Auckland governance – hear ye, hear ye. Or not.

The proposed restructuring of Auckland’s local government has divided public opinion and sparked a great deal of outcry. Some worry their rural area will become slave to city interests while others fear restructuring is merely the first step towards privatising Auckland’s assets, worth $28 billion. Underlying much resistance is concern over lack of representation in the bigger and better city Auckland is to become. But don’t be afraid for the Government is listening to you.

Legislation mandating the restructure is divided into three separate bills. The first passed on May 13 under urgency and the second was introduced. The Government says urgency was needed to quickly establish the transition authority that will oversee restructuring, while holding the reins on the current system and ensuring no rogue council actions may jeopardise the interests of Auckland and its constituents.

This is ironic because it is the Government who is threatening Auckland through lack of consultation. This counters the official Government line which trumpets it is all ears – everything is on the table except the one unitary authority. The public is being implored to make their voices heard through submissions to the select committee.

The Government insists it will listen to what Auckland has to say.

But there is a difference between listening and hearing. I fear the Government will hear what it doesn’t want, while listening to what it does want. This is because the Government has already made up its mind. Legislation is never a blank slate and the precedent has been set to ignore select committee recommendations.

Nevertheless, the Government says Aucklanders must have their say. But did Aucklanders not have their say when the Royal Commission spent over a year consulting with a wide cross section of the public? Its report was trashed after the Government cherry-picked what it wanted from it.

Irrespective of whether the report was perfect or not, the Government still turfed it without public consultation. Aucklanders told the commission they wanted Māori representation. The Government, thinking it knows better, removed the guaranteed Māori seats recommended by the commission. Their removal highlights an underlying issue; will the Government really listen to submissions?

If parts of the commission’s report can be disregarded with such contempt then what expectation can the public really have they will be listened to, particularly if they are asking for something the Government does not want to give?

Impressions are often more important than reality. The Government is raising more questions than it is answering and giving Aucklanders the wrong impression. If the Prime Minister remains resolute in the eye of thousands speaking with their feet, then how will written submissions be any more influential?

For democracy’s sake I hope I am proven wrong.