Comments on: Something is rotten in the state of Canterbury

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:28:22 +0000

Who were the other 4 councillors that voted Sir Kerry out and who were the 6 that opposed this motion?

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)

By: Drakula

Drakula — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:20:28 +0000

Merlinnz: No they have not resigned!! Knowing the type of people they are they would literally have to be thrown out!!!!!

Like or Dislike: 2 0 (+2)

By: Drakula

Drakula — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:14:47 +0000

NAILS IN THEIR ELECTION COFFIN!!!!!!!

Any way back to the subject at hand I dearly hope that the Green party keep this issue going because if Lyn Provost has found the 4 councillors to be breaking the law then justice has to be seen to be administered.
They should be punished.

If they are allowed to get away with it then that would leave a very unfortunate precident where a plutocracy of priveledged farmer-councillors will repeatedly be flounting a good law with inpunity.
Which is very serious indeed!!!!!!!!!

The opposition parties need to pressure the government to step in and discipline those involved. If the government ignores this issue then it is seen as aiding and abetting corrupt practices and that my friends would bang a few nails in their election coffin!!!!

Like or Dislike: 2 0 (+2)

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:05:16 +0000

As a Canterbury resident, I admit that I did not vote in the last local body elections, simply because I did not know enough about any of the councillors to be able to make any sort of informed decision. If you bring this issue back up just before the next local body elections and make it clear which councillors are preferred, then I will certainly consider voting those councillors with an obvious conflict of interest out.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)

By: merlinnz

merlinnz — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:36:29 +0000

Have they resigned????

Like or Dislike: 2 0 (+2)

By: Janine

Janine — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:38:22 +0000

As far as I know, it depends on what you are voting for: for local body elections, all people on the electoral roll can vote, one vote each person only, in the electorate in which they live. So residents get to vote as well and ratepayers get to vote only once.

However, from time to time a council will put forward something, for example the new stadium in Dunedin, and all those who pay rates (i.e. own a property) in that place get a vote whether they live there or not, presumably on the grounds that it is their rates that will pay for it, or not. I don’t know if you get a vote for each property – I suspect not. But if so, then that would be the thing to target.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Drakula

Drakula — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:12:08 +0000

Toad I will have to look into this further, I know that one cannot have one vote in one district and another vote in their batch in another district.

But supposing that a landlord has 2 properties one for himself and one for his tenant. I take it that that the tennant could vote, but what is to stop a landlord grabing the voting papers and voting himself?

The reason I braught this up was that it was discussed a few years ago at one of our local community meetings and I was informed by a councillor that if one owned more than one property in one district they had more than one vote.

So was I led up the garden path?

Bush basher says that a Christchurch resident who has a batch in Selwyn also has a right to avote in Selwyn, correct?

Yet in the village I live none of the week-enders recieved voting papers for the Selwyn district last local election. I did asked around.

Abuse can arise when one has a double vote in two districts (one in each)and this was common practice in Northern Irland.

Like or Dislike: 0 1 (-1)

By: toad

toad — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:36:35 +0000

Local Electoral Act 2001, section 24

24. Ratepayer electors
(1) Every parliamentary elector is qualified as a ratepayer elector of a region, a district, or a community if the address for which the person is registered as a parliamentary elector is outside the region, district, or community, and—
(a) that person is identified in the appropriate valuation roll as the sole ratepayer in respect of a rating unit within the region, district, or community; or
(b) that person is nominated to be enrolled as a ratepayer elector in respect of a rating unit within the region, district, or community, owned by 1 or more ratepayers, none of whom is qualified as a residential elector within the region, district, or community.
(2) Subsection (1) does not authorise the nomination of different persons by the same ratepayer or ratepayers in respect of different properties within the same region, district, or community.

You are right, Bushbasher – apart from the “no taxation without representation” bit – ratepayer electors still get to vote if they have commercial or residential tenants who are actually paying the rates as part of their rent.

Like or Dislike: 2 0 (+2)

By: Bushbasher

Bushbasher — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:20:05 +0000

Some misconceptions about local body voting here.

All residents in a local authority get to vote, even if they are not ratepayers. So ‘one man, one vote’.

Ratepayers, if non resident, get a vote but only one: not one per property. This is not often exercised (holiday homes are the most common property owned by non-residents) but follows the principle ‘no taxation without representation’.

As far as I know, all local bodies have to follow these rules. A ChCh resident and ratepayer can get a vote in Selwyn, if he/she has a bach at Arthurs Pass, say.

Plural voting (two votes in one local authority – one residential, one ratepaying) went out many years ago.

The Auckland SuperCity rearrangements have brought this issue up, but there seems confusion up there too.

Best to get a proper opinion – it is no doubt on the statute books somewhere.

Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)

By: bliss

bliss — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:59:54 +0000

In our district in Selwyn only ratepayers can vote and only one vote per property. Mr Hubbard who would have 20 properties would have 20 votes.

Surly not! Is such a thing legal?

Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)

By: Drakula

Drakula — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:49:10 +0000

KATIE CORRECT ABOUT SQUATOCRACY IN CANTERBURY!!!!!

Katie I can tell that you must have lived here as what you have said is spot on. The ironical thing is that the very early settlers came here as a result of the land-grabs of the 1840′s in England.

It is a reproduction of the very worst of the British class system, it is extremely dangerous and if it is not challenged and braught under control it could turn into some sort of cast system controlled by some sort of olligarchy that cannot be challenged and undermine our national laws with impunity. Which is already happening!!!!

