A Grab for the Gulf

[SloopJohnB 322]

NZCPR Weekly:

LOCAL BODY DEVELOPMENTS
By Dr Muriel Newman

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it! ... WC Field, American comedian

Not content with the failure of the Local Government Commission to merge councils in Northland, the Hawke’s Bay, and Wellington, National is now proposing to put their amalgamation agenda into effect via the back door, by using a new local government bill to increase the power of the Commission, while removing important democratic rights.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) is now in front of Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Select Committee and is open for submissions until Thursday 28 July – full details can be seen HERE.

The Bill’s preamble explains that it aims to lift local authority performance, as part of the Government’s overall objective of improving public services and building a more productive and competitive economy. It does this by streamlining the process for combining and co-ordinating services, infrastructure and resources across regions and towns, through a greater use of Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs).

As the Local Government Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga explained in his first reading speech, “Communities in Northland, Hawke's Bay, and Wellington have told us that they do not want full-scale amalgamation, but this bill provides a middle ground. Communities will retain their elected councils; the councils, in turn, will be able to work more collaboratively to manage infrastructure and services across our regions. This will deliver more joined-up, cost-effective services and better value for our ratepayers.”

So while the present legislation promotes council amalgamations as the way to gain the scale required to combine services, the new Bill facilitates the sharing of services between councils, without the need for amalgamation – unless it is agreed by all councils.

While under the present law only individuals, groups, councils, and the Minister can propose amalgamations, the Bill extends that power to the Local Government Commission. To balance that, the Bill includes an automatic poll of citizens over any Commission-led re-organisation proposal, including the transfer of water, transport, or Resource Management Act functions from one local authority to another.

However, there’s a catch. The Bill removes an important democratic safeguard, namely the automatic right of residents and ratepayers to petition councils for a binding poll on any amalgamation proposal - if supported by 10 percent of electors. As a result, under the new Bill, if a number of councils jointly agree on amalgamation, local citizens will have no right to call for a poll. This has already led to speculation that councils might be encouraged to collude in order to circumvent a public poll.

We strongly recommend that the ability of residents and ratepayers to petition their local authority for a poll on any amalgamation or reorganisation proposals should either be re-instated, or the provision for an automatic poll on Commission-led changes should be extended to cover all amalgamation and re-organisation proposals.

The point is that local ratepayers have a fundamental right to have a say in the structure of representative decision-making in their communities, since they are the ones who fund council infrastructure and assets.

There is also a concern that a central requirement in the current law, that there must be “demonstrable community support” for an amalgamation proposal to proceed, has been removed. Instead, the new Bill focuses on “the likelihood of significant community opposition to any reorganisation…”

In effect, this change in presumption from an amalgamation needing community support to proceed, to the lesser hurdle that it should go ahead unless there is significant opposition, dramatically lowers the threshold.

We suggest that the old standard is the correct one – new local government re-organisation proposals should have to demonstrate that they have the support of their community in order to proceed.

When community support was used as a benchmark by the Commission in the last three amalgamation attempts, the results were conclusive: in Northland, 93 percent of submitters opposed a single council, in Wellington, 89 percent were opposed, and in the Hawke’s Bay, where a poll was held, 66 percent of voters were opposed.

In defence of the new Bill, the Local Government Minister explained, “The projected costs of maintaining and building core infrastructure such as water, sewerage, flood protection and roading are growing exponentially faster than the ability of local ratepayers to bear. The bill enables the development of shared infrastructure ownership and management across regions. This is essential for developing regions and communities”.

But this is also a key reason why communities should remain closely involved in the reform process - the creation of CCOs for the delivery of water and roading services, could remove a major part of the budget of many small councils, signalling their radical downsizing into largely regulatory agencies.

Further, since concerns remain that the Commission, on behalf of the Minister, could create CCOs without the approval of the council or the community, it is imperative that community involvement and support remains a priority in the Bill – especially given the dreadful problems that are still evident in Auckland, where residents and ratepayers had amalgamation forced upon them.

Meanwhile, the Local Government Commission is wasting no time. Although their plans for Auckland-style super cities and Maori Statutory Boards in Northland, Wellington and the Hawke’s Bay were rejected, they are now informing councils that they intend to reconsider other restructuring options to promote greater efficiencies in the regions. They plan to progress their re-organisation proposals under the new law.

If you are concerned about the potential erosion of local democracy, and the failure of the proposed law to adequately safeguard public involvement in major council reorganisation decision-making, we would urge you to send in a quick submission on the Bill outlining your concerns by Thursday.

