by frog
I am going to go out on a limb here. I am going to do something that I rarely ever do, and make a prediction about politics.
I predict that in the same way that Ruth Richardson’s Mother of All Budgets was the death knell for Jim Bolger, Rodney Hide’s Mother of All Mergers in Auckland will backfire spectacularly, and be the death knell for this government.
That’s heady stuff, but the parallels and the timing all bode ill for the man who will ultimately cop the ire of the electorate when Auckland wakes up to Rodney’s agenda.
Right now Auckland is spellbound by the image of the all powerful wizard in the form of a Super Mayor with Super powers, totally unaware of the machinations of the men behind the curtain, Hide and Key, who will soon corporatise Auckland and likely sell off large chunks at fire sale prices “because of the recession”. Just like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, it won’t take Auckland too long to figure out the charade and expose it, just in time for the local, if not the general, elections.
The Government has given only a scant nod to the Royal Commission’s Report, keeping only the notion of a Super Mayor & Super Council, while throwing the rest into the rubbish bin. The Government’s so-called decision paper Making Auckland Greater, is a shell document that pretends to honour the Commissions work. However, in each area where the Government says it agrees with the Report, there is an asterisk and a fine print message:
* Agreed in principle. Detail yet to be confirmed by Government.
In other words, they haven’t really decided much of anything, and any assumption on our part that the finer detail of the Royal Commission’s recommendations will survive is entirely misguided. The Green Party thinks that some of the Royal Commission’s progressive recommendations are just what the doctor ordered for Auckland. The way I read the Government’s document, none of them are even likely to make it before the Auckland’s new Board of Directors.
Instead, what we will effectively have is a corporate board, set up by Rodney Hide, which will make all the important decisions required to merge some $23 billion dollars in assets and 6,000 staff from seven organisations in just over a year. There is nothing democratic and everything corporate about this Mother of All Mergers and it will certainly lead to tears, particularly given the incredible haste with which it is to be done.
Such will be the anxiety and anger of the greater Auckland electorate that at least one head will roll in the lead up to the 2011 elections, Perhaps Rodney’s?
Published in Justice & Democracy | Parliament by frog on Wed, April 29th, 2009
Tags: Auckland, governance, merger, politics
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The Greens should build now to have the electorate committees in place to take Auckland seats. People will be looking for something else, but they won’t necessarily want Labour back. The Greens should aim for 20% in Auckland, but they should also run electorate seats.
Stand credible candidates who are respected by the community, and run them well, and you have a chance. I hope that you’re using Mt Albert to test for 2011. And reassure people that a vote for the Greens means that their health, education, and economic prospects are safe. It isn’t all about motorways and dirty rivers, at least not for the people I know who vote.
There are a lot of lessons the Greens should be taking from the Obama campaign about how to come from nowhere and win beyond people’s expectations. It’s all about message, and organisation.
I’ll say this for the next two years if I don’t think I’m being listened to!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Epsom’s in Auckland City, who are the main beneficiaries of the merger. There’ll be no yelp from them. Wouldn’t say the same for the wallet watchers of North Shore, the Westies and others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
co-operate fwog,
don’t get smart or you will end up like rod donald nowhere buddy,
totally rejected even by Labour,
full your amphibiaN toe in fwog,
wake up to what you hAve,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peterquixote Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
> co-operate fwog,
> don’t get smart or you will end up like rod donald nowhere buddy,
We’ve had a few minor parties that have gone out of their way to be co-operative in Parliament, and they all lost a lot of support because of it. I think voters prefer minor parties that are motivated by principle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The North Shore will still vote blue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The people of Epsom have a lot to answer for. ( Yes I agree with you Zippy). But wake up NZ! This is a foretaste of things to come! Rodney’s only just started. He has plans for all of NZ local govt! And your not going to like it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bolger won two more elections after the Mother of All Budgets – so I don’t know whether it hurt him too badly.
It seems like things might be heading in the right direction regarding a couple of key issues here: ward councillors and real power for local boards. I think the Greens will end up in a messy situation if they take a simple “Royal Commission Good, Government Response Bad” approach. Clearly there were issues with what the RC proposed: with nothing more local than the current councils, and over half the councillors elected at large being two major faults.
I’m still waitin to hear how the Greens would want Auckland’s restructuring to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve said much the same, that the forced unification of either Wellington or Auckland would result in electoral adversity (first in the case of Wellington and a Labour governement and now Auckland and a National one).
