Kiwiblog

I am not an Aucklander, but spend a lot of time up there, and follow the Council politics pretty closely. For those who may find it helpful, here are some of the people I would vote for, if I was a voter:

Mayor

It is probably no surprise I am a John Banks supporter. Most readers will already have made their minds up about who to vote for, but for those who have not – I will make this point.

It is healthy for all democratic bodies to have periods where they are governed by the left and by the right. They right tend to be more determined to keep rates down, and the left tend to be higher spending (and higher rating or taxing). That way, over time, you get a pretty good balance .

For the inaugural term of the new Auckland Council, I think it is quite vital that the initial Council and Mayor be “fiscal conservatives” who will be tough enough to keep costs and rates under control. If that first Council starts spending like crazy (as Dick Hubbard and City Vision) did, then high levels of debt and rates will be locked in. Once spending has been committed to, it is damn near impossible to cancel. On the other hand it is considerably easier to loosen the fiscal reins at some later stage, than try to tighten them retrospectively.

So apart from all the other reasons, that is an additional reason for this inaugural 2010 election to vote for Banks and a fiscally conservative Council.  If you do not – well all I can say it is won’t me be in Wellington complaining about my rates bill

Albany

20 candidates seek two spots.

Candidates who I would describe as broadly being centre-right, and would be good for keeping rates down are:

Cameron Slater (Whale Oil)
Linda Cooper (C&R)
Graeme Hunt (North Now)
Josephine Kim (C&R)
Margaret Miles (Shore Voice)

Albert-Eden-Roskill

11 candidates seeking two spots. I recommend

Chris Fletcher (C&R)
Paul Goldsmith (C&R)

Franklin

Three seeking one spot. I recommend

Des Morrison (C&R)

Howick

Six seeking two spots. I recommend

Dick Quax (C&R)
Jami-Lee Ross (C&R)

Manukau

12 seeking two spots. Candidates worth supporting:

Sylvia Taylor (Residents & Ratepayers)
Bob Wichman (C&R)

Manurewa-Papakura

Seven seeking two spots. Best bets are probably:

Barry Curtis (Residents & Ratepayers)
John Walker (Independent)

Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Five seeking one spot. Highly highly recommend:

Alfred Ngaro (C&R)

North Shore

Twelve seeking two spots. Good candidates are:

Christine Rankin (North Now)
George Wood (C&R)

Orakei

Three candidates seeking two spots. Both Cameron Brewer and Doug Armstrong would make excellent contributions to the new Council – sadly only one of them will make it.

Rodney

Four seeking one spot. I would recommend:

Penny Webster (Independent)

Waitakere

Nine seeking two spots. I recommend:

Mark Brickell (C&R)
Marie Hasler (C&R)

Waitemata & Gulf

Mike Lee is likely to win as the vote looks to split between Alex Swney and Tenby Powell. If a poll shows one of them in ahead of the other, then I’d back the one with the best chance of winning against Lee.

Having said that, Lee is not too bad as lefties go. He is at least competent.

Whau

Four seeking one spot. I recommend:

Noeline Raffills (C&R)

Local Boards

Generally you should vote for these tickets:

C&R
North Now

And generally you should not vote for these tickets:

City Vision
Shore Voice (this is debatable – some candidates it appears are centre right, while others are former Labour MPs)
Grey Power
Future West
Any ticket that mentions “people” in its name
Residents & Ratepayers Team in Howick
Labour

I welcome comments/feedback from locals as to the leaning of other tickets.

Brian Rudman writes:

The Local Government Commission agrees there is a problem. In its July 2008 review of the Local Electoral Act, the commission acknowledged that its analysis of the 2007 elections “did show that the order of candidates on the voting document had an impact on election outcomes.

“Candidates whose names were early in the alphabet (and therefore early in the candidates’ profiles booklet) and early on alphabetically ordered voting documents were up to 4 per cent more likely to be elected than those whose names were later in the alphabet.”

It also found “there was a significant bias in favour of candidates in the left column of voting documents when there was more than one column of candidates”.

But the commissioners called for more research, concluding “a definitive solution to this issue is unlikely”. When I checked this week, no more research had been done.

With modern systems of printing, randomising ballot papers is not a difficult task. If it helps eliminate bias in the election process then surely it should be adopted.

Random ordered ballots would be a problem in the general election, as votes are counted manually. But for local body elections which use barcode scanners, they would be fairly simple to do, and it will help reduce bias based on surname.

Either that or scrap the lengthy lists that cause the problem and create more single-member, locally based, wards.

I tend to favour single-member wards also. I think most people can choose one name from say half a dozen or so. But they struggle with choosing 3 out of 15, let alone 7 out of 30. It becomes almost a random selection at that stage.

The Dom Post reports:

A website designed to help boost the country’s low voter turnout figures for local body elections has gone live.

The website, elections2010.co.nz, is a one-stop shop that aims to equip voters with all the information they need to vote in October’s local body elections.

Just 44 per cent of eligible local body election voters cast ballots in 2007.

By keying their residential address into the website, voters are instantly told which council and ward they are eligible to vote in and which candidates are standing for council and mayor.

The site contains detailed profiles on each candidate, including information on their political leanings, conflicts of interest and five main issues.

There are also links to candidates’ Facebook and Twitter pages and pre-recorded video addresses, and voters can post questions to candidates online.

