Once again the corrupt entity that is Auckland City Council has breached the law, breached truth, breached justice, breached fair dealing, and has ridden rough-shod over the democratic wishes of the Waiheke community by taking away the solid-waste contract from our local, not-for-profit organisation, CleanStream, and giving it to a multinational Australian-based outfit.
The dismaying truth is that Auckland City Council is an evil entity. Its profligate wickedness has assailed us, especially on the Hauraki Gulf Islands, and most especially on Waiheke, for twenty oppressive years.
The only good thing to come out of the corrupt Rodney Hide's trashing of the rule of good local-government law is that that Auckland City Council will be history. It remains to be seen whether its evil ways will simply shift to the new Auckland Council.
In New Zealand law the purpose of local government is spelt out clearly in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002: 'The purpose of local government is (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities and (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.'
To cripple, to ignore, even on a shonky pretext to disqualify democratic local decision-making and action is a blatant breach of the law. The wicked bureaucrats who recommended it and the equally wicked councillors who supported them with their votes should remember that in the end wickedness always loses.
The false-hearted Aaron Bhatnagar, who has the dishonest eyes of a vain liar, should take particular note of that. There is a God in heaven, Mr Bhatnagar. When your lungs have drawn their last breath, and your heart has beaten its last beat, and you come before his terrible throne you will find that you cannot deceive your way past him as you deceived your way past the truth, the law and the democratic will of Waiheke.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
ACID TEST FOR THE ATA/SUPER-COUNCIL
For Waiheke the acid test of this super-council adventure will be what the Auckland Transition Agency decides to do with the waste contract that Auckland City Council wants to ram down our throats. Will the ATA 'enable democratic local decision-making and action' and 'promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural' of our commmunity, or will it swallow Auckland's weasel-word excuse for disqualifying what the community wants and upport Auckland's agenda?
In that decision we shall see what the super-council regime has in store for us. If it goes with the community we can be optimistic. If not, there is a very cold front coming at us over the western horizon.
We should make myriads of strong representations to the ATA. I doubt that we will get much out of it, but it would be interesting to see how they said no.
In that decision we shall see what the super-council regime has in store for us. If it goes with the community we can be optimistic. If not, there is a very cold front coming at us over the western horizon.
We should make myriads of strong representations to the ATA. I doubt that we will get much out of it, but it would be interesting to see how they said no.
LOCAL BODY OUT OF PLACE AND MIND
Islanders will no doubt be overjoyed to learn that Auckland Silly Council a little while back decided to divide its empire into Places. North Place, South Place, West Place and East Place.
The Hauraki Gulf Islands have been lumped into East Place--along with Kohimarama!
Some new staff were hired to look after East Place, and were introduced. Just as a matter of interest they were asked what they had done formerly. One had been a funeral director. Which sounds very appropriate. Auckland Silly is after all a local body--that's local as in anaesthetic and body as in dead.
The Hauraki Gulf Islands have been lumped into East Place--along with Kohimarama!
Some new staff were hired to look after East Place, and were introduced. Just as a matter of interest they were asked what they had done formerly. One had been a funeral director. Which sounds very appropriate. Auckland Silly is after all a local body--that's local as in anaesthetic and body as in dead.
HISTORY AND THE NEW ORCLAND
Communist countries for years were rightly condemned by the West for their heavy-handed, centrally-planned, one-size-fits-all governments and economies.
Sounds like the new Orcland.
Sounds like the new Orcland.
Thursday, 28 May 2009
FOUR MUST-HAVES FOR EFFECTIVE REORGANISATION
The Local Government Minister has breached the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002) in the way he is trying to reorganise Auckland's local government, but we are obviously stuck with his evasion of the legal, democratic process that is meant to be handled by an independent statutory body, the Local Government Commissions, so we have to try to get the government to get it right from here on.
No reorganisation will succeed unless everything done fits the purpose of the organisation. If you do not get the why right, you will never get the what, the when, the who, the how or anything else right.
Usually in troubleshooting you have to identify the purpose before you can start fixing the mess, but in local government the purpose is already neatly printed in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002): 'The purpose of local government is--(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.' Then section 14 lays down the principles. Anyone in local government, elected or employed, who does not know the forty words of s10 should be sacked.