Possibly the Auckland reform was the Trojan horse trap Labour (who abandoned any moves in Wellington) left for National to swallow (knowing the victorious Nats would, in an act of hubris, unrestrained by campaign promises, be blinded by greed for the larger Auckland area assets).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bang on!
Is there any international other example where a national government so blatantly sold an entire city?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One way citizens can keep their council bureaucrats honest is by the threat of appeals to the Environment Court.
This is a powerful weapon with smaller councils whose budgets cannot stand too much expensive litigation given the costs of their own legal counsel and witnesses, and the shame of potential defeat.
So if I am seriously unhappy with the way an individual or family has been treated by a decision or process I can simply file an application to appeal to the Environment Court (for only $55) and in most cases a small or medium sized council will agree to mediate.
Of course I have to be confident that the case is sound and simple because the applicant will have to lead their own case and call on maybe only a single witness to minimize their own costs.
However, as councils get larger so do their budgets. I first noticed the power of the threat of litigation during my research into the report for the Reserve Bank – The Impact of the RMA on the ‘Housing and Construction’ Components of the Consumer Price Index – in 1995/96.
Papakura was running an efficient consents process and was focusing on RMA issues rather than directing and controlling the use of land, and protecting productive farmland, and similar hangovers from the Town and Country Planning Act.
The ARC was unhappy with Papakura’s adherence to the RMA and to Section 5 in particular and soon took to advising the Council that if they granted a consent for a rural subdivision the ARC would appeal the decision to the Environment court and beyond.
When Council passed this information on to the applicants they would normally back off immediately because they could not face the costs of endless litigation with a party spending other people’s money.
Aucklanders are now faced with the prospect of being governed by a Super City with a budget of over a billion dollars a year. Such a council will be able to threaten applicants with appeals to the Environment Court, and on to the High Court, and on to the Appeal Court, and finally to the Supreme Court.
Families or individuals will not stand a chance; the Super City will barely notice the cost.
It would be interesting to gather a summary of the total amounts the present councils have spent on litigation during the last year and see how closely their expenditure correlates to their annual budget and to the number of residents. (i.e. dollars spent on litigation as a percentage of total budget and per head of population) I suspect the ARC will come out on top because they spend so much money litigating against other councils, and are so reluctant to concede defeat.
And their budget and philosophy are compounded by the ARC councilors’ relative remoteness from the electorate.
In other words the Super City with a Super Budget will become a Leviathan getting its own way against all but the biggest corporates who alone will be able to match their funding.
Democracy is expressed in many ways. And we have to remember democracy is a means of restraining the power of governments.
Aucklanders are about to lose a powerful restraint on bureaucratic power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, given your above concerns I would have thought the proposed RMA changes making it much more difficult to appeal anything would be pretty horrendous to you. If everything goes through then the Environment Court is going to end up twiddling their thumbs as nobody will be able to stump up the $10,000 in security for costs.
There goes the democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our constitutional conventions require that all bills presented to Parliament be supported by a regulatory impact statement. Such a statement should address three issues:
• First, that there is a real problem.
• Second, that all relevant alternative solutions have been identified and considered.
• And third, that the proposed law will solve the problem better than all the alternatives, and its benefits will exceed its costs.
• These assessments should be undertaken diligently, impartially and from a non-partisan position.
Where is the Regulatory Impact Statement for this major constitutional upheaval which creates a President of a City State?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suppose that government would argue that the Royal Commission was the regulatory impact statement. However, while their report may have identified the problem and also looked at possible alternatives to their suggested option, the government’s proposal is a significant enough change from what the RC proposed that I would think another one would be necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What happened to the Local Government Act (Schedule 3) requirements for a consultation process and a poll of the electorate? Surely this whole restructuring if pushed through in the current manner is effectively illegal?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well since its only a constitutional convention Owen the process isn’t binding on the government so they don’t have to produce a regulatory impact statement.
If you don’t like that Owen call for a real binding constitution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It has been brought up a few times as to whether the current Local Government Act would require a referendum, because effectively this is a merging of councils. Banks Peninsula had a referendum before they joined with Christchurch City Council and so forth.
