Example of a Supercity submission

SUBMISSION on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill

To the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee

This submission is from:

Mickey Mouse

43 Fantasy Avenue,

Disneyland

Submission

1. The legislation governing the unitary authority should incorporate a commitment to the following values:

• The Auckland council recognises that people have the right to have a say in decisions that will affect their lives
• The Auckland Council will engage the public in matters which affect them and promise that the public’s contribution will influence those decisions
• Community Boards will be recognised as an important mechanism for engaging with local communities to determine local priorities.
• Auckland is committed  to the achievement of  social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes for all people in the city
• Auckland Council recognises the significance of Tangata whenua and the Treaty of Waitangi in all its deliberations.

Clause

8.

1. I support direct Maori representation on the Council
2. I support at least 20 direct ward based Councillors and no at-large councillors.
3. I think it may be a good idea to have fewer wards with several councillors representing that ward.
4. The Community Board boundaries should match the ward boundaries and have a direct relationship with the councillors.

Comment: I understand the desire for people with a wider view that just local lobbying, but I cannot see how such a system will result in anything other than the narrow wealthy business view of the world.

9 The Mayor must promote a vision for Auckland but he must do this based on significant and meaningful engagement with Auckland residents. This vision must be comprehensive and reflect social, economic, cultural and environmental views – such as in the one plan. The Mayor should provide leadership and stewardship. We do not need Mayors coming in with their visions and changing the focus every three years!!  We need a comprehensive and sustainable vision. It needs to be based on proper engagement with local communities and reflect the diversity of our community. It needs to also be incorporating the views of community boards, and their views need to incorporate the views of their communities.

10 I agree with the purpose of the community board and have the following comments;

1. Community boards should be provided with adequate staff resources and budgets to undertake local community advocacy plans to provide an opportunity for local communities to set local priorities for Boards to advocate on.
2. These plans should form an important part of the planning process for the Auckland Council although many items will not be significant enough to feature on the LTCCP for the whole of Auckland.  The Community advocacy plans will be the document which forms the basis for community board input into LTCCP and annual plans.
3. Auckland Council will recognise and support the community engagement process to develop the community advocacy plan.
4. This provides an opportunity to share best practice in community engagement from across the region.
5. An effective process at this level will mitigate to a great extent the “lack of democracy’ feared by people in the One City model.
6. This is only true if the community advocacy plans are taken seriously by Auckland Council, and this will be the basis on which Councillors will be judged by their constituents.
7. the boards should be able to decide on as many local matters as possible.

13 I suggest the addition of the following “function, duty and powers of community boards”

1. to engage with the local community to develop a community advocacy plan representing the priorities for the ward.
2. this plan is developed with support from Auckland council, and is a result of comprehensive engagement with the community.
3. this plan should be reviewed every three years and forms the basis of the community board submissions to LTCCP and annual plans.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submissio.

I would like to be able to present my submission in person