The government’s decision to act quickly on reform of local government in Auckland is admirable if the solutions proposed are correct. Certainly there is need for reform of local government but the whole review was based on the premise that a lack of unity between the various councils was dysfunctional and stopping Auckland achieving its potential. If the reason given for the perceived problem is incorrect so is the solution. The proposed large centrally controlled organisation could actually make matters worse with a lack of contestability of ideas and informed critique. Around the world reform into larger units has not delivered the efficiencies some may expect and it definitely risks disconnection from local communities. The Royal Commission itself highlighted this risk in its findings when promoting high density living to make public transport viable. This is central control where the super-city will determine how we use our property in the interests of the state. Communities are being directed. Scary stuff.

The type of individual chosen to hear the evidence often has a significant impact on results delivered. In this case we had a retired judge experienced in environmental law, an experienced public servant, and a financial expert who has had international experience in public sector reform - all backgrounds in delivery of state regulation. They were always likely to go for a top down control solution.

The critics are already arguing a lack of local representation and they are right. The setting up of a pile of toothless community boards will not resolve this issue. Plus, it is not really about representation but a fair share of service delivery and this is most certainly at risk.

The amalgamations in 1991 did not achieve what was expected. For instance, the Far North district has a significantly diverse population with a high socio-economic growing population in the east and a stagnating west coast. Resources and policies have continually favoured the east at the expense of the west making the situation worse. We could lay the same criticism at the door of many other councils and even central government. Public sector bureaucrats and their political masters struggle to build communities in a fair and equitable way. The so called wise government heads always know best and rarely ask communities what they actually want, what problems they face, and how can they help without first determining what we are going to get.

We need a political structure that empowers local communities and allows infrastructure to be built so communities can achieve their desires and not just the political whims of elected politicians. Personally I think a provincial government, with no egotistical Mayor sitting on a throne, has merit to undertake planning and central administration. Significant gains could be made. However, also having local communities elect community councils, with Mayors who can kiss babies and cut ribbons if they want them, to implement community plans is a better model.

Mayors around the country have been lobbying government all year with their own restructuring ideas as if they know best. They don’t! I believe we need to have informed public debate and develop a model that works for all communities rather than have yet another solution imposed like in 1991.