by Eugenie Sage
On Tuesday I was on the steps of Parliament with Christchurch based MPs from Labour and NZ First to deliver an open letter to the Prime Minister from seven Christchurch groups and the Wizard of New Zealand seeking a restoration of democracy in Canterbury.
The Green Party’s Eugenie Sage and other Christchurch MP’s accept the open letter to John Key
We investigated the decision making around the Government’s suspension of Cantabrians’ right to elect a regional council for six long years. I thought it might be useful to outline the decision timeline based on the sequence of departmental reports to Ministers. Documents released under the Official Information Act (OIA) can be downloaded here.
The big question is why did the Ministers, Amy Adams and David Carter, and Cabinet choose to disregard six months of work and advice from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), Ministry for the Environment (MfE), and their own hand- picked ECan commissioners saying that there should be elections for ECan in 2013?
- Starting from 3April 2012 all papers released by the agencies favour having a mix of commissioners and elected councillors.
- 11June : DIA and MfE point out that “the right of electors to democratically elect accountable representatives is a fundamental principle of governance.”
- 1August: the Government wrote off the idea of having only commissioners saying, about this option: “Key cost: limited opportunity for local democratic decision-making. Benefits (minor): Responds to time critical need to set arrangements for Canterbury, but the scale of intervention could be excessive.”
- 3August : paper again confirms mixed commissioners and elected councillors as the only option and said that this would be discussed at Cabinet on 6 August.
- 30 August : the option has been changed to extending commissioners with no elected councillors. The Bill was introduced into the house 7 days later.
The Ministers claimed that the need for “stable, efficient and effective” governance was the reason Commissioners should continue and there will be no vote for Environment Canterbury in 2013. I believe it has more to do with Government not trusting Cantabrians to elect a regional council that would promote Government’s irrigation development agenda.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Eugenie Sage on Thu, December 6th, 2012
Tags: christchurch, democracy, Education, Heritage, john key, Open letter
More posts by Eugenie Sage | more about Eugenie Sage
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
This ECAN, you mean?
“Canterbury council leaders attacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) as “zealot-driven”, “vindictive and spiteful” and “operationally, a rudderless ship” in a review of the regional council’s performance. …
Timaru District Mayor Janie Annear told reviewers that ECan had a lack of knowledge beyond Christchurch and a lack of rural understanding.
“Some [regional] councillors have said `rural New Zealand are the sewers of New Zealand’,” she said.”
The government was wise to step in. Ecan were clearly dysfunctional.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
How many elected politicians does it take to serve a population of 4 million people?
I don’t know the answer, but I do know of 52 mayors who serve populations larger than that of New Zealand
:-
Rank by size
City, Country
City Population
Metro Population
Name of Mayor
1
Karachi Pakistan
15,500,000
18,000,000
Fazlur Rehman
2
Shanghai China
14,900,000
19,200,000
Han Zheng
3
Mumbai (Bombay) India
13,900,000
21,200,000
Shraddha Jadhav
4
BEIJING China
12,460,000
17,550,000
Guo Jinlong
5
DELHI India
12,100,000
16,713,000
Kanwar Sain
6
BUENOS AIRES Argentina
11,655,000
12,924,000
Mauricio Macri
7
MANILA METRO Philippines
11,550,000
13,503,000
Alfredo S Lim
8
SEOUL South Korea
11,153,000
24,472,000
Oh Se-hoon
9
Sao Paulo Brazil
11,038,000
19,890,000
Gilberto Kassab
10
MOSCOW Russia
10,524,000
14,800,000
Sergei Sobyanin
11
JAKARTA Indonesia
10,100,000
24,100,000
Fauzi Bowo
12
Istanbul Turkey
9,560,000
12,600,000
Kadir Topbas
13
BANGKOK Thailand
9,100,000
11,970,000
Sukhumbhand Paribatra
14
MEXICO CITY Mexico
8,841,000
21,163,000
Marcelo Ebrard
15
TOKYO Japan
8,653,000
31,036,000
Shintaro Ishihara
16
TEHRAN Iran
8,430,000
13,450,000
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf
17
New York City USA
8,364,000
20,090,000
Michael Bloomberg
18
KINSHASA Congo D.R.
8,200,000
10,100,000
André Kimbuta Yango
19
DHAKA Bangladesh
7,940,000
12,797,000
Sadeque Hossain Khosa
20
Lagos Nigeria
7,938,000
9,123,000
Babatunde Raji Fashola
21
CAIRO Egypt
7,764,000
15,546,000
Abdul Azim Wazir
22
LIMA Peru
7,606,000
8,473,000
Susana Villaran
23
LONDON UK
7,557,000
12,200,000
Boris Johnson
24
Tianjin China
7,500,000
11,750,000
Huang Xingguo
25
BOGOTA Colombia
7,320,000
8,361,000
Samuel Moreno Rojas
26
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam
7,100,000
Pham Phuong Thao
27
Hong Kong China
7,055,000
Donald Tsang
28
Guangzhou China
6,458,000
10,182,000
Wan Qingliang
29
Dongguan China
6,446,000
7,650,000
Li Yuquan
30
Lahore Pakistan
6,100,000
8,600,000
Mian Amir Mahmood
31
Rio de Janeiro Brazil
6,093,000
14,387,000
Eduardo Paes
32
Baghdad Iraq
6,050,000
6,500,000
Sabir al-Issawi
33
Bangalore India
5,840,000
6,562,000
SK Nataraj
34
Surat India
5,390,000
6,347,000
Rajendra Desai
35
SANTIAGO Chile
5,278,000
6,677,000
Pablo Zalaquett Said
36
Kolkata India
5,100,000
15,420,000
Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya
37
Shenyang China
5,090,000
7,760,000
Li Yingjie
38
Chongqing China
5,087,000
9,700,000
Huang Qifan
39
SINGAPORE Singapore
4,988,000
Lee Hsien Loong
40
RIYADH Saudi Arabia
4,950,000
5,855,000
Abdul Aziz ibn ‘Ayyaf Al Migrin
41
LUANDA Angola
4,799,000
5,500,000
José Maria Ferraz dos Santos
42
Harbin China
4,755,000
9,874,000
Zhang Xiaolian
43
St Petersburg Russia
4,661,000
4,900,000
Valentina Matviyenko
44
Chennai India
4,600,000
7,330,000
M Subramaniam
45
Ahmadabad India
4,525,000
6,168,000
Kanaji Thakor
46
Wuhan China
4,500,000
6,200,000
Ruan Chengfa
47
Yangon Myanmar (Burma)
4,468,000
5.500,000
Aung Thein Lynn
48
Sydney Australia
4,400,000
Clover Moore
49
Chengdu China
4,334,000
11,000,000
Ge Honglin
50
Shenzhen China
4,320,000
8,616,000
Xy Qin
51
Nanjing China
4,150,000
7,600,000
Ji Jianye
52
Alexandria Egypt
4,110,000
4,350,000
Adel Labib
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
It would be a problem if we had democracy in the first place. However all we are allowed to do is change the names of the dictatorship occasionally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indeed Kerry
1 day of democracy, followed by three years of a (hopefully benign,) democracy.
It’s a terrible system, but other than having six plebescites a day I can’t think of a better one. Can you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, I can think of a better system, direct democracy. There is even a successful example, Switzerland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)