Councillor Andy Foster has written a reasonably lengthy piece expounding his views on potential local government amalgamation in Wellington.
Like most people in the public arena, he doesn’t seem to have a particularly firm point of view on the issue, but doesn’t see any huge benefits to be gained – “I don’t at this stage think that the benefits of a single ‘super city’ for Wellington would outweigh the dis-benefits”. However, he does have the decency to explain his thinking.
He’s broken the issue up into three key pieces…
Would amalgamation deliver benefits in the region working better together ?
Andy thinks that there are significant benefits to be made in three key areas: IT and administration (everyone knows that “knowledge services” is just screaming out for a decent shake up anyway), transport and water (citing the success of the Capacity model).
He does get slightly off topic here, and is drawn into the open ended question posed by the report – that of boundaries…
A ‘supercity’ model of course would also have boundaries. The obvious questions would include whether or not the Wairarapa area should be inside or out and whether the Kapiti boundary at Otaki is appropriate.
…
I have left Kapiti and the Wairarapa out of this part of the conversation [cost savings on water] as they are not connected to the GWRC bulk water supply.
Does this equate to Andy favouring logical geographic boundaries for future amalgamation? In the end, that was one of the main areas of interest in the report, and is likely to be where regional media will put most of it’s attention.
Would there be efficiency gains (savings to ratepayers)?
Quoting directly from Andy here…
It is very hard to know whether there is any merit in this. At first glance having fewer managers, Council offices, and councillors/mayors seems should obviously deliver savings. On the other side of the argument there was a huge debate in Auckland about sub regional governance. Whatever the outcome – local Councils or community boards – there will be costs. The other key cost area is in restructuring. This is not just in reducing staff, but in the costs of merging cultures, systems, IT, planning documentation (eg District Plans). It doesn’t seem that there will be great savings in Auckland but again I’d say let’s have the conversation, and watch what happens in Auckland !
I think he has come close to hitting the nail on the head here. At last count, the cost of integrating the various IT systems in Auckland had reached $266 million. That’s to combine eight councils, with a combined population of almost 1.5 million people (and all the rates they bring with them). Here in Wellington we’d have nine councils (so quite similar cost) and only half a million people (so it will be a lot more expensive, per head).
Would the democratic process be enhanced or undermined?
This may seem like the most esoteric element Andy considers, but he does so very well. He breaks the subject of maintaining local democracy down into three very important chunks…
- Access to your local councillor. If a super-Wellington kept the same ratio of councillors to people as WCC, we’d have 30-4o councillors. That simply wouldn’t happen. We’d end up with a council of around 20 people: “The simple reality is that a Super Council would be smaller, and the role of councillors would have to change. Instead of dealing with councillors if you have an issue, you’d likely often be dealing with their secretaries/advisors, or with a community board member. The simple question – but potentially complex answer – is what do you want your representatives role to be, and how should they interact with you?”
- “Where would the role of the Super Council stop and that of whatever sub regional bodies start?” This has been a major issue in Auckland, with Len Brown promising to give local boards more power than Rodney Hide’s legislation intended. Good luck to whoever wants to get any sort of consensus on this issue in Wellington!
- Ability to run for election. Andy believes that larger constituencies would lead to a situation similar to Auckland with a greater prevalence of party politics in local government. While the benefits or otherwise of that situation are worthy of a bigger debate, at it’s core this issue is about taking the ability to stand out of the hands of most people. In Andy’s words: “The advantage would go to the moneyed, the well known (being a ‘celebrity’ doesn’t necessarily make for good councillor or mayor!), the incumbent (to a far greater degree than at present), and to the party ticket.” I think this is a particularly interesting point. Do we simply want a Super City that looks like our regional council – a few people backed by political parties, but by-and-large simply a retirement home for ex-mayors and ex-MPs? I doubt it.
Many thanks to Andy Foster for putting together this well thought out article. He raises many good points. Unfortunately few others in the public arena seem to be willing to engage in this vital part of the future of our local democracy.
WCC Watch 
Great to have some discussion taking place on this issue. Many people don’t know where their local Council boundaries or responsibilities or elecetd representatives stop or start at the moment so it’s going to be a challenge to raise that level of knowledge and understanding first. However, to be able to represent and really know the communities concerned, local seems better.
On transport, larger scale representation seems to favour big projects getting funding e.g. Transmission Gully and the Kapiti Expressway over the Great Harbour Way. Interesting that Melbourne still has a number of municipalities.
Some of the potential cost savings should be achieved nationally rather than locally – for example there’s no reason one GIS system for public land information, one journey planner (all modes, not separate ones for driving, walking, cycling and PT) for the country. There’s a big difference between functions and services that must be democratically debated and having an effective information interface.