The site, developed by Local Government Online with backing from Local Government New Zealand, also details which other entities voters are eligible to vote for, including district health boards and various local trusts. It will contain information on thousands of candidates, trusts, councils and boards.

What a good initiative.

I stuck in the street I live on, and it listed the four elections I can vote in, and where they have been supplied, a link to a candidate’s page.

What would be good is to take this further, and actually allow people to cast their votes via the Internet. One could have a ballot paper with hyperlinks to candidate’s pages. That way people would gain far more info than the usual 200 word biography you get in the post.

Well done to LGNZ and LGO for creating this.

No Right Turn alerted me to this private members bill drawn from the ballot. He supports the intent, but not the details of the bill. I have problems with both.

The bill basically forces every city council, district council and regional council to have one or more Maori wards – reserved for voters of Maori descent.

I think such a move would be appalling, and push us towards a Fiji style country, and set back race relations massively.

I also think it shows how dangerous it can be when the debate keeps shifting down this path.

At a national level, we have had the Maori seats since 1867. They were well intentioned, allowing Maori who owned property communally to vote – a right limited then to property owners.

In an ideal world the seats would have been abolished in 1879 when the property requirement was abolished. It is somewhat shameful that up until 1976, Maori were not even allowed to vote on the general roll.

I regard it as a shame that the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish the Maori seats (and in exchange have a lower threshold for Maori parties) was not implemented. Have race based seats is just not something that long-term I think is likely to create a more harmonious New Zealand.

However I do generally accept the proposition that regardless of the lack of a principled rationale for race based seats, that trying to unilaterally abolish them would be an act that would in itself be disharmonious and create a huge backlash. There is a huge difference between not creating something, and taking something away. Hence I don’t think it is wise to try and abolish the Maori parliamentary seats, unless one could get widespread agreement from Maori to it.

But having said that, I think it is important that the Maori parliamentary seats be seen as a historic exception, and not the rule. However we are in some danger of ending up there.

In 1998 Tuariki Delamere sponsored a bill to allow the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to create a Maori ward or wards.The argument was that it was only for that one Council which had special needs, and the parliamentary seats was a precedent. And people thought well, why not allow it.

It was not supported by National, but in 2001 Labour passed it as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001.

The exception then became an option for all, and Labour passed the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002 which allowed any Council to establish Maori wards either on their own initiative or by referendum, which can be  upon petition by 5% of electors.

So a historical anomaly became a one off example in one Council, and then became an option for all Councils.

And it didn’t stop there. The Royal Commission on Auckland recommended that the new Auckland Council have three Maori seats, regardless of whether or not the people of Auckland wanted them. Labour demanded that the Government create Maori seats for Auckland, rather than even leave it to Auckland to decide. So again, the debate shifted from should they even be allowed, to should it be created without consultation.

And then finally we have the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill by Te Uroroa Flavell, which would impose Maori wards on every council in New Zealand, dividing every single authority up into Maori and non Maori.

Now it is all well intentioned, and supporters will claim the means justify the ends. But again I don’t think we want to end up like Fiji with race dividing voters electorally.

So I fully expect Flavell’s bill to be voted down. No doubt the Greens will vote for it. I suspect Labour would love to vote for it, but they may vote against it on the basis of its flaws (beyond the principled opposition to it). NRT describes these:

Currently councils can establish Māori wards, and if they do, their number is determined by the number of people on the Māori roll in that district. Flavell’s bill would change this to being determined by the number of people of Māori descent. However, voting in those wards would still be limited to the 60% of Māori on the Māori roll. Which means that those wards will be systematically undersized, and those Māori systematically over-represented.

This would be a huge gerrymander. Basically voters in the Maori wards would have twice as much power as those in other wards. NRT also fisks the justification from Flavell:

Flavell’s justification for this change is that

This change is made because 40% of the Māori population is under 18 years and is therefore excluded under the current formula.

But this is simply incorrect. The current formula uses the definitions from the Electoral Act 1993, which specifically includes people under 18. So those people would already be represented (though unable to vote)

Incidentally I believe electorate populations should be based on the adult population, not the total population – but that is a debate for another day.

NRT concludes:

I don’t think this is an attempt at a stitch-up; rather its likely a mistake born of not reading the law closely enough. But the result is a deeply flawed bill. Fortunately, those flaws can be resolved at select committee.

The mistake can be easily resolved. But I don’t think the bill should proceed. Generally I support most bills going to a select committee, but this bill seeks to move in a direction which I so strongly disagree with, that I don’t think it should even get past first reading.

Incidentally under this proposed law, four local authorities would be forced to have the majority of their seats elected from Maori wards. Think about the level of resentment that would cause amongst non-Maori? I don’t mean the resentment would come from having a majority of Maori on a local authority. I, for one, would not care a damn if the majority of Wellington City Council was Maori. I would object though if the majority had been elected from wards which I am banned from being eligible to enrol in, because of my lack of the right genes.

It is a pity that the debate on this bill will now be whether or not Maori seats on Council should be compulsory or voluntary. In fact the debate should be about whether Labour should have ever created them at all in 2001.

The Herald approves of the electoral finance bill:

The Government’s long-awaited bill reforming electoral finance law solves many of the problems created by its contentious, discredited and repealed 2007 predecessor and the dated 1993 Electoral Act. …

It is better than both the EFA and the status quo. Personally I wanted to see considerably more reform, but accept the Government made a decision not to push through changes, which did not have wide parliamentary support. Effectively Labour were given a veto over the changes.

