Some Aucklanders are developing a frenzied enthusiasm for merging all of Auckland’s local bodies into one regional "Super City".

One of my lecturers back in the sixties defined a Region as an area much larger than the last one whose problems we could not solve. Restructuring local government boundaries has always been a useful diversion from real reform. So before proceeding with this mega-merger we might take note of what happened to Toronto. Wendell Cox has reported on this amalgamation, and his story in the Canadian Financial Post, titled Megacity Fallout, concludes:

Finally, things are going from bad to worse. The city faces a projected budget deficit for the current fiscal year that is almost twice the Harris government's phony $300-million savings. None of this is to deny that municipal amalgamations can produce economies of scale. They do – though they are limited to the impact upon special interests. As city hall is moved farther away, voters have less control over what goes on. Moneyed interests find larger governments more accessible and thus more susceptible to their influence. This is not just Toronto; it is anywhere that human nature operates. The experience of large municipal amalgamations is clear. Toronto is just one of the more recent examples. Municipal amalgamations are virtually always sold on the basis of saving money. They virtually never do.

When confronted with complex problems politicians instinctively reach for simple solutions. Amalgamation has always been a favourite “silver bullet” – but the promised gold turns out to be base metal.

The problems facing Auckland region have not been caused by its local government territories being too small. Indeed the most important one is much too large. The Auckland Region extends far beyond the Metropolitan Area and its hinterland. A recent commentator surmised that everyone in Auckland’s five cities claims to be an Aucklander. I am quite sure that the residents of Te Hana, Wellsford and Maratai would disagree. This huge rural hinterland distorts the statistics used to justify the latest folly. The population density of the Auckland Region is very low – and indeed one of the lowest in the world. But when so much of the territory is occupied by fish or cattle one should not be surprised.

The density of Auckland’s urbanised land area of about 5,000 people per square mile is remarkably high compared to the similar US and Canadian cities at about 1,500 to 2,000 per square mile.

Aucklanders are chastised for being miserly users of public transport but overseas analysts disagree, pointing out that much of the outer Auckland Region has hardly any roads, let alone a bus or rail network.

The French have a mayor for every few hundred people, but five large companies manage all their water and sewage, reminding us that the economies of scale in engineering do not translate into democracy.

We should design the size and nature of the organization best suited to manage each activity.

Auckland’s real “institutional” problem is that the ARC sees itself as a grand Master Planner and wants Aucklanders, of all Districts, to live, work and play in accordance with its own master plan for a 19^th Century City. But Aucklanders now live in the 21^st Century, so the plans are full of contradictions, and lawyers and consultants thrive.

Here in Northland we are more fortunate. The Northland Regional Council has resolved not to become involved in land use decisions, which are left to the Districts. Instead, the NRC, focuses on the management of effects on soil, water and air, as the RMA intended. Planning consultants try to drag the NRC into local issues but the NRC just as steadfastly refuses to be cajoled. Aucklanders should be so lucky.

However, the costs of preparing and implementing RMA plans for these Districts of large area but small population are very high and the costs keep rising as interest groups improve their skills in capturing resources. The Far North District Plan would have been Operative years ago if it had not been for the string of appeals launched by DoC, and supported by Forest and Bird, the Environmental Defense Society and similar “outside agitators”.

Anyhow, to gain these potential “economies of scale” the Northland Regional Council is  promoting a single “Consolidated Planning Framework” for Northland. Under such a regime all the environmental methods, standards and rules would be the same and the District Plan “chapters” would set out the “zones” where these would apply. Hence if a motel owner went through the process of gaining consent in Mangawhai the process would be the same for a motel in the same “zone” in Kaitaia or Whangarei. Similarly the maximum height of a cellphone tower would be the same throughout the Region.

Consultants would have to familiarize themselves with only a single document to be able to advise applicants and submitters throughout the Region.

Of course local councils would determine the location of the zones throughout their District and make decisions on applications. Regional rules, local decision making – an efficient mix.

Preparing the Far North District Plan has been estimated to have cost over $5,000,000 and that excludes all the time and money spent by individuals. The Far North Population is close to 56,000 while only 18,000 live in Kaipara District. So a Review of the Kaipara District Plan could cost three times as much per head. The potential cost savings for the Region’s 150,000 people are potentially significant and the downstream efficiencies even more so.

For some reason, the Kaipara District Council, whose people have the most to gain from such an exercise, is resisting the consolidation, but this will be a major issue at the forthcoming election.

As one might expect, as we discuss the merits of a Consolidated plan for the Region, the idea of “de-amalgamation” or decentralization becomes attractive. These large District Councils discourage participation in democracy. A councillor resident in Mangawhai has to set aside time for many trips to and from Dargaville – and each trip takes almost two hours. Not many people have that kind of time to spare. It would make great sense to turn each of the four wards back into four smaller District Councils.

This short exercise demonstrates that, just as there are genuine economies of scale for certain functions, other functions, such as democratic participation, thrive at a smaller scale. Equally clearly, if the Consolidated Plan was used to force amalgamating all the Districts into one, democracy would be the loser.

Examining such issues on a case by case basis encourages thinking “outside the square” and throws up new options and alternatives. Five major companies manage all the water and sewage of France – even though the infrastructure is owned by the 30,000 local councils.

The Northern half of the North Island is emerging as a single “northern economy” within New Zealand, which is currently served by three major Ports at Whangarei, Auckland, and Tauranga. Should the three ports merge into one, so as to better serve this “super-region”. I don’t know the answer, but the question is surely worth asking. But once again, merging the five cities of Auckland into a Super City does not address this question, and probably diverts attention into less productive debates.

Most new technologies encourage decentralization of activity. There are no economies of scale with democracy. However, centralized management of infrastructure networks often makes good sense.

Consequently we should be focusing on tasks, governance, and legal frameworks – not administrative boundaries.

One size doesn’t fit all. 

And the Toronto experiment just confirms that Super Cities cost super dollars.

ENDS

1261 words