OPINION: Death of representation | Auckland Opinion | Local Voices from Auckland, New Zealand

One of the saddest issues since the first local body amalgamation of 1989 is that the ordinary person no longer understands how local body government works.

The concept of the ward structure with city councillors and community board members is only just dimly starting to penetrate the minds of the public.

This is not surprising because within the 20 years that the structure has been in operation on the Auckland isthmus, there have been significant changes.

The bureaucratic structure has changed from a ward operated structure to a citywide structure, and the councillors have persistently cut delegations to the community board members.

It is then hardly surprising that our new 2010 structure is met with lack of understanding and consequently lack of interest. If every citizen in the region fully understood what was happening to their democratic rights, this new structure would not happen, there would be a revolution, and it would stop.

Firstly the level of elected representation has gone down to the lowest possible level.

This is going to be the biggest local body organisation in the whole of New Zealand, but it will have the least elected representation for the ratepayers in the whole of New Zealand, and the general public will have less input into the running of their region than any other area in New Zealand.

At the time of writing there are only 19 wards in the whole region, when the Royal Commission had recommended a number between 20 and 30 to provide a good and fair representation.

Secondly the Council Controlled Organisations appear to be taking away from the elected representatives the work that they are elected to do. But it is also very difficult to understand where the control from the council will come in as these CCOs are directed by unelected people who have no onus to report to the council, the local boards or to the public who will be funding them.

There is no onus on them to provide agendas or minutes to the public, far less provide a public forum section of their meetings. Have they been put in place by the unelected Auckland Transition Agency to provide tasks for discarded chief executives and others in the vast numbers of staff?

Every employer has an obligation to be a good employer and look after their staff to the best that they possibly can, but in this case the ratepayers of the region were told that this reorganisation is for the greatest possible good for the region as a whole.

Therefore, the greatest good must be in the delivery of services to the ratepayers of the region, and re-employment of the staff should come second. What is the staff ratio to elected members? A frightening thought.

Thirdly, the signs are at the moment that the elected part of the structure will be hierarchical even though that is not what people wanted.

This is alarming as the Transition Authority can set the duties and delegations for the local boards, but these can be changed at the whim of the Auckland Council. Given Auckland City's track record in this area, things do not look good for the local boards and the members of the public who wanted more governance over such things as roading, public amenities such as swimming pools and libraries, events, local business associations and mainstreet organisations, etc. at the local level.

Fourthly, central party politics will become even more dominant than what they are already. In Auckland City they are supremely important. The outcome of any issue can be determined long before it hits a council meeting.

Party members are loyal to their party first and their community second. No one dares to go against their party leader.

This system leaves no room for healthy intelligent debate, so called debates in the council chamber descend to the level of playground squabbling, and the party with the most members present inevitably wins.

The super structure will mean the end for independents, and the end for the small local team. In the Maungakiekie Ward a small local team has served the ward faithfully for over a decade, the whole team winning every single election over that time.

They have built a wonderful local reputation for community first at all times, they have always had huge community involvement, and have persistently and patiently fought at every opportunity for the best outcomes for their community. Intelligent debate is encouraged at their meetings and no one has ever been told which way to vote. Their historical knowledge of their area is second to none. But none of this matters any more; it will be a central party allegiance that now takes first place.

In this new structure the democratic rights of the citizens of the region are seriously eroded.

The size of the wards, similar communities of interest separated or dissimilar communities of interest joined, the lack of representation, a continued hierarchical system, CCOs taking over the duties of the elected representatives with no accountability whatever, the great difficulties for the independent candidate or the small local party to stand, the mighty influence of central party politics, and add to all of this the enormous set up and ongoing costs borne by the long suffering residents of the region.

This is not a good outlook for anyone who has ever taken an interest in local body governance.

In fact what input are Aucklanders having about the whole thing? None at all. We have a structure imposed by central government, boundaries set by the Local Government Commission, the organisation and delegations set by a Transition Authority nominated by a Parliamentary Select Committee who felt this task was "inappropriate" for them to do.

The second biggest local body reform in New Zealand's history is being done in the shortest possible time.

Is this yet another thing that has to be in place by the Rugby World Cup?

It is so sad to watch all of this and realise that because people do not understand it will more than likely happen.

- Bridget Graham is Chairman of the Maungakiekie Community board