Several new measures have been raised since details of the reforms were announced in February.

The most welcome is news that a separate bill will finally be introduced to tighten the use by parties and MPs of parliamentary funds to campaign to voters. …

A bill later this year will align the parliamentary and electoral law definitions in the “regulated period” or three months before an election. Parties will no longer be able to spend parliamentary money for communications other than those that “explicitly” seek people’s support or party vote or donations or membership of their party.

News I exclusively broke here, using papers I obtained under the OIA.

The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill sets a three-month regulated period, down from the entire calendar year of an election in the 2007 law, and limits it still further if an election is called fewer than three months from polling day.

The regulated period is shorter if the election date is announced less than three months before the last possible election date, not just the actual election date. Expect to see this change at select committee.

The Dominion Post has advice for Nick Clegg:

Welcome to our world. Britain is about to face the realities of coalition government. The voters have delivered an MMP result under a first-past-the-post system, effectively leaving the Liberal Democrats to decide who gets to form the next government. It is small wonder that the New Zealand Cabinet Manual is being avidly read in Whitehall offices. …

However, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will have to be careful not to overplay his hand. His party’s tally of 57 seats is fewer than he and others expected, and he needs to be conscious that how he behaves now will play a huge role in how Britons view proportional representation.

Mr Clegg is unlikely to have a better chance to push the cause of electoral reform with the other parties than he does now while still in the role of kingmaker – at the time of writing no deals had been struck – but if he is seen as putting his party’s interests ahead of those of the country, or of seeking to be the tail that wags the dog, there will be a backlash.

As some NZ parties have found.

And the ODT looks at local government:

The pros and cons of what exactly are local government’s “core activities” continue to be debated by the public in a somewhat desultory fashion, while it is obvious central government has long embarked on providing the statutory means by which local councils can shed what might once have been regarded as essential services in favour of the private sector. …

Mr Hide’s Local Government Amendment Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which has received its first reading in Parliament and will now be further considered in select committee, enables local councils to offer tenders to private companies to provide water services for up to 35 years, essentially a technical change since councils can already take that action, but only for a 15-year period.

He has argued that the change is necessary because 15 years is not sufficient to enable an adequate return on the economic life of water assets.

In other words, his Bill is designed to make the possibility of privately contracting water services more attractive.

But even if the Bill survives without radical change, it does not necessarily mean water services will be privatised.

Indeed, councils will retain control of services should they opt to have components contracted to private providers; the restrictions on the sale of council water services in the Local Government Act 2002 remain.

d

Brendon Burns blogs:

Today’s announcement violates that fundamental principle upheld by the Right that there should be no taxation (rates) without representation. It axes a democratically-elected body without any public input for the first time at least in recent history. It forces through this bill under urgency from later this afo with no chance for Cantabrians or anyone else to comment.

And No Right Turn exhales about me:

So you’d think that when the present government announced plans to sack an elected council and strip 560,000 people of their vote in regional council elections for four years, as a “defender of democracy”, he’d be similarly outraged about it, right?

But Burns is wrong. This is not unprecedented in recent history. From the Q&A:

Rodney District Council in May 2000
Local Government Minister Sandra Lee appointed a Commissioner, Grant Kirby, to replace the elected Council following a Ministerial review. The Government introduced and passed the Local Government (Rodney District Council) Amendment Bill which suspended elections of Councillors and
clarified the role of commissions, through all stages under urgency on 2 May 2000, with the support of the National Party and all parties in Parliament. This intervention was at the Council’s request.

So it happened under the last Government, and to a territorial local authority which has far bigger impact on people’s lives than a regional council. Also done under urgency, and also done at the request of local Councils – but in this case the ten or so territorial authorities.

What is the big difference?

National in Opposition supported Labour, because they put doing the right thing ahead of petty politics. If a Council has not managed a water allocation plan after 18 years, then it is a pretty sure sign than things are wrong and need fixing. Just waving a stick and saying “try to do better” has not worked.

The Local Government Commission (chaired by former Labour Councillor Sue Piper) has announced the final boundaries for the Auckland Council.

Major changes:

• An increase from 12 to 13 wards, with Orakei-Maungakiekie Ward splitting into separate Orakei and Maungakiekie wards.
• An increase in the number of local boards from 19 to 21, with the Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Local Board now
  a Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and Upper Harbour Local Board and the Waitakere Local Board now a Henderson-Massey Local
  Board and a Waitakere Ranges Local Board
• No change to northern boundary, but some minor changes to the southern boundary

So the overall situation is:

Wards

1. Rodney – 1 Councillor
2. Albany – 2 Councillors
3. North Shore – 2 Councillors
4. Waitakere – 2 Councillors
5. Whau – 1 Councillor
6. Albert-Eden-Roskill 2 Councillors
7. Waitemata and Gulf – 1 Councillor
8. Orakei – 1 Councillor
9. Maungakiekie-Tamaki – 1 Councillor
10. Te Irirangi – 2 Councillors
11. Manukau – 2 Councillors
12. Manurewa-Papkura – 2 Councillors
13. Franklin – 1 Councillor

The ward boundaries have been adjusted to be closer in terms of population per Councillor. 11 out of the 13 wards have a deviation of less than 11%. Rodney does “best” getting a Councillor for only 54,100 residents and “worst” is Oraeki who get a Councillor for 81,100 residents.