In our district in Selwyn only ratepayers can vote and only one vote per property. Mr Hubbard who would have 20 properties would have 20 votes.
What about a vote from a tenant? Or a vote from other adult members of a family? Or what about the concept of universal sufferage?

These rural quasi-aristocracies are still living in the ninteenth century and they don’t like being challenged even on environmental issues which has resulted in the Selwyn river being so polluted by algae blooms last summer that two dogs drinking from that river have died and that could be YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!

I too would like to second Jezza’s suggested motion on a Green private members bill on local body reform because it is badly needed!!!!

Like or Dislike: 6 0 (+6)

By: Jezza

Jezza — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:37:08 +0000

It seems to me local government is far more corrupt that central government…

Will a Green MP put in a private member’s bill to amend the local government act to require a councillor’s penicuniary interest register..?

Like or Dislike: 9 1 (+8)

By: katie

katie — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:00:37 +0000

The major problem with Cantabrian farmers is that too many of them belong to the squatocracy – they have peppercorn leasehold properties, they have had the land in their family hands for anything up to 8 or 9 generations, and they just believe that they are entitled to be upheld by the community in all that they do.

Blame the set-up started by the NZ Company, who settled both Wellington and Christchurch, as well as a few smaller provincial areas, for imbuing these early settler families with that sense of entitlement … which has never been removed from them by any administration, be it National or Labour-flavoured, at any time in the past 150-odd years.

Cantabrians as a whole revere the ‘first four ships’ families, and any others who got onto the gravy train early enough in the history of Canterbury province. They take as of right positions on the Council, the various Boards and Directorships that matter in the city, and assume that their local power will not be challenged, whilst squeezing the dollars from the pockets of less-well-off ratepayers to fund their hobbyhorses.

They’ve nearly completely wrecked the Canterbury aquifers, which irrigated grain crops for most of the 20th century, by shifting production from grain to dairy, which is a much more intensive user of water and creates far more pollution of waterways.
Water will continue to be a resource that is hotly debated in the chambers of the Canterbury city and regional councils.

Like or Dislike: 9 1 (+8)

By: Drakula

Drakula — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:53:42 +0000

4 CANTERBURY COUNCILLORS are VINDICTIVE and CORRUPT !!!!!!!

Speaking as one who lives in the heart of Canterbury it just goes to show the rest of New Zealand that this is par for the course, conflict of interest occurs on a regular basis at local council level.I have seen it!!!

But the four above mentioned councillors clearly broke the law ousted the chairman who was to bring them into line and got away with it with impunity!! Which again is illegal.

This is going to be interesting; I think that the Auditor General can still take a case against the present chairman and the four councillors (1)If there is the political will and (2)If there is enough public pressure!!!

If that doesn’t happen then we know that corrupt and croney practices are condoned from above by the National or as Idiot Savant puts it the NASTY government!!!!

Toad has calculated that they would be fined around $13.000 I think accomodation from Her Majesties institutions or a gulag for a few years should cure the spread of this disease.

Like or Dislike: 7 2 (+5)

By: Bushbasher

Bushbasher — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:35:29 +0000

On reflection, the ECan situation is truly remarkable.

Canterbury farmers are a tiny, though undoubtedly important, minority of the 500 000 odd ECan voters. They use the vast majority of the water under CECan’s jurisdiction, pay nothing for it, and expect the expensive monitoring required to be subsidised by the rest of the ECan ratepayers.

The four ECan councillors involved in this shameless conflict of interest all have farming interests, some substantial, yet seem puzzled by the adverse reaction. Someone will have to explain it to them.

Like or Dislike: 7 1 (+6)

By: greenfly

greenfly — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:47:45 +0000

Oh! Then she should be ashamed of himself!

Like or Dislike: 5 1 (+4)

By: toad

toad — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:15:31 +0000

Um, greenfly, Cr Murray is a woman. But agree with your suggestion.

Like or Dislike: 3 1 (+2)

By: greenfly

greenfly — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:53:59 +0000

I hope Cr Murray is challenged through the letters to the Editor column in his local newspaper. Public questioning through the print media (he and his mates probably read the rag, rather than the blogs, for local news and public fugures do fear public condemnation and awkward questions) is, I believe, an effective method of changing this sort of behaviour. If you haven’t done it yet, there’s plenty of time, though Christmas isn’t the best moment to pick. He and his buddies will keep.

Like or Dislike: 5 0 (+5)

By: Bushbasher

Bushbasher — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:08:00 +0000

If Cr Murray’s case isn’t a conflict of interest, it’s hard to imagine one. But to go further, ECan is almost designed for rural/urban battles, and with water, this is just starting.

The idea of ‘One Council for Canterbury’ needs reviving, now that Auckland is well down the track with a much bigger local authority.

A unitary Canterbury Council would include ChCh City and ECan, and be elected from the Waitaki to the Conway. It would remove the fragmentation of the current setup, many of the costs, and get rid of a lot of petty politicking.

Like or Dislike: 1 4 (-3)

By: toad

toad — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:50:47 +0000

Ah, just seen in the Timaru Herald that the water management charges, if implemented, would have cost Cr Murray’s company (or her husband’s company, to be technically accurate) $13,675.

No conflict of interest? I feel a Tui ad coming on.

Like or Dislike: 9 0 (+9)