EDITORIAL: Super city - super mistake? | Columns

CALL IT the "Zimbabwe model". The scheme for Auckland's council and local boards that has emerged from Rodney Hide's office appears to have been cobbled from ideas from other cities that many experts would regard as failed states.

The Aucklander has read up on local government systems and their effects from a number of similar-sized cities that have recently changed their "governance".

(That's the buzzword that's replaced "government". It's meant to convey the idea of more inclusion, a more voice, more and better communication between a council's elected members, its paid officials and the peasants. Sorry, ratepayers.)

As we trolled the websites, it became obvious that few experts in local governance would claim any evidence of savings in resources, better delivery of services or civic acceptance in Auckland's model of a single city council with neutered local boards.

Admittedly, part of this is down to New Zealand's tradition of local government, in which Central Government gives far, far fewer responsibilities to local people and authorities. In most jurisdictions around the world of Auckland's size, the local authority - not central government - has responsibility for major social issues such as education, housing, and policing. For a detailed discussion of that subject, we recommend reading:

Local Government Structure and Efficiency, Local Government NZ 2006 http://www.lgnz.co.nz/library/files/store_015/LocalGovernmentStructureandEfficiencyReport.pdf

And for an independent assessment of the Royal Commission report and the Government's response, we recommend:

The Auckland Debate, by Mike Reid, Local Government NZ governance manager http://www.lgnz.co.nz/library/files/store_022/TheAucklandDebate.pdf TORONTO This ain't no mere super-city. This was created, on 1 January 1998, as a "mega-city". Its structure is broadly similiar to that proposed for the Auckland Council: a single-tier municipality governed by a mayor and council. The Mayor of Toronto is elected by direct popular vote to serve as the chief executive of the city. S/He presides over the Toronto City Council of 44 councillors representing geographical wards throughout the city. Until the 2006 election, the Mayor and councillors served three-year terms; now it's four years.

The council has seven major committees. The Mayor names the committee chairs and the council appoints the other members. The real power, beneath the Mayor, lies in the executive committee, formed by the chairs of those committees, plus the Mayor, deputy Mayor and four other councillors. Councillors are also appointed to oversee the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Police Services Board.

There are about 40 subcommittees, advisory committees and round tables within the council. These are made up of councillors and private citizen volunteers. Examples include the Pedestrian Committee and the Waste Diversion Task Force.

Below the city council, Toronto has four community councils that make recommendations on local matters to the city council, but possess no final authority (sound familiar?). Each city councillor serves as a member of a community council.

Now the bad news: it's been estimated that the Toronto "mega-city" has cost its ratepayers at least $100 million more than the old system of smaller district-type councils. In 10 years. There have been no reductions in city taxes (i.e. rates) or staffing. Several major infrastructure projects are stalled because of political in-fighting and residents' opposition. VANCOUVER The Aucklander's readers will recall that the Royal Commissioner dropped a broad hint that this was front-of-mind back in November. Somehow it dropped out of sight, and mind.

They don't call themselves a super-city: they call themselves Metro Vancouver, after the regional body charged with certain aspects of local government for the metropolitan area established in 1967.

It has 21 incorporated municipalities (i.e. local or community councils) and one unincorporated area (a grab-bag of offshore islands, regional parks, etc).

Metro Vancouver administers resources and services that are common across the metropolitan area. These include community planning, water, sewage, drainage, housing, transport, air quality, and parks.

It has four region-owned enterprises - water, sewerage and drainage, housing, and the regional district, which covers urban planning, transport, etc.

The difference between Vancouver, the Toronto model and what's proposed for Auckland is: the Metro Vancouver council is made up of people who have been elected from their communities to those 21 municipal councils, and then become their suburb / communities' representatives on the Metro Vancouver council.

The municipal councils retain their independence, their local rates, and the ability to make decisions on projects and policies that affect their suburb - provided they do not clash with the regional plan.

SYDNEY When discussing Australian local government vs New Zealand's, it's crucial to remember that those blokes over the ditch have an extra tier of government: the states. Those provide many services and own many responsibilities - e.g. police, education, health - that Kiwi local governments do not have to worry about.

Most of Sydney's citywide government activities are controlled by the New South Wales state government, such as public transport, main roads, traffic control, policing, education above preschool level, and planning of major infrastructure projects. There's a political reality attached to this: because a large proportion of New South Wales' population lives in Sydney, state governments have traditionally been reluctant to allow the development of citywide governmental bodies, which would tend to rival the state government (Ahem. The proposed Auckland Council will have one-third of the country's population, and ... need we go on?).

So Sydney does not have a citywide or metropolitan council or regional authority. The region is administered as 40 local government areas with elected councils responsible for planning and garbage collection. The Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney (i.e, the CBD, not Parramatta or Cronulla or Manly) is sometimes treated as a representative of the whole city, for example during the Olympics.

