Auckland region must be able to attract and keep people, operate efficiently, offer an unparalleled lifestyle, and enable business, arts, and sports to flourish.

"Auckland's new governance plan is critical to the rest of New Zealand - because better governance will streamline the Auckland-region's performance as an important engine room of economic growth. We all need the city region to work better."

 

For more information visit: www.auckland.govt.nz

Posted by admin in Auckland, News release Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Bob 2009-04-08 09:38 - (Reply)

Good on National for deleting the three Maori seats proposed by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Pita Sharples labeled the omission as "racist", but it would have been "selectively racist" to include them in. My guess is that there are much larger ethnic populations in Auckland of Samoans, Tongans, Fijians and Chinese than there are Maori, and to have included special Maori seats would be effectively disenfranchising these other communities. The idea that there should be special representation by race is repugnant to me, and undemocratic. One set of rules for all New Zealanders, regardless of race. The cross-Auckland seats will allow for specific groups, such as Maori and other ethnic groups to focus their campaigning at election time to achieve representation through the electoral process. Good on ya for taking a sensible stand on this issue.

#2 - Grant Rankin 2009-04-08 12:00 - (Reply)

John Key, I support the basic idea to amalgamate the various parts of greater Auckland into one however I am sceptical about the benefits that would occur from the basis of your 'one fowl change over night' If given the opportunity to field some common sense basics and they are; Start the transition by over turning the current building compliance differences between councils and introduce almost immediately a standard code for residential housing which applies to all district wards around the intended region allowing home owners builders and all councils to be on the same page and without any differences in codes the costs drop (all homes to be constructed by trade qualified builders only) b) all parties involved in the construction incl Councils must hold construction insurance to protect the home owner/s against faults and poor design errors. c) that building compliance costs and permits be capped to a max of 1% of estimated expense. and a max period of objection to construction be limited to 7 days and the objecter must be able to prove that the intended construction will adversely affect their lives on apermanent basis on-going.

#3 - Tony Gillion 2009-04-11 11:23 - (Reply)

I am a business owner and builder operating in the South Auckland Area.. I have dealt with the various councils here in my area for many years and usually on a weekly basis. I would like to think I am progressive and that change is usually a good thing, however I do have some serious reservations about the proposed amalgamation plan and worry about the real costs, outcomes and delays this will cause for my business and the community here. I deal with 3 different councils, Manukau, Papakura, and Franklin - While I have experienced many differences between the ways these different councils operate (each has their own idiosyncrasy's) their systems have now evolved over several years, they each finally seem to have got on top of things since the last big legislative changes forced on them in the 90's... The staff, professionals, and the public now finally understand the systems, and things finally seem to be running consistently… I can’t help but think that this wide ranging change you propose will simply throw the baby out with the bath water. The reality is the whole local govt system will be thrown into chaos again for two or three years and while the dust settles nothing will happen! This is exactly what we don’t need for business ! I believe that in the next year or so before the change, all planning decisions will stall.. They are pretty slow already, but now you can guarantee that no important planning decisions will be made while staff try to deal with the probability that they will need to apply for new jobs and they wonder if any decisions they make now will even be relevant under the new structure... After the implementation, there will be at least a further 2 years of chaos while they invent and integrate new systems or structures or plans and come to terms with new ways of doing things.. My biggest worry is that this whole change will simply waste a heap of time and money and we will be really no better off in the end... In reality we will loose millions of dollars and 3 years to inefficiency and probably just end up with a re-hash of the existing system.. At a local level, issues that effect rural Franklin are totally different to those in urban Mankau so you might amalgamate them but you will still need specialist staff and plans or policies for these different areas... so the name of the council will be different but I believe the staffing levels will be the same and it will be no more efficient than it is now. I understand there is an issue at a regional level - but we already have a regional council that is supposed to take a regional approach ? why isn’t that system working? Perhaps you should look to reforming or refining the existing ARC structure rather than this wholesale change of a local council system that seems to be finally working reasonably well.

#4 - RJM 2009-04-15 21:46 - (Reply)

District Councils nation wide want a major sort out, I have said on many occasions that they use other peoples money in a uncompetative market. Large companies big and small have to make cuts, trim staff, put of purchases etc, where as local bodies do not suffer anywhere the same grief.We even have instances around the country where district councils fight regional councils via the courts. All paid for buy rate payers who in some cases have trouble paying the rates. Its just plain nuts really, a nation of 4.2 million with so many little inflated kingdoms over judging their importance & competing with their neighbours. Start with auckland but dont stop there. RJM

#5 - Jenny 2009-04-16 10:31 - (Reply)