'Enable democratic local decision-making and action and promote the four well-beings.' If the government does not do that, all it will achieve is a change in logos and letterheads and bureaucratic titles.
There are four things that must be done, not just for this part of the country, but for all New Zealand. The four headings are Teeth, Time, Delegations and Budgets.
Teeth. First, there must be summary penalties in the LGA2002 for those who breach it. Then any errant bureaucrat or councillor or member of a community/local board can be summarily prosecuted and either fined or in serious cases spend a few months in jail. At the moment the only penalty, which is rather restricted, is a fine of up to $5000. But if you pirate a DVD you can be fined tens of thousands. Obviously New Zealand thinks local government is far less important than a DVD.
Second, community/local boards, on behalf of their communities, must have the power to vet all staff employed in their local service centre, and all staff employed in the central office who have their community as their responsibility. We must know that we are getting suitable people, and not have the choices of senior bureaucrats foisted on us. Then, if approved, people would be hired on three months probation. Boards must also have the power to summon errant staff before them, those who have acted in breach of the law, in particular the LGA2002 and the RMA, and if necessary sack them.
Only then will the people have the upper hand, not those who work for them and are paid by them. Public servants must be public servants, never public masters.
Time. Members of community/local boards must have the time needed to do the job they were elected to do, and want to do. But they have to breathe and eat. They cannot spend the necessary time if they do not have the remuneration. But because the Remuneration Authority is corrupt, because it ignores the mandatory criteria set down in Clause 7 Schedule 7 of the LGA2002, and has instead invented its own insane rules, elected people in local government in New Zealand, in particular community boards, are not paid enough to carry out their duties. Being a member of a community/local board is a full-time job. Therefore they should be paid $30,000 a year. Not an average of less than $5000. Councillors, too, must be paid fairly, so that we do not get the ludricrous situation of Auckland Regional Councillors being the lowest-paid regional councillors in New Zealand ($22,000 a year).
That means that some the teeth needed in the LGA2002 must be aimed at the Remuneration Authority. If it does not follow the law it must be sacked, and face a penalty in court. To kneecap local government in an entire country is a very serious offence, and should be dealt with very severely.
Delegations. The powers and activities delegated to community/local boards must not be in the hands of politicians, either councillors or MPs. They must be in the hands of an independent statutory authority--the Local Government Commission. Then boards, on behalf of their communities, and with their consultation and support, would apply to the LGC for a list of desired delegations. What the LGC approved would be gazetted under the LGA2002, and no councillor or bureaucrat would be able to intefere with anything on it. Any who did would be liable to summary prosecution.
Only by having protected delegations can community/boards operate; only then can democratic local decision-making be protected. Honest councils give and do protect good delegations, but a protected system is needed as a bulwark against dishonest ones--such as Auckland City Council.
Budgets. Community/local boards must, on behalf of their communities, with consultation, have control over local income and expenditure. They must have full responsibility for the local budget, and they must develop the local rates, which would then be signed off by their council. Good councils, such as Thames-Coromandel District Council, already do that, but it should be a mandatory duty.
Teeth, Time/Remuneration, Protected Delegations, Budgetary Control. Unless those matters are under LOCAL control through community/local boards, there will never be good local government in New Zealand.
No reorganisation will succeed unless everything done fits the purpose of the organisation. If you do not get the why right, you will never get the what, the when, the who, the how or anything else right.
Usually in troubleshooting you have to identify the purpose before you can start fixing the mess, but in local government the purpose is already neatly printed in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002): 'The purpose of local government is--(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.' Then section 14 lays down the principles. Anyone in local government, elected or employed, who does not know the forty words of s10 should be sacked.
'Enable democratic local decision-making and action and promote the four well-beings.' If the government does not do that, all it will achieve is a change in logos and letterheads and bureaucratic titles.
There are four things that must be done, not just for this part of the country, but for all New Zealand. The four headings are Teeth, Time, Delegations and Budgets.
Teeth. First, there must be summary penalties in the LGA2002 for those who breach it. Then any errant bureaucrat or councillor or member of a community/local board can be summarily prosecuted and either fined or in serious cases spend a few months in jail. At the moment the only penalty, which is rather restricted, is a fine of up to $5000. But if you pirate a DVD you can be fined tens of thousands. Obviously New Zealand thinks local government is far less important than a DVD.