MELBOURNE We could cover this off with a ditto. Melbourne City Council governs the City of Melbourne, which takes in the CBD and a few adjoining inner suburbs and so the Lord Mayor of (inner) Melbourne is frequently treated as a representative of greater Melbourne (the entire metropolitan area).

The rest of the metropolitan area is divided into 31 local government areas. Local government authorities have elected councils and are responsible for a range of functions such as urban planning and waste management (gosh, Victoria doing something just like the Cockroaches? Surely there must be some mistake?). And - stop us if you've read this before - most non-local government services are provided or regulated by the Victoria state government. These include public transport, main roads, traffic control, policing, education above preschool level, health and planning of major infrastructure projects.

BRISBANE Ah, the one that Auckland super-city fans like to shout about. Except that ... well, it was never a super-city and it certainly isn't a recent re-invention. Brisbane is unique among Aussie state capitals: a large portion of the greater metropolitan area is controlled by a single local government entity, the Brisbane City Council, created in 1925. Anyone like to compare Brisbane's performance from 1925-2009 against Sydney? Or Melbourne? Pull the other one.

The city is divided into 26 wards, each electing a councillor as their community representative every four years. They use the single transferable vote system and all residents must participate. Oh, and yes ... the Queensland state government has its sticky fingers all over public transport, main roads, policing ...

And one more thing that some may see as relevant to the Auckland's future: the state government is currently railroading plans to privatise almost every aspect of local government.

LONDON ondon, or Greater London, or Metropolitan London's government has been a political football for decades. Finding a workable solution for the place has been a tad like asking Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham, QPR and Brentford supporters to agree on the best pint in town.

Since 2000, the administration of London has two tiers - a citywide, strategic tier and a local tier. City-wide administration is coordinated by the Greater London Authority (GLA); local administration is carried out by 33 smaller authorities or what we would call local councils for suburbs like East Coast Bays or Howick-Pakuranga.

The GLA consists of two elected parts: the Mayor of London, who has executive powers, and the London Assembly, who scrutinise the Mayor's decisions and can accept or reject his/her budget proposals each year. The GLA is responsible for strategic planning, policing, the fire service, most aspects of transport and economic development.

The 33 local authorities are the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation. They are responsible for services not overseen by the GLA, such as local planning, schools, social services, local roads and refuse collection. The London boroughs each have a council which is elected every four years by local residents.

NEW YORK The Big Apple. Gotham City. If you can make it here ... well, like Brisbane, New York has a different form of government than most other US cities, has had since the metropolis was consolidated into one citywide government in 1898. Its strong mayor-council government is more centralised than most US cities.

The city government is responsible for public education, correctional institutions, libraries, public safety, recreational facilities, sanitation, water supply and welfare services.

The mayor and councillors are elected for four years. The City Council consists of 51 councillors elected to represent districts, or what we would call wards (strange how most successful city governments think this is a good idea, but our Local Government Minister doesn't). Below the city council are five elected borough councils with locally oriented responsibilities.

GLASGOW Glasgow is regarded as one of the most progressively governed cities in the European Union. With 580,690 citizens, it's about the same size as the present Auckland City.

Glasgow took two bites at the cherry. From 1975-96 there was a two-tier form of local government. Glasgow District Council was responsible for refuse collection, museums, libraries and housing; Strathclyde Regional Council for police, fire service, water, education, social work and transport.

Since 1996 the city has been run by a unitary authority, Glasgow City Council. This council has a ceremonial head, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who is elected to convene the council and perform as a general civil leader - pretty much the role taken by our current mayors. The council's executive branch is headed by the Leader of the Council, top dog in the largest political grouping, currently the Labour Party.

The council consists of 79 councillors elected for a four-year term from 21 wards. These wards were introduced for the 2007 election and each returns three or four members by the single transferable vote system.

A multi-member ward system was introduced for the 2007 council election: each of the 21 wards elects either three or four members to the council depending on population.

Under the previous single-member ward system, the 79 councillors were elected from 79 single-member wards by the first-past-the-post system. The result was 69 of the 79 councillors representing the Labour Party although it gained only around half the votes cast in the previous council election, and the Scottish National Party getting just four councillors despite gaining 20 per cent of the votes.

Finally, it's worth noting that Aucklanders will elect one councillor for every 65,000 citizens. Glaswegians elect one councillor for every 7350 citizens. Barcelona's 1.6 million citizens, living under a municipal constitution drafted in 1960 by General Franco's fascist regime, are entitled to 41 councillors, or one for every 39,000 people.

That's why we keep banging on about democracy, Minister.