Comments on: CBT on 3rd Super City Bill

By: admin

admin — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:47:05 +0000

You make some very valid points Lance, and I agree that less political interference could be good, IF Auckland Transport doesn’t start doing stupid stuff. However, if they do then the lack of accountability will mean it’s difficult to stop them.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:36:18 +0000

“Transport is too complex and too important to leave day to day decisions to their individual whims.”

They never made the day to day decisions anyway – and they will still be able to appoint the people who run Auckland Transport.

The most important thing may become that Auckland Transport is required (rather than just kindly requested, if they would like to…) to give effect to the RLTS. Like any political decision such a document can be changed (and in fact, will have to be updated every six years), but then that is only proper – ffor in the end, I do NOT believe in letting the experts make the final, big issue calls. That needs to be left with the politicans and voters, as much as it aggravates us (being an “expert” myself) sometimes. Otherwise we would be a technocracy, not a democracy.

By: Lance

Lance — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:37:47 +0000

The reason it is important to have a disconnect between the council and the transport agency is that to date there have been numerous costly decisions made on a political basis. If someone has connections and screams loud enough their wishes are followed despite it being to the detriment of the overall population.
Many of the decisions for transport need to be made over the long term and having people who get elected every three years making these means that hard decisions for the long term will not be made.
Perhaps the only reason that ARTA is increasing fares for the first time in three years is because the NZTA a non-elected body is requiring them to. If it was up to the politicians there would be no fare increase, how then would you fund ongoing costs which have risen 11% or any of the number of improvements that need to be made?
Councilors are not experts in anything nor should they be. They should only be making sure that common sense is applied on behalf of their ratepayers and that wider policy is being followed. Transport is too complex and too important to leave day to day decisions to their individual whims.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:23:46 +0000

Whoever reads bills in their entirety? LOL!

That schedule does ease a few of my worries… though I still think the over-arching concern of too much disconnect between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport rings true.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:15:29 +0000

“In many ways submission point 3 is one of the most worrying”

Did you read the bill in whole (I haven’t either, but …)? There is a section called “Schedule 2
Provisions relating to Auckland Transport” – among other things it (and other parts of the bill) contain:

- the “good employer” clauses
- the “exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility” clause (though interestingly, they added “economic responsibility” to the list too)
- the “statement of intent” clause, with an added “statement not to be inconsistent with this act”
- For the Ombudsman Act, the new clause appears to be exactly the same as the one in the LGA 2002

So it seems to me that Point 3 is actually at least a bit overblown – most of it is in there, right in the bill, rather than in a separate act.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:14:17 +0000

Max, yes it is true that the Auckland Council will hold the purse strings and will also appoint the board of directors for Auckland Transport. However, in terms of day to day running there is still a huge disconnect – and various little parts of the legislation seem keen to enshrine that disconnect as much as possible, which is quite strange.

In many ways submission point 3 is one of the most worrying, simply because it seems so strange for Auckland Transport to be exempted from those requirements. Why would you bother doing that unless you really did want Auckland Council to have as little control over Auckland Transport as possible?

By: Max

Max — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:38:09 +0000

As I’m just writing my own submission for IPENZ Transportation Group’s Branch, I would like it if people could clarify some issues for me:

“It is interesting to see that this Bill has gone to such a great extent to ensure that Auckland Transport is distinct and separate to Auckland Council, and to ensure Auckland Council has as little power over it as possible.”

True in some ways, but then Auckland Council holds the purse strings, AND appoints all the directors. Is there any reason why any Council cannot simply stack the board of directors with who it wants to? I’d really like to get people’s take of why that isn’t enough control – or what I am missing. Are appointed directors fixed for their 3-4 year terms (need to check)? I don’t believe so.

Also, I think they should have a non-voting director from KiwiRail sit on the board.