Local Boards

1. Rodney – 9 members from 4 sub-divisions
2. Hibiscus and Bays – 8 members from 2 sub-divisions
3. Upper Harbour – 6 members
4. Kaipatiki – 8 members
5. Devonport-Takapuna – 6 members
6. Henderson-Massey 8 members
7. Waitakere Ranges – 6 members
8. Whau – 7 members
9. Albert-Eden – 8 members from 2 sub-divisions
10. Puketapapa – 6 members
11. Waitemata – 7 members
12. Waiheke – 5 members
13. Great Barrier – 5 members
14. Orakei – 7 members
15. Maungakiekie-Tamaki 7 members from 2 sub-divisions
16. Mangere-Otahuhu – 7 members
17. Otara-Papatoetoe – 7 members from 2 sub-divisions
18. Te Irirangi – 9 members from 3 -sub-divisions
19. Manurewa – 8 members
20. Papakura – 6 members
21. Franklin – 9 members from 3 -sub-divisions

So in total we have:

• 1 Mayor
• 20 Councillors
• 149 Local Board Members
• 13 Wards
• 21 Local Boards
• 32 electoral divisions for boards

The Dom Post reports:

Kerry Prendergast has confirmed she will stand for a fourth term as Wellington mayor.

She told The Dominion Post last night that she would stand again as an independent, after earlier ruling out contesting the October election so she could spend more time with her family.

She will announce her candidacy this morning, appearing to kill the possibility that she would front an election bid on the Sir Bob Jones-promoted Vibrant Wellington ticket.

“I have decided to seek a fourth term as mayor to ensure there is ongoing confidence in Wellington’s direction, leadership and management of the council. I have always stood as an independent and I will do so again this year.”

Significant challenges included retaining the NZI Sevens tournament, increasing inner-city safety, and ensuring Wellington maintained a strong voice on national issues and resource allocation, Ms Prendergast, 56, said. “My campaign will be about how Wellington is doing really well at the moment and is a fantastic city. Why change?”

iPredict has Kerry;s probability of re-election at 86%, which seems about right to me.

Sir Bob said Ms Prendergast’s decision came as no surprise but he believed there was still a possibility she might stand on the Vibrant Wellington ticket.

The central plank of the business-led group is to create a bus-free pedestrian boulevard in the central city.

“If Kerry is going to back this, and it has been hinted at, then we wouldn’t put a mayoral candidate up. Simple as that. It would create a monument to her tenure as mayor.”

I’m a big fan of the vision to have a vehicle free boulevard from Courtenay Place to Lampton Quay. It will be interesting to see who stands on the Bob Jones ticket.

Personally I don’t think the ticket needs to worry about the Mayoral spot – the Mayor has only one vote, and has a huge number of other things to do. All the ticket needs is a majority on Council to instruct officers to draw up a plan for consultation setting out how the boulevard can be created, and what the cost is.

The Waikato Times reports:

The race for seats on the Hamilton City Council this year could get pretty raunchy – stripper Lisa Lewis is considering standing in October’s local body elections.

Ms Lewis confirmed to the Waikato Times yesterday she was considering standing and wanted to gauge reaction before deciding. “I am 28. I believe we need to look at the percentage of young people that live in the ‘Tron. Why don’t they vote? Because there is no interest in them to do so. If I decided to stand I would ensure there would be a motivation and reason for them to vote.”

Lisa could do for Hamilton, what Tim Shadbolt did for Invercargill, and really put them on the map!

Bernard Hickey blogs:

Here’s the problem: local government is growing at least five times faster than the rest of the economy. Those costs are being passed on directly to ratepayers in the form of rates, fees and fines that are growing at least four times faster than prices elsewhere in the economy.

The latest Local Authority Statistics released this week showed council spending nationwide rose 10 per cent to $6.21 billion in the year to June from the previous year.

Total revenues collected rose 6.8 per cent to $6.15 billion, which meant the collective council budget balance slumped into a deficit of $56 million. That will eventually be reflected in higher debt.

To put this growth in spending and rates into context, our economy contracted 1 per cent in the year to March in real terms and was flat in actual terms unadjusted for inflation. So how are all these revenues raised? General rates nationally rose 7.8 per cent to $3.33 billion in the year to June, while water rates rose 10.3 per cent to $263 million. Fees and fines rose 10 per cent to $376.6 million. Meanwhile the Consumer Price Index rose only 1.9 per cent in the year to June.

Generally rates should only increase in line with population growth and inflation in my opinion. When rates are growing faster than overall economic growth, the situation is not sustainable in the long term.

The Dom Post reports:

Ratepayers in the Wellington region will be asked whether there should be a single council after Auckland was transformed into a super-city of 1.4 million people.

Wellington mayors say it is now inevitable that local government in the region will have to change, but are promising to consult widely before deciding whether to take the same route as Auckland.

I am very much in favour of Wellington going down a similar path. Five Councils on this side of the Rimutakas, three on the other side plus a Regional Council is far too much.

Like Auckland we have failed to make progress on issues like Transmission Gully because the nine Mayors could never agree.

I also think it would be great to get a range of local boards, smaller than the current Councils. An inner city local board that would include the CBD, Thorndon and Mt Victoria would, for example, be much more in tune with our issues.

Fears have been raised that the Wellington region which has a combined population of about 450,000 spread across eight local authorities and other centres will be swamped by Auckland and left behind.

Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast said governance changes in the Wellington region were now inevitable, though they would develop more slowly than in Auckland.

“We would rather have the consultation with our community and then take a proposal to the prime minister and say, `This is what our community wants, would you enact legislation and make it happen?”‘

Any changes could take effect at the 2013 local body elections, she said.

It will probably be an issue for Mayoral candidates at the next election. Could be worth setting up a ticket across the region of people who will push for amalgamation.

The Dom Post reports:

Local government rate rises are a cause for deep concern, according to Business New Zealand, with an “astonishing” 7.9 per cent annual rise in the national rates bill.

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide said last night that local authority spending was out of control and a 7.9 per cent rate rise was not acceptable.

“We need to do much better to get rates under control,” he said.

Statistics New Zealand figures made public yesterday showed general rates rose $242.6 million in the year to June 2008, a rise of almost 8 per cent.

Estimates from Statistics NZ showed the national rates bill rose another $195.8m this year, up about 5.4 per cent.

In five years, the national rates bill has risen by $1.1 billion, about $700m more than if rates had stayed in line with inflation.

I note Len Brown has said he wants the new Auckland Council to battle poverty and get rid of inequality in Auckland. I shudder to think of how many tens of millions will be added to the rates bill to fund this.

A reader alerted me to this article:

Though not necessarily heralded as a hotbed of technological innovation, the City of Boston is plunging headlong into what may be the future of civic engagement by debuting an iPhone app connecting residents to city hall. The app, known as Citizen Connect, is the brainchild of a handful of mayoral aides and will allow residents to file complaints with the city by snapping a photo of a problem–a pothole, a fallen tree limb, a neighbor’s overgrown lawn–and sending it to city hall, complete with a geo-tag so city officials can find and fix the problem.

Now that is a great idea.

The new Auckland Council could be a leader on this!

The Herald reports:

The Cabinet is expected to reject Maori seats on the Auckland Super City council today.

This is no real surprise. It is in line with National’s long standing policy, and the Government’s initial decision.

Blair M in comments in a previous thread suggested as a compromise a non-voting Councillor, and this is an option which I think could have been worth pursuing, and might even have application for local bodies beyond Auckland.

The Royal Commission proposed three Maori seats – two from voters on the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by mana whenua – the local Iwi effectively.

Now I have never been a fan of separate electoral rolls, despite the good intentions of those who back them. I think it is unhealthy long-term to have New Zealanders divided up into those with some Maori ancestry (no matter how small) and those without. Especially as long-term over a quarter of New Zealanders will have some Maori ancestry. It becomes arbitrary. And long-term I fear we end up like Fiji with the population split 50/50 and divided on our differences instead of united.

The idea of mana whenua representation on the Auckland Council holds greater appeal to me (and to the Maori Party it seems). Iwi are permanent entities that have historical and ongoing legitimate interest in what happens on their traditional lands. They do have legal rights under the common law, let alone any moral obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

However allowing Iwi to appoint a voting Councillor runs contrary to democratic principles. You may have half a dozen Kaumata deciding on a Councillor who gets the same voting power as someone elected by 80,000 people. So I can’t support a voting mana whenua Councillor.

The compromise which I think would have been worth pursuing is the idea that local Iwi within a Council’s area can appoint a non voting Councillor. The Councillor has all the same rights as an elected Councillor – attend all meetings, speak on any issue, be paid a salary, request information from management – but in the (hopefully) relatively rare cases where there is a partisan vote split, they would not have a vote.

The members of the Iwi would have their voting represention done through the elected Councillors (whom they vote for like everyone else), but the Iwi as a whole would have the ability to have a voice at Council (not buried in a seperate Committee) to protect their interests as the original mana whenua.

One of the issues New Zealand has never really grappled with, is the constitutional relationship between Iwi and the Crown. It seems to me the idea of allowing each Iwi to appoint a non-voting Councillor onto their local authority could be a significant step forward.

Where a local authority has more than say three local Iwi, then perhaps you would require the Iwi to select just three representatives between themselves (or even two). So if there are two local Iwi, they each appoint a non voting Councillor. If there were six local Iwi, they would decide amongt themselves on two or three non voting Councillors.

A very good NZ Herald article:

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is looking into law changes that could divide council spending between core services, which councils could automatically spend money on, and “extras” – cultural, environmental and social spending and business investments that could require approval from ratepayers.

I like the concept. It empowers ratepayers, while allowing Councils to perform core services without the possibility of inadequate funding.

Mr Hide has not listed all the services he considers core council responsibilities. But he said it would be a wide definition encompassing running libraries, transport and water services and rubbish collection.

Yesterday he listed Hamilton City Council’s investment in the Novotel hotel, Invercargill City Council’s investment in a Lotto franchise and South Taranaki District Council buying the Hawera movie theatre as examples of councils going beyond core functions.

Absolutely. And what Rodney is saying is not that Councils would be banned from doing this, but they have to get ratepayer approval.

Mr Hide said he would like voters to be able to indicate at local body elections how much they would be willing to pay in rate increases over the next three years.

Also a good idea.

Local Government New Zealand governance manager Mike Reid said many councils would not bother with innovative projects if they had to hold a referendum first.

“Invercargill could have held a referendum [on the Lotto shop] but the people on the local community board probably felt they knew what people wanted because they saw them every day in the supermarket,” he said.