Second, community/local boards, on behalf of their communities, must have the power to vet all staff employed in their local service centre, and all staff employed in the central office who have their community as their responsibility. We must know that we are getting suitable people, and not have the choices of senior bureaucrats foisted on us. Then, if approved, people would be hired on three months probation. Boards must also have the power to summon errant staff before them, those who have acted in breach of the law, in particular the LGA2002 and the RMA, and if necessary sack them.
Only then will the people have the upper hand, not those who work for them and are paid by them. Public servants must be public servants, never public masters.
Time. Members of community/local boards must have the time needed to do the job they were elected to do, and want to do. But they have to breathe and eat. They cannot spend the necessary time if they do not have the remuneration. But because the Remuneration Authority is corrupt, because it ignores the mandatory criteria set down in Clause 7 Schedule 7 of the LGA2002, and has instead invented its own insane rules, elected people in local government in New Zealand, in particular community boards, are not paid enough to carry out their duties. Being a member of a community/local board is a full-time job. Therefore they should be paid $30,000 a year. Not an average of less than $5000. Councillors, too, must be paid fairly, so that we do not get the ludricrous situation of Auckland Regional Councillors being the lowest-paid regional councillors in New Zealand ($22,000 a year).
That means that some the teeth needed in the LGA2002 must be aimed at the Remuneration Authority. If it does not follow the law it must be sacked, and face a penalty in court. To kneecap local government in an entire country is a very serious offence, and should be dealt with very severely.
Delegations. The powers and activities delegated to community/local boards must not be in the hands of politicians, either councillors or MPs. They must be in the hands of an independent statutory authority--the Local Government Commission. Then boards, on behalf of their communities, and with their consultation and support, would apply to the LGC for a list of desired delegations. What the LGC approved would be gazetted under the LGA2002, and no councillor or bureaucrat would be able to intefere with anything on it. Any who did would be liable to summary prosecution.
Only by having protected delegations can community/boards operate; only then can democratic local decision-making be protected. Honest councils give and do protect good delegations, but a protected system is needed as a bulwark against dishonest ones--such as Auckland City Council.
Budgets. Community/local boards must, on behalf of their communities, with consultation, have control over local income and expenditure. They must have full responsibility for the local budget, and they must develop the local rates, which would then be signed off by their council. Good councils, such as Thames-Coromandel District Council, already do that, but it should be a mandatory duty.
Teeth, Time/Remuneration, Protected Delegations, Budgetary Control. Unless those matters are under LOCAL control through community/local boards, there will never be good local government in New Zealand.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
DEMOCRACY HAS TEETH, INTEGRITY IS ALL GUMS
People who have great power will usually act only if there is something in it for them. But the super-council will never have any reason to do anything for Waiheke. We will have only 0.6% of the vote, and zero councillors out of twenty, so why should it do a blind thing for us?
Requests that mean everything to us will mean nothing to them. Pleas on our behalf from the Waiheke Local Board will fall on deaf ears.
The government may set some delegations in legislation, but as it itself has just proved by ramming through a 'technical' Act that trashed the democratic obligations of the Local Government Act 2002, legislation is only as good as the notice taken of it, no matter how good its intentions and black and white its wording. The good Dr Jekyll ends up trashed in the wicked soul of Mr Hide.
If the super-council ignored the law it would not suffer the slightest penalty, and there would be no incentive to obey it for pip-squeak Waiheke.
So we would be entirely reliant on the integrity of a majority on the super-council, and the integriryt of the bureaucracy making recommendations to it.
Integrity. Hmmm! Relying on that from a far-off super-council that will have no incentive to listen to us would be as stupid as believing in Santa Claus, Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy.
I would rather rely on democracy. If the Hauraki Gulf Islands were with Thames-Coromandel District Council we would have 23% of the vote, Waiheke would have two councillors out of twelve, Great Barrier would have one, and the reorganisation proposal also has the mayor on both community boards and the regional councillor present at every monthly meeting.
A full house beats an empty hand every time.
Requests that mean everything to us will mean nothing to them. Pleas on our behalf from the Waiheke Local Board will fall on deaf ears.
