Hot Topic

Should Wellington become a Super City?

Obviously we are all watching the Auckland Super City formation with considerable interest.

It is almost inevitable that the political shape of Wellington will be considered by Government at some stage. It is important that we as a region think about what we want, rather than having it imposed on us.

I personally would welcome the public discussion. I don’t at this stage think that the benefits of a single ‘super city’ for Wellington would outweigh the dis-benefits, but I haven’t a firm view and would suggest that anyone who has made up their mind before the people of Wellington region have entered into that discussion would be a touch unwise.

There are many issues to consider, but I will concentrate here on three:

· First – would amalgamation deliver benefits in the region working better together ?

· Second – would there be efficiency gains (savings to ratepayers)?

· Third – would the democratic process be enhanced or undermined?

1. Working better together?

It seems very clear that this was a key issue for Auckland. Its local authorities and Regional Council clearly couldn’t work together at all. There hasn’t been any coherence in direction on key issues either.

In contrast Wellington’s 8 TLAs (Territorial Local Authorities – ie City and District Councils) and Regional Council generally have a very positive working relationship. Yes, there are disagreements mostly over some elements of transport investment and whether people from outside Wellington City should contribute to regional facilities which are predominantly in Wellington City.

However all the Council’s worked together for over 3 years to develop a Wellington Regional Strategy (WRS) which was adopted in May 2007. It covers economic development and urban form (where development should occur). From it economic development agency Grow Wellington was established, funded through a regional rate. The aligned Wellington Regional Transport Strategy has a high degree of buy in from all Councils. Obviously these are works in progress, but the question is whether debate between Councils is better than simply debate within one (or more) Councils. The WRS was developed in the expectation that the issue of amalgamation (‘super city’) would inevitably arise.

Councils are also working on joint service delivery. This includes cooperation in libraries and parks. The three Wairarapa Councils share a District Plan. The two Hutt Councils share their sewage system. Wellington and Porirua co-own Spicer landfill and Porirua sewage treatment plant. Capacity Infrastructure Services plans and operates water, stormwater and wastewater (pipes) for Wellington, Hutt City, and from July 2008 also Upper Hutt City.

There is real potential for savings from joint service delivery, whether it is bulk purchasing, sharing expertise, development of information technology, or co-operative water service delivery.

So where to from here on this question?

The key is whether the Councils can or can’t work well together. Obviously fewer Councils means the need for fewer conversations. That would be beneficial – but only provided good decisions are being made ! A single Council would leave few checks and balances. If the Councils are able to work together collaboratively this key issue is less of a driver than in Auckland.

That said I would have thought that some interim steps are also possible and appear logical. The amalgamation of the two Hutt Cities, and the three Wairarapa Districts seem to make sense, but then I don’t live there, and those should be decisions for those communities to make. The Western coast (Kapiti, Porirua, Wellington) are a bigger step more complex step. These three TLAs are clearly very distinct, and amalgamation may only make sense if it is in the context of a decision to establish a super city for the whole region.

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.

As well as operational opportunities like information technology there are two key strategic areas where discussion about joint service delivery seems to have potential.

One is transport. Is the current model right or not ? Transport is overseen by the Regional Transport Committee, who’s members include one from each TLA, key Government agencies (Police, Rail, NZTA) and 5 interest representatives (economy, environment etc). It recommends transport priorities – across roading, public transport, walking and cycling to Government for funding. What it doesn’t do is get involved in a detail level. Local roading decisions currently stay local. A question would be whether decisions on your local pedestrian crossing request, parking regulations, traffic calming, road resealing etc should be made at a regional or local level. The Auckland model will be across the entire transport area, but is all the responsibility of an unelected CCO (Council Controlled Organisation). It seems councillors role will be relatively limited, to setting Statements of Corporate Intent and monitoring performance. That will be very interesting to watch. I have my doubts that something with the degree of day to day community interface that transport has will work in a CCO model. However the current Wellington transport model involves a very complex web of institutional relationships.

The second area, and the one where to me a regional model makes most sense is in water services. This includes freshwater supply, wastewater (sewage) and stormwater. The current model has GWRC operating the bulk water system (capture, storage and treatment) which is then distributed to the four cities (Wellington, Porirua, Hutt, Upper Hutt) which operate their own local water systems (reservoirs, pipes, area meters etc). Capacity Infrastructure Services has done this for Wellington and Hutt Cities since 2004, and in July 2008 Upper Hutt City also became a client of Capacity. The logical approach for water would be for all 5 entities to have water supply delivered by one organisation, and ideally interact direct with end users. There are certainly significant potential synergies and savings. Councils could still govern the means of paying (rate levels), level of investment, and own the assets. Any decisions around metering (which to me doesn’t make sense) would also need to stay with Councils and the democratic process needs to be respected.

I have left Kapiti and the Wairarapa out of this part of the conversation as they are not connected to the GWRC bulk water supply.

I have made comments elsewhere on the success of Capacity as there have been some media comments, and comments by some councillors that the Capacity model isn’t working. That is not the case.

2. Supercity and Efficiency Gains?

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 !

3. What Shape for Local Democracy?

First question is does it matter ? Judged by the declining number of people participating in local body elections (everywhere – and I understand this is almost universal across the Western World) the answer to some may be that it doesn’t. I obviously don’t agree with that at all. We should be doing all we can to encourage participation and engagement.

Question one for a supercity would be access to your local councillor. In Auckland the proposals see approximately one councillor per 60,000 residents. Wellington City has one per 15,000, which is far lower than in other TLAs in our region. 15,000 is about the practical limit for a councillor to do the strategic level, policy making role, and be accessible to constituents to call, write, email etc and ask for help on the massive variety of issues – small and large - you are interested in. It also means we can – just – cope with the community/business meetings we are asked to go to, which is a really important and enjoyable part of doing our jobs.

I was the councillor who consistently argued to reduce the size of Wellington City Council. We had 21 councillors when I was first elected in 1992. Now we have 14. My view, based on long experience is that 12-15 is about the right number to fulfil our current roles. On that basis we’d have a super city Council of an impossibly unwieldy 30-40. 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 ?

Question two would be where would the role of the Super Council stop and that of whatever sub regional bodies start ? Whether that was some form of more limited Councils (local services only) or community boards (ideally with some real dollar clout). That has been a significant debate in Auckland.

Question three would be who can stand for a Super Council ? At present Wellington – unlike Auckland – is blessedly free of party politics, although obviously we all have our philosophies. One of the great weaknesses in Auckland has been the dominance of party politics which tends to see the dominant party push its agenda, until the electorate replaces it with the other party, and the agenda changes. In many policy areas consistency over many terms is vital to delivering results.

A Super Council means large wards, and even more a ‘Super-mayor’. The simple reality is that the cost of campaigning, already beyond many to do it effectively, would be just too high for most people. 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 am sure there are other questions that need addressing, but these are just three of the key ones. I welcome the conversation, and will certainly be listening very carefully to what people have to say. I hope that these few comments are helpful to people in thinking about the whole question of Supercity or not.