The Government’s third Auckland bill is due for its first reading this week. With each new bill and each new decision they seem to create yet more problems.
That is why Phil Goff has today called for the Prime Minister to intervene to sort out Rodney Hide’s mess.
While the Minister of Local Government and fallen perk buster is riding the roller coaster at Universal Studios, and trying in vain to get face-to-face bodybuilding advice from Arnold Schwarzenegger, the super city is turning to custard. Let us count the ways:
- The Government gave the Local Government Commission an impossible task by allotting only 20 councillors and requiring Rodney and Franklin have their own wards. The result: unequal voting strength between wards, and a right wing gerrymander across the city. Why is it acceptable for the vote of someone who lives in South Auckland to be worth only three-quarters of a vote in rural Rodney?
- Aucklanders will be woefully under-represented. The super city changes will cut the number of elected officials by half. Ratio of elected representative to population 1: 5,152 1:9,638. (In France there is an elected official for every 120 people, in Germany the ratio is 1:250; in Britain it is 1:2,600.) David Thornton reckons the number of council officials has increased 30% in the last five years. Never mind how difficult it will be to get access to a councillor when something goes wrong. This is a huge shift in power from elected representatives to unelected council staff.
- The Government’s insistence on two-member wards and only 20 councillors has forced the Local Government Commission to shoe horn suburbs with no community of interest into the same ward. Most striking is the Orakei-Maungakiekie ward which combines the wealthy eastern bays with working class Maungakiekie. Without doubt some communities will be unrepresented on the new council.
- Aucklanders still do not know whether the local boards will have significant powers. We know they won’t have any legal status or staff. No regulatory functions. No role in transport including local roads or footpaths. The Council will be able to delegate powers down to the boards but not on matters it thinks better dealt with regionally. This is really the litmus test. Without local boards with genuine powers we are staring down the barrel at an all-powerful 20-member Council.
- Iwi are threatening to boycott the statutory board for Maori. Is it any wonder? It is a talkshop with no decision making powers.
- The Government is planning to wrap 95% of the Council’s operations including the all important transport agency into seven commercial entities run at arms length from the elected councillors. The public will have precious little chance of holding their elected councillors to account for the work of these entities. Each of them will have their own CEO and board. How’s that for duplication and silos – two of the things the whole exercise was supposed to reduce.
- Campaign spending limits that would allow the mayoral candidates to spend $580,000 in the last three months of the campaign. This is in excess of the parliamentary limits and can only benefit the rich and those backed by business.
- The third bill will strip away the anti-privatisation protections against the sale of Ports of Auckland shares. This follows Hide’s announcement that he will amend the Local Government Act to allow private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years.
Is it any wonder Franklin, Papakura and northern Rodney are making last minute bids to secede?
The bill is due for its first reading on Tuesday. Aucklanders will have an opportunity to tell the select committee what they think in the New Year. In the mean time John Key would do well to intervene. If he doesn’t his super city project risks going down the gurgler with Rodney Hide’s credibility.
The whole supercity should be scrapped it’s such a shambles.
the North Shore are also having problems
I share your concerns. But what a shame we don’t have a coordinated, hard hitting opposition. Well at least one that gets listened to.
I’m not sure who’s doing the country a bigger disservice — the National-Act Government who are shafting democracy or the squeaky-as-a-mouse opposition that struggle to influence headlines.
Phil
Perhaps more time could be spent co-ordinating ALL Auckland electorate MPs from Labour to start a concerted effort to stop this horrendous bill from going through.
You’re the only one that I can visibly see or hear doing anything about.
Where are your colleagues and why are they not saying anything about the changes to the supercity?
Where is George Hawkins? Is he or is he not the Spokesperson for Local Government? If he is, then he’s certainly doing a poor job (apart from the filibustering, I realise he put through a load of amendments.)
Labour’s issue here is the fact that not enough is being directed towards the worst rape of democracy we’ve seen yet.
Get the Auckland MP’s out there, band together, say it as one. Then Labour might gain some traction and understanding in people who live in Akl as to why this government is trampling all over their rights (even though they don’t know it yet)
Stop doing it yourself Phil.
Oh – and Dave.. didn’t you get the memo? It’s a NAMP government now. Not NACT.
The Super City Plan is a complete waste of time, money and other resources. It’s just another way for today’s Government to control this super Auckland City.
Leave it alone.
The huge change will consequent in thousands employment redundancies, infrastructure mayhem, and of course, no competition with who controls the minor community centers/ sports clubs and schools – zoning.