I think the legal argument is that a referendum WOULD be required if the Super City was to be established under existing legislation. However, that isn’t going to happen (probably because what Auckland ends up with is going to be very different to the current structure of local government that we see elsewhere in the country). The government will instead introduce an “Auckland Bill” to parliament, which probably won’t have a requirement for a referendum in it. That will over-ride the existing Local Government Act (at least to some extent) and therefore it would be legal to establish the new supercity without a referendum. One could say that’s morally wrong, but it isn’t legally wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sleepyday – Even the Royal Commission said to go ahead and ignore the Local Govt Act Schedule 3, presumably because they felt that they had consulted in depth. If the government were actually following the RC’s recommendation, I’d have a shred of sympathy. The govt isn’t and I don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The RC’s report had some big flaws in it though – so I don’t think we should hold it up as what the government should have done. A majority of councillors being elected at large, plus no aspect of local government more local than current city councils didn’t sound like particularly good ideas to me.
… still waiting for how the Greens think it should be done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair comment jarbury – I am merely arguing that the RC, at least, could claim that theior recommendations have been consulted on, whereas the govt’s have not – in any way. Nothing in my post implies that I whole heartily support the RC’s report.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Frog for the clarification. Nevertheless, irrespective of the need for consultion, section 49 of Schedule 3 seems to suggest that a poll of electors must be undertaken:
Under section 49 Polls must be held
(1) If a draft reorganisation scheme has been approved under clause 46, a poll of electors on the proposal that the reorganisation scheme proceed must be held in each district or region that is directly affected by the scheme.
(2) Despite subclause (1), no poll of electors must be held on a reorganisation scheme that deals solely with 1 or more of the matters listed in clause 40(2)(b), (c), or (d).####NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE AS REORGANISATION SCHEME IS MUCH BROADER######
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, a poll under this clause must be held under the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the provisions of that Act apply, with any necessary modifications, to the conduct of the poll.
(4) For the purposes of subclause (1), a district or region is directly affected by a reorganisation scheme if—
(a) the scheme provides for the abolition of that district or region; or
(b) the scheme provides for the union of the whole of that district or region with all or part of another or other districts or regions; or
(c) the scheme provides for the constitution of a new local authority whose district or region will include the whole of that district or region; or
(d) the scheme provides for the constitution of a new local authority whose district or region will include part of that district or region; or
(e) the scheme provides for the exclusion of an area from that district or region.
Or am I missing something?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sleepyday, what you’re missing is that the Local Government Act wouldn’t apply to this change in Auckland. Its provisions would be over-ridden by a new piece of legislation – likely to be known as the “Auckland Bill”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Jarbury. So the essence of this is that we can ignore existing legislation which currently applies to Auckland because the government is going to legislate so that it doesn’t apply? It that was the case then why doesn’t the government legislate away every ‘inconvenient’ legislative provision which calls for it to consult the public on matters of this nature. e.g. taken to its logical conclusion why don’t they just replace MMP without a referendum because a new bill is being introduced which overrides existing electoral legislation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter Quixote urges Frog ‘not to get smart’ and to ‘cooperate’ but his voice sounds a little strained.
Frog – be as smart as you want! Resistance is not futile. The Borg can be defeated (it’s usually the ‘little guy’ that does it!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sleepyday….. well if we have this government for too long then that might well occur.
More seriously, I’m perplexed by the idea that such a fundamental change to the way Auckland operates is going to have such little public input. If a referendum is considered necessary for merely amalgamating two councils, the proposed changes in the creation of a super-city are FAR greater than that, and therefore I would think the case for a referendum would be even stronger.
Of course there is the point that the issue is too complex for a referedum. However, I wouldn’t have the referedum now – I would have it at the end of the process. In order for the “Auckland Act” to come into effect it would need to pass a referendum. If it does not then there could be a clause that asks for further work to be done (as I don’t think too many people want a status quo forever) and another referendum to be held in 3 years time. This would ensure the government listened to the concerns of the people in drafting up the Auckland Bill, as it would be damn embarrassing for them to have a “no vote” win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury is correct sleepyday – parliament is supreme, and their first act will be to amend the Local Govt Act so they don’t have to follow it. It will likely form part of the “Transition Bill” due to hit the House soon. Watch this space.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sadly Frog and Jarbury I also suspect you’re right. Oh well, it’s still good to know that we live in a democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As long as I actually get notified this time of my chance to speak at the select committee phase on the Auckland Bill this time….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)