The government may set some delegations in legislation, but as it itself has just proved by ramming through a 'technical' Act that trashed the democratic obligations of the Local Government Act 2002, legislation is only as good as the notice taken of it, no matter how good its intentions and black and white its wording. The good Dr Jekyll ends up trashed in the wicked soul of Mr Hide.
If the super-council ignored the law it would not suffer the slightest penalty, and there would be no incentive to obey it for pip-squeak Waiheke.
So we would be entirely reliant on the integrity of a majority on the super-council, and the integriryt of the bureaucracy making recommendations to it.
Integrity. Hmmm! Relying on that from a far-off super-council that will have no incentive to listen to us would be as stupid as believing in Santa Claus, Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy.
I would rather rely on democracy. If the Hauraki Gulf Islands were with Thames-Coromandel District Council we would have 23% of the vote, Waiheke would have two councillors out of twelve, Great Barrier would have one, and the reorganisation proposal also has the mayor on both community boards and the regional councillor present at every monthly meeting.
A full house beats an empty hand every time.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
WEEDHEKE LESS WEEDY IF WE GET EW
I was asked about the difference between the policies of Auckland Regional Council and Environment Waikato on noxious weeds. The short answer is that EW is much stricter.
They have different rules for different weeds, depending on how seriously they regard them. For example, unlike ARC, EW regards tobacco plant (woolly nightshade), moth plant and climbing asparagus as serious pests and works hard at containment.
Click here for the full hit-list, with EW's super-baddies highlighted with asterisks.
They have different rules for different weeds, depending on how seriously they regard them. For example, unlike ARC, EW regards tobacco plant (woolly nightshade), moth plant and climbing asparagus as serious pests and works hard at containment.
Click here for the full hit-list, with EW's super-baddies highlighted with asterisks.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
EVEN SHORTCHANGED ON OUR MINUTES
During one of the visits I made to Thames-Coromandel District Council last year I went through some of the many reports available to the public in the foyer, which include the minutes of various meetings, from council meetings to community board meetings, and I was again struck by the contrast between Auckland's way of doing things and Thames-Coromandel's.
Auckland's minutes record the resolutions passed, reports received from staff and board members, written presentations made by people in the community, and correspondence received. Nothing else.
Thames-Coromandel's do all that too of course, but they also summarise the discussions that took place. So anyone who reads their minutes can see what happened and how it happened. They are therefore true minutes--a faithful record minute by minute.
Auckland's are not, so when its meetings pass a resolution saying that the minutes of the previous meeting are a true and correct record, they are wrong because they are only an abbreviated summary. Which is why I now always vote against that motion.
So in spite of its self-vaunted size Auckland cannot do nearly as good a job with 2300 staff as Thames-Coromandel does with 192, not even keeping minutes. Auckland also has an entire department ('Democracy Services') to handle council and community-board meetings. Thames-Coromandel doesn't.
Auckland forever skites that it is the biggest local body in New Zealand, and the second biggest in Australasia, but that does not make it the best, or the best for the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Quantity is not quality. It is easy to be bigger. You just hire more people. To be good you have to hire good people and have good management and good organisation. The overall quality of staff in Thames is noticeably higher than in Auckland's sprawling empire.
Thames-Coromandel also puts reports on consent applications near the top of community-board agendas, and it has senior staff in attendance at board meetings as a matter of course, and lists them in the minutes, which underlines the co-operative, freely communicative working relationship between the elected and the employed on the peninsula--yet another stark contrast with aloof Auckland, where the code of conduct prevents councillors from talking to any staff but the CEO (and Democracy Services).
Auckland's minutes record the resolutions passed, reports received from staff and board members, written presentations made by people in the community, and correspondence received. Nothing else.
Thames-Coromandel's do all that too of course, but they also summarise the discussions that took place. So anyone who reads their minutes can see what happened and how it happened. They are therefore true minutes--a faithful record minute by minute.
Auckland's are not, so when its meetings pass a resolution saying that the minutes of the previous meeting are a true and correct record, they are wrong because they are only an abbreviated summary. Which is why I now always vote against that motion.
So in spite of its self-vaunted size Auckland cannot do nearly as good a job with 2300 staff as Thames-Coromandel does with 192, not even keeping minutes. Auckland also has an entire department ('Democracy Services') to handle council and community-board meetings. Thames-Coromandel doesn't.