If the community board members thinks it is an innovative project based on their supermarket conversations, then they can invest their own money into it – but their role is not to forcibly take money from ratepayers to spend on commercial competitive businesses.

“Any council that exposes itself to too much [financial] risk can be expected to be removed at the next election.”

Mr Reid cited Auckland City as an example of a council that had been changed several times because ratepayers were not happy with spending.

Yes, but by then the spending has occured and is generally not reversible.

Taking decision-making powers away from councillors would stop energetic and entrepreneurial people standing for local bodies, he said.

Councils are not meant to be entreprenuers. You want entrepreneurs when it is their own money they are risking – not everyone else’s. If Council has commercial subsidiaries then entrepreneurs can be appointed to those, but it is ridicolous to think that people get elected to territorial local authorities on the basis of their entrepreneurial activities.

“If it was such a great idea [requiring ratepayer approval] central government might like to apply it to itself, because we’re talking about quite small amounts of money.”

Also not a bad idea. Central Government should not be buying or establishing businesses in competitive sectors.

Gerard Langford, of South Taranaki District Council, said his council bought the Hawera cinema building for $1 million two years ago because the private owners were about to close it.

The community supported keeping the movie theatre, which was run by a trust using money from ticket sales and advertising, he said.

And if the ratepayers gave their approval, they still could.

The Herald writes:

The Cabinet has signed off on Mr Hide’s request for the Department of Internal Affairs to review local government law, including the removal of the requirement for councils to deliver on “community outcomes” such as social, environmental and cultural “wellbeing” which Mr Hide said pushed councils into providing services well beyond their core roles.

In the Cabinet paper Mr Hide said there was a need for a clearer delineation of central and local government roles. He proposed making councils more financially transparent to force them to focus on core activities.

I know many think Councils should be involved in provision of social services, but I disagree. The reason is it removes accountability from the central Government to fund the public health, education and welfare systems. It leds to duplication and less transparency.

Although the Cabinet signed off on the review, yesterday Prime Minister John Key said he did not agree with Mr Hide’s definition of “core services”.

He said social policies were an important role for councils.

Mr Key said the review was “an engagement in debate” and Act’s policies did not necessarily reflect Government’s view.

My views are more with Act’s on this.

Mr Hide’s paper also suggests more use of polls and referenda as a way of getting “ratepayer authorisation” for major projects, such as building stadiums or high rates increases.

I think this is a good idea.

I could not believe what I read on Stuff:

Bay of Plenty ratepayers face “very extensive costs” with Whakatane District Council continuing legal action to prevent the regional council relocating headquarters to Tauranga, Environment Bay of Plenty chairman John Cronin says.

The Whakatane council has said it would appeal last month’s High Court judicial review finding that Environment Bay of Plenty followed correct procedure in deciding to shift from Whakatane to Tauranga.

This is insane. You have Whakatane ratepayers funding court action agaunst the Regional Council, funded by all BOP ratepayers.

The Regional Council is going to have its HQ where it sees fit. Even if the process had been wrong (and the court said it wasn’t), they will eventually be able to move. The only winner will be the lawyers.

Rodney Hide should tell the Whakatane District Council to drop its lawsuit, or face replacing with a Commissioner. The purpose of TLAs is not to sue employers who decide to move to other towns.

The Government has given details of three bills that will be considered by Parliament to establish the Super City. I like how they have split the bills up, so only the bare minimum is done under urgency, and the rest goes out to select committee. They are:

1. Transition Bill – will establish the Council as a legal entity, establish the Auckland Governance Transition Agency (AGTA) and constrain decision-making powers of existing Auckland councils. This will not go to select committee and presumably be passed in May
2. Composition Bill – will set the number of Councillors, the split between wards and at large, the establishment of local boards and high level functions for those boards. This will go to select committee and is to be reported back by September. Also deals with the water infrastructure
3. Details Bill – will provide full legislative framework, functions, roles and powers of Councils and Boards. This would be introduced later this year and go to select committee, reporting back around April 2010

In an ideal world, even the first bill would go to select committee. But there is no way it could all be completed by October 2010, if a transition authority can;t start work now – and the longer the transition, the harder it is for current staff. Also what the Government has done is only include in the first bill the very high level decisions recommended by the Royal Commission – which were consulted on for around 18 months. It does not include any changes made by the Government – those changes will all go to select committee.

I remain supportive of the overall direction, but think eight is too many at large seats – in fact would prefer none at all. And I think the Government needs to make sure the local boards are meaningful enough that they will attract good candidates. The ability to propose a targeted rate for their area, to fund additional facilities and services is actually quite powerful as I can’t see why the Auckland Council would turn down such a recommendation – so long as the local Board has adequately consulted local residents.

I’m not an Auckland City ratepayer, but if I was I would be asking questions of Auckland City Council about accountability, after losses of $2.5 million at The Edge.

I don’t think City/Regional Councils should be making commercial decisions on underwriting soccer games or musicals.

That is different to supporting sport or the arts. Relatively happy for there to be sponsorship of subsidies of facilities – that way it is for a fixed known amount.

But why would you have 20 or so elected politicians deciding whether or not you agree with the Edge’s Board that 62,000 to 78,000 people will attend a musical?

The NZ Herald reports:

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a mix of 10 ward and 10 at-large councillors.

But it is understood the Government and Mr Hide could live with a council of ward-only councillors if that were the strong view of submitters.

Another option is to increase the number of ward councillors to 18 and reduce at-large councillors to six.