With local body elections just weeks away, local government reform is not the only thing being dumped on councils.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Fiona Mackenzie, an Auckland-based political commentator, outlines how councillors in the region are having to battle against a power grab by tribal interests for control of the crucial Hauraki Gulf.

The Hauraki Gulf is a massive coastal area covering 1.2 million hectares from Mangawai in the North, to Waihi in the South, and Great Barrier Island in the East, encompassing Auckland, the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula. It includes the Ports of Auckland, shipping routes, marinas, fisheries, marine farms, and other commercial and recreational facilities.

At the present time, as Fiona explains, the area is controlled by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act:

“Since 2000, the Gulf has been managed by the Hauraki Gulf Forum with Auckland Council as its administering authority. Its 21-member board includes Ministry bureaucrats, elected representatives of all the region’s councils, plus 6 self-nominated tribal representatives appointed by the Minister of Conservation.”

She outlines how, at their meeting last month, iwi tried to force through a re-organisation proposal for a new 16-member Board, constituted on the 50:50 Maori sovereignty co-governance model, whereby 8 members would represent Maori and 8 members would represent everyone else, giving tribes unassailable control of the Board and the Hauraki Gulf.

Under their scheme, the number of iwi representatives on the new Forum would be increased from 6 to 8. The number of councillors representing the vast Auckland region would be cut from 7 to 1. Representatives of the five other councils in the area - the Hauraki District Council, the Matamata-Piako District Council, the Thames-Coromandel District Council, the Waikato District Council, and the Waikato Regional Council - would be cut from 5 to 2. And the number of public servants representing the Minister of Maori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Fisheries, would be increased from 3 to 5.

All in all, only 3 of the 16 representatives on the proposed new governance body would be elected to represent the public interest and the almost 2 million people who live in the area.

Under the proposal, the new iwi-controlled Board would also demand statutory authority so it can enact legislation over the entire area.

Why, in a democracy based on equal rights and the rule of law, such a racist proposal could have progressed to the point where it is being seriously considered, is hard to fathom - although it’s not altogether surprising, given that the long-term agenda of Maori tribal leaders is to gain sufficient status and power to control the country's major resources.

According to Fiona, “The meeting became rather acrimonious when some expressed concern at this attempt to shove the recommendations through. Understandably, they wished to have it reviewed by their respective organisations and obtain a mandate before voting. The inevitable claims of ‘racism’ were made.”

She is concerned that those in positions of power on the Auckland Council, who support the sovereignty cause, might manipulate the process so the proposal may not be decisively defeated, as it should be: “At the time of writing, the Forum’s Auckland City Councillors did not yet know if this Report would be reviewed and voted on by their Council’s governing body. There’s a chance it could be directed to a sub-committee for an easier passage from carefully selected participants, plus the two votes from the unelected, unaccountable and totally conflicted members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.”

It is clear that the group wanting control of the Gulf were pushing Forum members to approve their new governance model on the spot, ahead of the local body elections, as they clearly believe they have the numbers to get their proposal through and do not want to risk having their compliant representatives replaced by others who might oppose their plan.

If they succeed in gaining support for their 50:50 Maori sovereignty-style co-governance proposal, the next step in their march for tribal control of the Hauraki Gulf, will be to seek the approval of the Government for a change to the Act. With the National Party's history of caving in to iwi demands, whether they would stand up against this blatant power grab is anyone’s guess.

This whole debacle shows only too clearly how important it is that our local body representatives are prepared to act on principle and stand up for the public interest against radicals.  With council nominations now open (they close August 12), we should be encouraging those who are deeply concerned about the direction of local democracy and are prepared to take a stand against powerful vested interests, to put their names forward for election.

By offering themselves for office, candidates are pledging to work in the best interests of their community. That means opposing anyone threatening the principle of one person one vote.

With an on-going campaign underway to pressure councillors to support the appointment of un-elected iwi representatives with voting rights onto local authorities, it is important that potential candidates are well prepared. Standing up to iwi and their supporters is not always easy, so we suggest the following questions should be asked:

1. If you are elected would you oppose iwi representatives being appointed onto your Council with voting rights?
2. If you are elected and a proposal to appoint iwi representatives with voting rights onto your Council wins majority support, would you propose that the final decision should be made by local electors through a public referendum process?
3. If your Council has already established iwi representatives with voting rights, will you move that the positions be disestablished so they can be reconsidered by the new council?