Don’t forget updating maps (dollars worth of local maps, GPS systems and NZ post).
This is going to turn into mayhem. We can’t sit and watch those in power lead us to mutiny. We must speak up now.
And don’t give us a referndum. Just let us – who run the show – vote.
This is our city, our country. We don’t want to lose any more jobs.
Dave, I think your problem there is with NZ’s media. Most of the opposition parties are constantly churning out research, facts, alternative policies and press releases to counter the government.
Good points Park Drive. Though I think there would be more value in Jacinda getting vocal than George.
Labour needs to start working together to build public awareness of super city issues such as CCOs and lowered democracy. Given how blatant Hide is about disregarding the average voter, it should be an easy win for Labour.
However, now it seems Phil is being slowly ostracised, where does that leave the party’s voice on the super city.
@PD – I don’t think the Maori Party are shafting democracy.
@Bob The opposition parties need better media strategies. It’s not a simple as churning out the right information. National has certainly figured that out.
@ Dave, ParkDrive – I dont know where you guys get this stuff from. The Auckland Labour MPs have been active all year on the super city: public meetings, direct mail etc, taking part in the hikoi, speaking in all the debates. It was one of the main issues in the Mt Albert by-election campaign. George Hawkins and Su’a William Sio (local govt spokesperson and associate) have been particularly active. Because I am the spokesperson you hear me doing most of the talking publicly. But the party, including Phil Goff, has been out there on this issue. @ Dave 10.36 – ostracised? What are you on?
Just take a look at what the right wing are doing to Andrew Williams currently to see what happens if you stick your head too far above the parapet over the super city. If they can’t convince Aucklanders it’s a good idea, then shoot the messenger? Maybe it is time for Labour to turn up the volume?
Sorry Phil. I didn’t notice that the party was doing so much. But that’s the problem. I’m an average voter and I didn’t realise.
It seems that Hide can put up proposals – which are essentially theft of democracy and public assets – and the Government will pass them with minimal changes. To make it worse, National’s approval ratings remain ridiculously high.
I’m sorry, but I blame Labour for not being more coordinated and hard hitting. Giving the party a a gold star and pat on the head for trying isn’t of benefit to anyone. Labour needs to actually make a difference.
Ostracised: I’m just pointing out how it seems.
I didn’t realise right wing activists visited Williams’ house and physically forced him to send abusive texts to the PM.
How smart.
Gooner, it’s not about the txt message or what time it was sent. It’s about what is becoming a pattern for this administration, dumping on individuals who do not agree with them and have the guts to say so in public. Rortney’s junket is just the latest example. That one must have really hurt.
I don’t recall THIS Administration dumping on individuals who do not agree with them. If you listen to the voice messages Mr Williams has left on Mr Woods answer phone, then you would see that he is “struggling” on his own and being the Mayor of the Nth Shore, he needs to be careful.
I do note a HUGE amount of personal attacks on Mr Hide.
I’m of the opinion, now, that if the people want to keep things the way they are then fine .. I don’t really care and that’s because my rates will increase and services reduce either way.
Phil, there’s even a clause in the Bill to prevent Franklin, Papakura and Northern Rodney from initiating reorganisation proposals to pull out before the 2013 election, so despite what their electors want they’ll be part of it until at least the 2015 election.
The bigger scandal is the way Watercare are busily entenching power for themselves free of scrutiny from the public, without having to even consult the public or even the Auckland Transitional Authority. The will be able to subsume all the profitable parts of water distribution but dump all the expensive unprofitable parts (mainly stormwater) onto the council and ratepayers.
Their Senior management have just given themselves $50-100K pay rises and I note that the third bill arrangements for employees who have their jobs abolished then have to re-apply for new jobs does not apply to them. They don’t even have to consult ATA in their daily decisions. Seems not who you are but who you know!
Yuck that’s digusting
Guys, seriously now – wtf are you doing? I aint seen jack in terms of co-operation on the left to a position re post 2011. If these buggers get in again, they will claim it as a privatization mandate and give Rodger Douglas his last 3rd wish. Isn’t it time to have an opposition hui? As in – everyone who opposes this agenda that National are preparing in the background – get together for a chat? Environmentalists, Human Rights activists, ACC rape survivors, Teachers, Lawyers, Drs, Nurses, Unions, Public Service, NGO’s, liberals, red, green, rainbow, alternative media, bloggers, thinkers, academics etc etc because there is a growing awareness in the wider public that the 35% of legislation time used to ram through bills into law under a misuse of urgency is producing some really bad law.