Here is where Labour has very confused messages. The one thing they are most oppossed to, is the at large seats. Yet they also compalin that the Government is changing the decisions of the Royal Commission, when it was the Royal Commission itself that went for a massive ten at large seats.

The Royal Commission had ten at large seats recommended (plus arguably two Maori seats at large). The Government’s response reduced this to eight, and now according to the Herald may reduce it further to six. Looks to me like a Government responding to feedback.

So why is Labour so desperate to get rid of the at large seats? Well mainly because it will make it harder for them to gain control of the new Council. Labour actively stands for local Councils, and will no doubt be fielding a ticket for Mayor and Council. Their concern is about how best to gain power in Auckland – not about what is best for Auckland.

As it so happens, I have also oppossed at large seats. I’ve blogged several times that I woud prefer they are done away with. I’ve taken this position, even though it is true that doing away with them may benefit Labour gaining control. The reason I oppose them is simply because I don’t think you get informed decision making when there are too many names to be selected on a ballot paper. The original proposal of 10 at large would have led to voters having to pick 10 candidates out of a field oh probably 50 or more. It would be like the DHB elections.

Only six at large mitigates the issue somewhat. But I still think six is too many for well informed decision making. If you are asking people to choose more than a couple of candidates, then it becomes a contest on name recognition, not picking the best candidate.

It is likely to pass a bill under urgency next month to set up an establishment board with the complex, and controversial job of restructuring the eight councils into the super council in less than 18 months.

Victorious Rugby World Cup captain-turned-businessman David Kirk, former Commonwealth Secretary-General Sir Don McKinnon and NZ Post chief John Allen are being mentioned as possible board heads.

Other names mentioned are Fletcher Building chairman Roderick Deane, who is believed to have turned down the job, Professor John Hood, former vice-chancellor of Auckland and Oxford universities, former Labour Cabinet minister and Wellington Mayor Fran Wilde, and accountant Brian Roche, who has scored a raft of public sector appointments and is familiar with Auckland’s problems.

I’d pick Fran Wilde. Fran would sort those Auckland Mayors out in quick time, and get the CEOs working together to form the new Super City. And God help anyone who steps out of line.

Labour still has no policy on what it wants for Auckland. Despite setting up the Royal Commission, they are now al over the place in terms of any coherent vision for the future.

Can anyone tell me their position on Maori seats?

Can anyone tell me their position on local Councils vs community boards?  They initially said they did not support local Councils as they were too large, but then complained when the Government listened and got rid of them.

Can anyone tell me whether or not they supported the unchanged recommendations of the Royal Commission?

No you can’t, as they have no policy apart from wanting no at large seats, as that will make it easier for them to gain power over the city.

But now in a fit of stupidity, Goff is calling for a referendum on the changes. Before I detail how unworkable this is, let’s hear what the Royal Commission itself said:

31.4 Nor does the Commission consider that a reorganisation proposal would be an appropriate mechanism for implementing the proposed reforms, despite the superficial attraction of using an existing statutory mechanism.1 The reorganisation process requires the review of any reorganisation proposal by the Local Government Commission, followed by consultation with stakeholders, the notification of a draft proposal, and public submissions. It also requires a poll of electors which, by simple majority, determines whether or not the proposal will proceed. Plainly, the complex and wide-ranging recommendations in this Report are not suited to this process;

So the Royal Commission itself said a referendum is only superficially attractive and is plainly unsuited to complex and wide-ranging recommendations.

The Royal Commission was of course right on this point. Referendums are suitable for simple singular propositions, such as changing the term of Parliament from three to four years.

The reform proposals have dozens of elements to them – one Council, an executive Mayor, local boards, composition of Council, powers of Council, powers of Board, ward boundaries, etc etc etc. What would people be voting on?

And is Goff really saying that he wants it to be a choice between doing nothing and the Government’s proposals? That there should be a poll, and if it fails then the status quo endures and all the work of the Royal Commission is wasted? Because a referendum is not something that allows you to modify a proposal, like a select committee process. It is a stop or go process.You don’t like the bathwater and indeed the baby goes out the window also.

Also consider the further practicalities of a referendum? What do you do if voters in six Councils vote yes, and one Council votes no? Do you then have a new Auckland Council with a big hole in the middle of it? Do you give veto power to the voters of the smallest Council that represents around 2% of the Region?

And let us remember the hypocrisy. Goff attacks the Government for changing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet himself now demands the Government ignore one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission – that the reform is far too complex for a referendum.

The Dom Post Editorial today:

The mayoral war of words that greeted the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and the Government’s swift response to it, has merely proved the commissioners’ implied message that their cities comprise a sprawling metropolis, the councils of which prefer to work in silos, believe one community is superior to the others and that, given the opportunity, mayors would rather engage in verbal battle than unite to secure a structure that would benefit most of those they purport to represent.

Indeed the Mayors have proven the case for change.

To their credit, Auckland City’s John Banks and Waitakere’s Bob Harvey seem to have glimpsed what the commission was trying to achieve when its three members delivered their report late last month. North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams and his Manukau counterpart, Len Brown, seem unable, however, to see beyond the prospect that their mayoral chains will have to be stowed for good after the next local body election, possibly now two years away.

I would agree that Harvey has been constructive.

The kerfuffle with which the four mayors responded to the Government’s post-commission plans simply underlines why much of the rest of New Zealand regards their politics as toxic and why reorganisation of local government north of the Bombay Hills is urgent.