If you send email responses from candidates to us, we will add the details to our website HERE – as a public service in the run up to the elections.

New Zealand needs strong local government politicians. But be warned - as Fiona’s article indicates only too clearly, you need to be prepared to stick to your principles and not cave in to bullying or intimidation. Most of all you must never forget that you are there to represent the best interests of your community - and those who voted you into office.
 

 

Fiona Mackenzie article

 

http://www.nzcpr.com/a-grab-for-the-gulf/

[marinheiro 352]

This Bill is also designed to remove the opportunity for regions in the Auckland Council area to petition to break away from its clutches eg Northern Rodney (Northern Action Group http://www.nag.org.nz/) and Waiheke Island (www.ourwaiheke.co.nz).

The Local Government Commission is a joke, it is supposed to be independent but takes its instructions from the minister pushing the government's super council agenda. It was found to have acted illegally by the High Court in 2014 in not properly considering NAG's application. It continues to act in concert with Auckland Council behind the scenes, even though Auckland Council has never produced any substantive evidence of the claimed adverse effects from a de-amalgamation.

In the case of the Northern Rodney area only about 1/3 of the collected rates are actually returned to the region.

[Steve Pope 243]

Kaipara and Whangarei district councils are already holding hands, they have employed Armourguard to act for both of them even though Armourguards tender was higher than the "local" firm that has been doing it adequately for years. Kaipara residents are going to be allowed to vote for their local councilors, the Commissioners have been withdrawn, BUT there is now another government appointee to oversee and "guide" the new council! "along the path that central government wants it to go" Local electors can't be trusted?  Democracy? I think not! Too much back door tinkering. After all it was the Audit department who rubber stamped all the wrongs that were being done, hence the few millions (a fraction of what it has cost ratepayers.) that they have payed out to make it go away.

[Black Panther 1,591]

Ecan

[John B 106]

Sam is my local MP. I always thought he was good guy, but then he became a sock puppet for the lobby group that seeks to put us all in lifejackets at all times. Thats because fishermen in tinnies keep killing themselves.

 

After that he became the prison system failure that featured in the press a year or so back.

 

He is dangerous and wants to kill our lifestyle.

[Kevin McCready 83]

Let's just knock one silly meme on the head. Not ALL politicians are bad.

[DrWatson 380]

I think it is vitally important that we recognise tribalism and privatisation as the same thing, and that this is a societal cancer that leads to a divided society, and a class war.

 

The failure to recognise the public estate as belonging to all New Zealand citizens and residents, and to transfer the ownership, governance or guardianship away from everyone and to a select few determined by race or wealth, is one of the greatest disasters about to befall NZ.

 

A successful country and society must be united. A society divided by race, tribe, wealth, religion, or any other factor will lead to a disaster, and there is no place for these concepts in a modern progressive country. Any policy that legitimises these traits is a step back into the dark ages.

 

I firmly agree that past wrongs must be addressed, however, proportional representation is of key importance in modern life.

 

The world has changed, and despite the wrongs of the past, new people, who also have rights must be accommodated.

 

Many forget that democracy is not about majority rule, but about fair representation.

[dutyfree 170]

The co-governance model is being quietly rolled out across NZ.  A particular interpretation of the intent of the Treaty that circumvents democracy.  It will be extremely difficult to undo.  I am not sure Maori even understand what or how 'their' representatives come to be in these governance positions.

[wheels 543]

 

Many forget that democracy is not about majority rule, but about fair representation.

I agree and I am greatly concerned that this no longer happens. A citizen/s are no longer represented by their elected Member of Parliament. I am trying to think when the change came about. It certainly was subtle and I am not sure everyone actually realises that they are no longer represented. Yet in principle, we vote for and supposedly the majority thus elect a person to represent them and their community. Now it is a Numbers game to get a party in Power. The chosen MP is purely a number toward the Party and the Party with the most numbers leads. That is where the story stops. From there on, everyone toes the Party line. The major issue with this, is that the Party no longer has an understanding, or want to understand, what the People want.

[Steve Pope 243]

The co-governance model is being quietly rolled out across NZ.  A particular interpretation of the intent of the Treaty that circumvents democracy.  It will be extremely difficult to undo.  I am not sure Maori even understand what or how 'their' representatives come to be in these governance positions.

I note in the news letter from the Kaipara district council (commissioners) have signed a memorandum of understanding with "Te Roroa and the  Te Uri o Hau tribes as to the interaction between them and the council. As far as I can tell there has been no discussion with the electorate as to what that memorandum of understanding is?????