To John Key I agree with many of Tony Gillion's concerns that major and rapid changes to Auckland governance are likely to be counterproductive, given the improvements to services many Councils have achieved over the past few years. The Toyota 'Kaizen' approach of continuous improvement has been proved to be one of the most effective methods of achieving business success, and I am convinced the same would apply to the challenge of making the Auckland region and even better place to live. At the moment Aucklanders enjoy the wider benefits of the regions as well as being able to identify closely with the community they have chosen to live in. The unique characteristics of these communities are also always an attraction to our overseas visitors - and I have a real concern that the obsession with the nebulous concept of a 'world class city' is obscuring the fact that the really attractive cities, like Paris, are those which are not trying to copy any one else and which maintain a rich diversity in their various quarters and suburbs. I have a real fear that Waitakere city, where I live, will no longer have the scope to maintain the cultural and environmental improvements which have been evident over the last few years. I agree that there is scope for stronger regional coordination l of things like infrastructure and major institutions such as the museum, the philharmonia, the zoo, but this could be achieved by strengthening/amending current regional structures. Finally, I would urge you to use your considerable influence to at least change the proposal to have some councillors elected 'at large' as this will further put at risk the ability of local communities to have sufficient representation on the decision making bodies. Having local elections for the propsed community boards, and then allowing those boards to elect one of their number to a central Council would provide a far greater level of true democracy for the very disparate regions which make up greater Auckland. I do fervently hope you will demonstrate your leadership by taking a long term view in the true interests of the Auckland people, appreciating that for us Auckland is a way of life, not just a business model to be revamped in a clinical way to meet a theoretical model of efficiency. Thanks

#6 - Grant Rankin 2009-04-18 12:58 - (Reply)

Why do people always look into the negative window and close the blinds on life, do lots of moaning and very little else, I had the good fortune to live in Houston Tx and the population far exceeds that of Auckland yet just one council "Harris County City of Houston" and it works well enough by one set of rules and all are required to comply, you want to build in Katy the rules are just the same as in Pasedena Tx it must cost less to live there cause all publications are standard format codes are the same, rules of the highway are the same one major Police Dept Fire Dept etc. why not have a super city and seven(7) wards so rates can be collected as normal but one Mayor, a dep Mayor and ward Ceo in place of 7 mayors on big $$$$

#7 - RN 2009-04-28 15:53 - (Reply)

The latest headlines that describe a "softening" of the Government's position on the Maori seats on the Auckland Super Council have me somewhat concerned. I suggest that you remain hardlined against a clearly racist policy that singles out a single race and gives them preferential representation. My support for National during the last election was driven in some respects by the intense frustration in seeing Labour policies clearly creating an apartheid system. Afterall isn't this what we have tended to create- two systems based on race? I believe in the past the Maori seats were also described as undemocratic. The Auckland seats dedicated to Maori would be equally undemocratic and we should not succumb to any pressure in this regard. If Maori want to be represented on the Council, then they have equal access to becoming an elected member as any other race/person. Do not play the race card as it will be to everyone's detriment in the end.

#8 - Colin Tuson 2009-06-05 21:46 - (Reply)

It appears that one of the reasons that Pita Sharples and his colleagues want Maori seats is the unfortunate fact that so few Maori take an interest in local body politics. It took the race card to drum up support for the hikoi. Labour Party representatives showed what they thought by getting a feed at McDonalds rather than playing a truely constructive role. There is the implicit rationale that Maori candidates on a "general" roll will not appeal to the masses because they only represent Maori issues and therefore need a separate roll to get Maori elected. I judge a candidate by what they stand for, what they believe in and also their ability to represent the constituency at large, NOT by the colour of their skin. In these times the idea of separate Maori seats is backward, undemocratic and self-defeatest. They essentially believe that Maori are not capable of being elected unless they have separate Maori seats. Maori are as talented and capable of representing ALL people in Auckland (and in this country) but until (some of) their leaders stop applying the "Separatist" race card then Maori and NZ will not move forward as ONE!! Finally I am not opposed to Maori having their say on issues of importance to Maori in Auckland but would it not be better for Ngati Whatua to set up some sort of advisory body to consult with the new "Super" council on issues of importance to their local iwi, rather than having 'separate seats'. Surely such a body can be accommodated with the principles of partnership espoused by the Treaty of Waitangi and under the governance of Ngati Whatua representatives. Well thats my two cents worth.


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA
 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.
 

Latest Updates

Video Journal No.30
PM congratulates Julia Gillard
Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Canterbury Earthquake
PM's statements to media at post-Cabinet briefing
Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Speech Notes on Canterbury Earthquake

You say:

09.2010
PM's statements to media at post-Cabinet briefing
Dear Prime Minister, Thank you for being with the people of Canterbury. I know I speak for many when I say that y [...]

David Stoner

09.2010
Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Canterbury Earthquake
I am proud to have a Prime minister of your integrity at the helm of this country. Well done!!!! You have my vot [...]

Mike Rutledge

09.2010
Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Speech Notes on Canterbury Earthquake
just a quick note - I'm very impressed with the response from the Government in relation to the Christchurch Disas [...]

Reuben Silby

09.2010
Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Speech Notes on Canterbury Earthquake
Hi there Mr Key:) I just want to thank you so much for your awesome leadership, this quake was certainly a wake [...]

Therese Berg

09.2010
Reforming alcohol laws
Unfortunately, teenaged brains are not yet wired up to make great decisions in all cases- this is why the onus is [...]

Chris Knight



Google the Site