You won’t get integrated public transport and a proper roading strategy until you have one Council.

Mr Banks is itching to be mayor of an Auckland “supercity” and has tried, unsuccessfully, to remain above the fray. But he is at odds with the leftist minority on his council and certainly with his North Shore counterpart, who has an idiosyncratic approach to local governance.

Heh that is a euphemism.

Good to see the Auckland Mayors getting some sense about the Auckland Super City.

They seem to have stopped trying to protect their old job, by demanding the proposed six local Councils be retained. The model of 20 – 30 community boards is far better for local representation than six huge local Councils with no community boards.

What they are now focusing on is having all the Auckland Council seats done through wards, instead of 12 wards and 8 at large. On this issue I support them.

The Royal Commission proposed 10 at large seats (the Govt reduced this to eight), and proponents of at large seats have noble intentions. They want Councillors who will put the entire Region first, not their ward. I can understand the rationale for at large seats.

Having said that, I don’t think Councillors get too influenced by their ward. On Wellington City Council you rarely get people voting on ward lines – it is almost always on ideological grounds. And I don’t think Auckland Regional Council has a lot of divisions based on current wards.

There is some risk in not having at large seats, as the new Auckland Council will be very powerful, if all the Councillors do get tribal and try to represent the old cities. But having ward boundaries that are very different to the old cities and districts are a way around this.

So why do I think at large seats are a bad idea, even if well intentioned? The main issue for me is that you will not get well informed voting. Having to pick 8 or 10 Councillors out of what maybe 30 – 50 candidates will be a simple game in name recognition at best. It will not lead to good governance.

Picking one Mayor out of 10 candidates will be okay, as that race gets lots of publicity, and you probably will know enough about your preferred candidate to make an informed choice.

Likewise a ward election will mean picking one (maybe two) Councillor only – few enough to be an informed choice.

The other issue is cost of campaigning across the whole region.

Sending one letter to the region’s 500,000 ratepayers will cost a candidate $250,000 in postage alone.

Spending limits should be high enough to allow a direct mail letter to every voter and $250,000 while suitable for the Mayoralty will be too much to expect people to raise just for a City Council spot. You could get away with spending under $50,000 on a ward spot, which is about right.

The NZ Herald is against capping rates:

Nobody enjoys paying rates, any more than they do taxes, and the rates bills come to households in visible instalments. If local bodies were allowed to raise their revenue insidiously, as the state does through employers and GST returns, rates would hardly be noticed. They amount to just 4 per cent of the average household income, against 40 per cent that goes to the Government in various taxes.

The visibility of rates is a thoroughly good thing. It makes councils agonise over their annual demand and any increase above the inflation rate is bound to bring an outcry. When it happens too often the ratepayers wreak their revenge at the triennial elections. Mayors and councils often lose office on resentment of rises and gain it on promises to better control spending.

I disagree with the Herald on this issue, as there are major differences to how taxes and rates are down.

First of all, the way local Government operates is upside down. They draw up a list of everything they want to do, and them set the rates level to fund it. So income changes to meet expenditure.

In central Government (and in 99% of the private sector), you adjust your expenditure to fit within your income. You have a much higher degree of fiscal restraint.

Yes the Government can put up tax rates, but doing so is a very public, very high profile event. Not even Labour put taxes up every year, like rates go up.

The second key different is transparency. Almost all taxpayers know when their taxes have gone up. Ratepayers often have no idea as to how much a Council has increased rates by – because changes in relative house values affect an individual’s rates as much as the overall change on the level of rates. If your rates bill goes up 10%, you don’t know how much of that is increased relative house value, and increased Council spending unless you go out and research it.

So I back there being a population and inflation based cap on rates, with a referendum needed to increase rates beyond that level.

Just read this article and laugh and cry:

The spat comes comes as Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey is trying to act as a peacemaker and bring all the mayors together for a meeting on Wednesday with Mr Hide.

“It’s hugely important that the mayors are united in a common voice,” Mr Harvey said.

But his peacemaking efforts have been criticised after he emailed colleagues to suggest some leading figures in the governance debate, such as Warehouse boss Stephen Tindall, Deloitte chairman Nick Main and Committee for Auckland chairman Sir Ron Carter, take part in the meting.

Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee replied: “Sound likes elitist bullshit to me Bob.”

Mr Lee said it was the “hair-brained (sic) scheming of those amateurs” which encouraged the failed mayoral coup of 2006 that would have consigned the ARC to the political scrapheap.

Mr Harvey has since agreed not to invite the businessmen to the meeting, which may have to be moved from North Shore City Council’s headquarters to have any chance of getting Mr Banks to attend.

So the Chair and the Mayors can’t even agree on who to invite to a meeting, and where to have it.

Mr Williams is convinced Mr Banks is part of a right-wing smear campaign that includes Mr Bhatnagar, Mr Banks’ former press secretary Cameron Brewer, who now heads the Newmarket Business Association, and the right-wing blog Whaleoil run by Cameron Slater – son of Citizens & Ratepayers president John Slater, and a friend of Mr Banks.

Banks accidentially sent a text to Williams:

“I leave this to Whaleoil. TV3 are running this lunitic (sic) tonight?”

It was hardly a difficult guess that Whale would be responding to Mayor Williams latest outburst.

To me this just sums up why we need reform – no more squabbling Mayors all about patch protection.