Despite the optimistic John Key smile the double dip recession and the environment are only going to get worse, not better and the left have to have a bloody good plan put together to stop National diluting our effort via the SuperCity election and MMP referendum.
And folks I don’t see it.
Jabba, remember the solo mums who dared to raise their heads? The old tory ‘french revolution’ cut in, and off with their heads. Signal sent. Then there was the old dud who turned out to own a couple houses. Off with his head too. All quiet now. Execpt for Andrew Williams, of course. He will not ‘go quietly’. And, of course, there’e the DHB members and ACC board members, fired only to be replaced by tory lackies. And now Tolley says is elected school baords don;t toe the line, off with their heads. Like I said, there’s a pattern here.
LOL
You forgot to add the e to the old dud.
I agree Williams won’t go quietly, can’t blame him really.
Good point Bomber, very very good point.
Phil, one rather ironic thing about this change making the bureaucracy more powerful and the elected councillors potentially less powerful is that, from my experience, your average council worker is more left-wing than your average voter. Councils are full of people with qualifications in environmental issues, planning and so forth – who generally are “left of centre” politically.
Whilst I do fret about the lack of accountability of the future “Auckland Transport” organisation, for example, I think that generally officials will probably have the right idea. Although it would certainly be nice if Auckland Transport had something of a say in terms of what NZTA and KiwiRail will be doing in Auckland – otherwise I don’t see how there’s a hope in hell of getting proper transport integration.
My general point is that giving officials more power might backfire on National/Act.
Final note: I do not work for a council.
Jennifer, if you believe Andrew Williams’ propaganda then that’s your problem.
There are a few mayors in Auckland, and many local body politicians, against the Super City as it stands. But they don’t resort to the abuse and vitriol that Williams does.
The only pattern is Williams’ pattern of personal attacks and abuse. That is evident from the last two years.
Jennifer .. 3 examples you raised are interesting. The 2 woman had agreed to be used as examples but when their full circumstances where revealed then their cause was lost. One of the 2 accepted that and then went on and gave a great idea which was taken on after a meeting with Ms Bennett.
Then guy with 2 homes was frugal with his real circumstances as well.
Andrew Williams is doing his cause no good by weird behaviour.
The Govt run school poilcy, not the Principals. I have the Stds argument with a work mate who is a former teacher and the husband of a Sth Ak Primary school teacher. She has stated that the stds are not an issue within themselves but Tolley will not front up to their meetings which is poor form.
The DBH and ACC boards have always been Govtmt appointments and Labour did just what the Nats have done. You must know that?
Re not toeing the line .. do you remember what happened to the Hawkes Bay Board last year?
Gooner, abuse and vitriol? Any examples? Personally, I can take vitriol if it’s directed at pollys who lie through their capped teeth.
Re- the discussion earlier about what Labour are doing on the general Super City issue.
Yes, I realize the MPs are working hard, and I appreciate that, but they also need to work smart. Is there nobody in the caucus who can think on their feet?
Just now, the Minister for Maori Affairs stood up and said he totally opposes government policy, IN HIS PORTFOLIO, on Maori seats. (Sorry to shout, but it seems you guys all missed it, probably because you’re so busy shouting yourselves).
Therefore, he must now resign. The “agree to disagree” provisions do not apply. But not one Labour MP was quick enough to spot this, and say so. Nobody got up and quoted the Confidence & Supply agreement, and asked Sharples if he stood by it. He would have been toast.
It is so disheartening to hear Gov’t MPs get away with this, largely because all year the Labour MPs have been allowing them to. When will you learn that this crowd (not just Sharples, but Bennett, Tolley, Brownlee etc) keep giving you gifts. All you have to do is shut up and LISTEN, then apply Forensic Questioning 101 – scalpel beats sledgehammer any day.
But you’d rather just make a lot of noise, instead. Maybe it makes the MPs feel good. It makes this Labour voter depressed. The targets are there to be hit, and the opposition keep missing.
New Year, new strategy, PLEASE.
The relevant text:
“The Māori Party agree to be bound by collective responsibility in relation to their Ministerial portfolios and their Associate Minister responsibilities. When the Māori Party Ministers speak about issues within their portfolios and Associate Minister responsibilities, they will speak for the government and as part of the government, representing the government’s position in relation to these responsibilities.”
The question in the House was to the Minister of Maori Affairs. He can’t claim he was wearing a different hat.
@ sammy – You are quite right. Sharples blatantly contravened the the confidence and supply agreement in the way that he disassociated himself from government policy in his portfolio area. Not the first time either. Point taken.