As the Government mulls over the proposals for how councils propose to reorganise themselves under the Head Start pathway of Simplifying Local Government, we must ensure the mayors in charge of these new super cities, towns or districts have enough power to lead effectively, but not too much that they can strip responsibility from councillors who vote against their proposals. After all, those councillors have been elected by their constituents, who deserve representation.
At an Auckland Council meeting in early August, Councillors voted 13–8 in favour of demoting several of their colleagues from their Chair or Deputy Chair positions on committees at the recommendation of Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown.
At the meeting, the Mayor was accused by Councillors of demoting them because they promoted a 5.9 percent rates rise for Auckland, instead of 7.9 percent, or because they had made bullying allegations.
Councillor John Gillon, who lost his role as Deputy Chair of the Regulatory and Safety Committee, says Wayne linked his demotion to his voting record and attendance at a community event opposing the fast-tracking of eight-storey buildings in Devonport.
Wayne denies that: “I just have to pick on what I think is what gives me the best team to promote things for the next stage… nothing personal.
“Nothing to do with this at all. I mean everyone’s entitled to attend whatever meetings they wish to attend.”
John says all Councillors have a responsibility to bring differing viewpoints from their wards to the Council table and not just rubber-stamp what’s in front of them, or what they’ve been told to support.
“We shouldn’t have groupthink. No one here should be getting whipped and rewarded with chair positions.
“That is not good governance. I will continue to represent my ward and their concerns and continue to champion my election promises around this table.”
In a Facebook post, John says others who supported a 5.9 percent rates rise have also lost Chair or Deputy Chair roles, including Bo Burns, Greg Sayers and Maurice Williamson.
Councillor Bo Burns, who expressed bullying concerns in July, asked Wayne to clarify whether the way she voted was linked to her demotion.
Wayne says it was “not necessarily” related.
“But you have to have sensible, well thought-out responses and raise things during the workshops and previous discussions…”
He says changes to the long-term plan should not be proposed “at the last minute via a late change on the day of the decision”.
Councillor Ken Turner says normally if someone isn’t performing, they’re told in advance.
However, Wayne says the direction he wanted to take the Council was clear to Aucklanders.
“Those people who supported that direction, that’s good performance, and people who have not supported that direction, not such good performance.”
Councillor Mike Lee says the demoted Councillors were being punished for voting with their conscience, rather than the way the Mayor wanted. He says Wayne shouldn’t act as though he’s a “dictator of Auckland”.
“You’re a mayor, that’s it, you’re nothing else. You’re not a king or a prince. We need to be a democratic organisation, and you need to be more tolerant of dissent.”
However, Wayne says the Council is “definitely a democratic organisation”.
“And I’m democratically elected from all of the areas you represent. I have also had feedback from all of the areas which you represent.”
Councillor Julie Fairey says the Mayor brought the demotions as an agenda report that Councillors could vote on.
“That seems pretty democratic to me.”
Wayne likened himself to an All Blacks selector, saying players generally do what the captain says.
However, Ken says it’s not ‘Team Council’ but ‘Team Auckland’ and the Mayor is a referee, rather than a captain.
“I’m here as the most voted for person by a long, long way, in the country,” says Wayne.
“So, I think I could take some comfort from that, and actually was voted on the clear policies, which I laid out.”
The new Mayor of Auckland was given extra powers of appointment and a clear leadership role when the Super City was created. There were also amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 to give mayors around the country powers that allow them to appoint council committees and chairs. However, councillors can vote against a mayor’s proposed appointments.
In a 2021 paper called Leading Locally: how New Zealand’s mayors get things done, published in Policy Quarterly, Seán Mahoney recounts some open defeats and challenges for mayors during that term, including former Wellington Mayor Andy Foster, former Waitomo Mayor John Robertson, former Dunedin Mayor Aaron Hawkins and former Tauranga Mayor Tenby Powell, whose decisions on appointing Deputies were challenged by his Councillors twice. He resigned and asked for commissioners to be put in place.
So, the pendulum must not swing back so far in the opposite direction to kneecap mayors and render them powerless. However, as Ken points out, normally people are told in advance if they are not performing.
According to an online questionnaire done in 2020:
“Some councillors considered that the stacking of committee chairs, with additional remuneration, was a tactic to ensure the mayor went undefeated, although mayors insisted that all appointments were based on ‘skills and experience’.”
As someone who has the right to “employ” councillors as chairs or deputy chairs, then surely a mayor should follow processes that are common under New Zealand employment laws, such as giving people a verbal then written warning and following an employment process councillors can respond to.
The Employment New Zealand website says employers must follow a “fair and reasonable” process when they dismiss an employee.
“If an employer does not do this, the employee can raise a personal grievance against them. These rules protect the employee from being unfairly dismissed.”
There seem to be few protections for councillors who are “dismissed” from their roles as chairs or deputy chairs. Their fellow councillors can vote for or against their demotion but don’t those councillors have their own vested interests? They probably would quite like to take up a position as a chair or deputy chair of a committee so may not care that another councillor has been relegated.
To my mind, although courteous, phoning councillors the day before they are about to receive a demotion, which could impact their ability to bring about real change for their constituents, is not good enough.
Who went with whom?
Meanwhile, councils in the rest of the country have spent the last three months scrambling to come up with a way to reorganise themselves in the biggest restructuring of the sector in decades.
Eighteen proposals of how councils wish to be grouped have been sent to Local Government Minister Simon Watts. We have plenty of coverage in this issue on who went with whom, who couldn’t decide and who would rather go it alone.
On reform, Muriel Newman describes the current process as “heavy-handed and anti-democratic” on page 17. The Last Word goes to Andy Asquith and Jeff McNeill, who explain who the real winners of this process are on page 46.
In our cover story on pages 32–33, Clever Buying explains how procurement is more important for councils than ever.
We also have previews on pages 34–38 of three presentations at SuperLocal conference, which is being held by Local Government New Zealand in October in Rotorua.
On water, Jaron Shaw from Waikato Waters gives tips on setting up a water entity on pages 40–41. There’s also a comment from Peter Dunne on pages 44–45 about Wellington City Council’s public relations efforts in establishing its new water organisation.
A new report by Pacifecon New Zealand Research, explained on pages 42–43, finds we’re at a critical point for the country’s infrastructure as councils go through reform and grapple with legislation changes.
On legal matters, Sarah Macky from Heaney & Partners explains how the new rules on civil proceedings at the High Court will impact councils on page 39.
Natasha Jojoa Burling
Editorial Manager