Comments on: Labour opposes boundaries

By: Owen McShane

Owen McShane — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:41:31 +0000

The only reason the Rodney folk resisted the original plan was that the select committee recommended North Rodney become part of Kaipara District Council – the only time when the mouse has been instructed to swallow the python.

One has to wonder why the Hauraki islands are part of the Super City. The Chathams run their own affairs.

The reality is that distance is more important than population in rural areas. If North Rodney had been merged with kaipara people in Puhoi would have been closer in driving time to Huntly than to Dargaville.

IF you are more than 45 minutes from the town hall would you stand for Mayor? If you would it means your time has no value.
The French have a Mayor for every 350 people for precisely this reason. France outside of Paris is mainly a collection of villages.
New Zealand has more people per councillor than any other country I know of.
Rodney’s representation is a joke.

By: bchapman

bchapman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:03:05 +0000

This is a typical problem when you are trying to combine densely populated urban areas with far flung rural populations. if you are trying to create communities of interest the rural areas are always grossly underpopulated. You can’t have separate rural and urban areas unless you a) Gerrymander the distribution (as they have done) or b)Have more and smaller divisions (which the LGC were given no flexibility to do). So in a sense the LGC has been hamstring by some not so good decisions.

In the end I suspect nobody will be happy. The rural people will still feel grossly under-represented and have no autonomy (especially compared with other rural districts in NZ) and the urban people will feel bitter than their votes will be under-valued and that the system is undemocratic.

Personally I see no reason to have rural areas in an urban regional government, and obviously the cabinet initially agreed with respect to northern Rodney, but later caved in.

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:10:42 +0000

Oh, and the Royal Commission instructed that disproportionality be limited to within 10%. What we have here is 7 of 12 wards being more than 10% disproportionate, two of them being 24% so.

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:06:30 +0000

There are some very large deviations in population per councillor. See: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/wards.jpg

Rodney, Albany-Hibiscus, Howick-Pakuranga and Franklin residents do in fact get far more say per person than residents of Central and West Auckland, and more so than those of Manukau.

The election of these councillors under FPP is going to further increase the disproportionality of the council.

By: XChequer

XChequer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:00:51 +0000

Twyford just wants to line his own back pockets by pretending to peddle influence. The way he does this is by screaming loudly from the rooftops about anything and everything just to oppose and try and gain some public awareness/traction. Phil T thinks that the word “constructive” is only applied to erecting new buildings and homes rather than getting on with the job that taxpayers pay him for and doing something positive.

He’s also a whining git.

By: Gooner

Gooner — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:57:32 +0000

Labour oppose it because there was nothing in the Auckland Bill(s) about scarf weaving or Thai Cooking classes funded by the ratepayer.

I shouldn’t write in jest. Phil Tryhard has his priorities spot on really – he is concentrating on passing a law to ban depleted uranium:

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/11/18/i-can-smell-the-depleted-uranium-on-your-breath/

Why? Because apparently we could be a world leader on nuclear waste.

Poor priorities and totally out of touch.

By: Fletch

Fletch — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:43:47 +0000

Franklin is kicking up a big stink about this. They want to be independent.
As it stands, the boundary is ridiculous – cutting the racetrack in Pukekohe in half etc and lots of other weird things.

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:35:26 +0000

Try the previous paragraph when he talks about favouring the conservative areas.

By: CircusMind

CircusMind — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:15:39 +0000

“For example, the changes would give Rodney residents a third more voting power than a central Auckland resident, which is clearly unjust.”

By what stretch of logic do you get from that quote to this piece of exquisite cynicism?

“It is interesting that Twyford’s real concern are that Labour may not be able to gain control of the new Council.”

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:08:04 +0000

I should add that I have high regard for Sue Piper also, and never expected that she would do anything but a professional job.

By: peterwn

peterwn — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:54:44 +0000

Heil – Agreed, Some years back she and two other Labour councillors got into hot water for refusing to toe the party line. They just told the local Party committee where to stick it. That was that because they owed their Council positions more to a broad spectrum of local voters than core Labour voters.

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:08:32 +0000

Sue Piper is a very professional person.
When I first me her I thought this would be a typical Labour party lacky. Not so. She obviously listens and makes decisions in relation to coimmunity needs.
Well done Ms Piper.