As the special Select Committee on Auckland continues with its marathon 9 am to 9 pm hearings, the likely shape of Auckland is becoming clear.

Despite all the noise from certain quarters, it is becoming clear that there is no serious opposition or counter-proposal to the basic concept of one Auckland Council and a series of local Boards beneath that Council.

Powers of Local Boards

There is no doubt that the defined powers of local Boards will go beyond that initially identified in the Government’s response, and that it won’t simple be left to the Auckland Council to decide what to delegate.

This is not a new revelation, forced on the Government by Select Committee hearings. John Key, Rodney Hide and John Carter have all been saying for some time that the local Boards should have defined powers and their own budgets. Labour have also been strongly pushing for this, and are trying to claim credit for this decision.

In reality, such a decision will simply be an application of the subsidiarity principle – that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. This is commonly a tenet of the centre-right in Europe and the USA, where they fight against a bloated European Union and Federal Government, arguing most matters should rest with nations or states respectively. It is welcome to have the centre-left in New Zealand now support this principle for Auckland.

Size and Name of Local Boards

The Government has proposed 20 to 30 local Boards, as has the Auckland Regional Council. Somewhat strangely Labour and some of their current Council allies are arguing for fewer Boards – less than a dozen.

I think they are highly unlikely to succeed. If you have less than 20 local Boards, you will have communities lumped together that do not have a natural kinship.

Labour also want the local Boards to be called Community Councils. I doubt anyone really cares about what you call them, but they are not going to be called Councils. The Government wants just one Council in Auckland.

The Mayor

There is no serious opposition to the Mayor being elected at large. A few politicians have argued otherwise, but they fail to understand a Council needs a Leader, and a Leader needs a popular mandate. The Mayor will be elected at large.

The powers of the Mayor are unlikely to change much from the Royal Commission. Some have mistakenly criticised the proposed powers of the Mayor as “powerful” and much greater than other Mayors. In fact the Mayor will have little executive authority. The power to appoint the Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs is not that significant, as a talented Mayor will normally play the major role in allocating these anyway.

The Mayor does gain the power to propose the annual budget, but again most current Mayors are in the loop on this already.

The real challenge for the Government and Select Committee is can they give the Mayor enough powers, so that the Chief Executive is not the Emperor-King with all the power. A lot of the frustration at current Councils is at the staff, not the elected officials.

Wards

Regardless of whether there are 12 or 20 Councillors elected through wards, the wards are highly likely to elect just one Councillor each.

Some call for the wards to be the same number and size as the local Boards. This is not practical though as wards needs to be roughly of equal population and have boundaries that will change with population growth. This is unlike local Boards whose boundaries should reflect the local community of interest, and once set not vary.

At Large

The Royal Commission proposed 10 Councillors elected at large, and the Government’s proposal is for eight. This is one of the few areas where the outcome is unclear.

While well intentioned, at large Councillors may divide the Council into 1st class and 2nd class Councillors, with those elected at large being seen as having a stronger mandate – having had 1 million people vote for them.

The mechanics of their election will be relatively complex. Most people will find it easy to vote for one Mayor, one local Councillor, and say five local community board members – many of whom they may know.

An election for eight at large seats could see 80 – 100 people standing for the eight roles. Few of them will be able to effectively campaign across the city, so voters will make decisions based on the quality of their 200 word blurb alone – unless that have a pre-existing profile.

I doubt the Government will agree to remove at large Councillors entirely, but there could be a reduction in numbers.

Personally I think there should be no at large. If the Auckland Council is only dealing with regional issues, and local boards are dealing with local issues, then it does not matter if geographic wards are used to elect the Auckland Council. Wards are a practical pragmatic way to have manageable elections.

Maori Seats

A lot has been written on the Maori seats, and this will be the aspect most scrutinized, even though it is less important than (for example) the powers of the Mayor.

Many people forget that under existing law, Maori seats can be added to a Council, by way of petition and referendum – it is a decision for the voters. The Government could well declare it is neither for nor against Maori seats, but there shall be a referendum on the issue with the initial elections next October. This will either satisfy everyone or satisfy no-one!