Auckland forever skites that it is the biggest local body in New Zealand, and the second biggest in Australasia, but that does not make it the best, or the best for the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Quantity is not quality. It is easy to be bigger. You just hire more people. To be good you have to hire good people and have good management and good organisation. The overall quality of staff in Thames is noticeably higher than in Auckland's sprawling empire.
Thames-Coromandel also puts reports on consent applications near the top of community-board agendas, and it has senior staff in attendance at board meetings as a matter of course, and lists them in the minutes, which underlines the co-operative, freely communicative working relationship between the elected and the employed on the peninsula--yet another stark contrast with aloof Auckland, where the code of conduct prevents councillors from talking to any staff but the CEO (and Democracy Services).
Thursday, 30 April 2009
BUILDING THE HOUSE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Winston Churchill said, 'We build our house then our houses build us.' We should therefore be careful about what sort of house we build, both literal and metaphorical.
The house of local government is critical because it builds our community. And the inexorable tendency is for those who rule you to make your community like theirs. You become remade in their image.
We must therefore ask ourselves: 'Do we want Waiheke to become like Auckland City?' 'Do we want Waiheke to become like anything on the isthmus?'
If the answer is 'No', we must build our local government house with someone else (we do not have 10,000 people, so in law we cannot build it by ourselves). And we must for the survival of our community build it with someone like us. We must look at how they have built their community and ask ourselves if we would be happy if we became like that.
Thames-Coromandel is that sort of place. Some parts we would not like (Pauanui, obviously, but that is not typical), but the most built place, Thames, is not a town that a true islander could feel uncomfortable in.
If Waiheke (even Great Barrier) became in twenty years' time like Thames is now, we would not be too unhappy about it. But if it became like Auckland we would hate it. It would no longer be Waiheke. Its essence would have died.
The house of local government is critical because it builds our community. And the inexorable tendency is for those who rule you to make your community like theirs. You become remade in their image.
We must therefore ask ourselves: 'Do we want Waiheke to become like Auckland City?' 'Do we want Waiheke to become like anything on the isthmus?'
If the answer is 'No', we must build our local government house with someone else (we do not have 10,000 people, so in law we cannot build it by ourselves). And we must for the survival of our community build it with someone like us. We must look at how they have built their community and ask ourselves if we would be happy if we became like that.
Thames-Coromandel is that sort of place. Some parts we would not like (Pauanui, obviously, but that is not typical), but the most built place, Thames, is not a town that a true islander could feel uncomfortable in.
If Waiheke (even Great Barrier) became in twenty years' time like Thames is now, we would not be too unhappy about it. But if it became like Auckland we would hate it. It would no longer be Waiheke. Its essence would have died.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
NO GOVERNMENT CAN ORDER LOCAL-BODY REORGANISATION
Unless the government fiddles the Local Government Act 2002 and thus indulges in gerrymandering it does not have the legal power to reorganise local government anywhere in New Zealand. That task, rightly, is entirely in the hands of an independent statutory authority, the Local Government Commission.
Therefore the government's document, Making Auckland Greater, is just a reorganisation proposal, which comes under Schedule 3 of the Act and *must* follow the process laid down (which includes 60 days for public submissions). At the end of that process the LGC will, after its normal rigorous independent examination, decide exactly what happens. The government can only ask; it cannot command.
For it to set itself above the law, particularly an excellent law, which the LGA2002 is, would be most unfortunate. This is New Zealand not Zimbabwe.
Please, Mr Key and Mr Hide, let good law take its course.
Therefore the government's document, Making Auckland Greater, is just a reorganisation proposal, which comes under Schedule 3 of the Act and *must* follow the process laid down (which includes 60 days for public submissions). At the end of that process the LGC will, after its normal rigorous independent examination, decide exactly what happens. The government can only ask; it cannot command.
For it to set itself above the law, particularly an excellent law, which the LGA2002 is, would be most unfortunate. This is New Zealand not Zimbabwe.
Please, Mr Key and Mr Hide, let good law take its course.
SUPER-COUNCIL MEANS MINI REPRESENTATION
Good local government depends on good representation and administration. Good representation depends on how much say we have in our own communities, which firstly depends on our share of the electorate, then on the calibre of those who represent us, then on the powers they have and how well they use them. Good administration depends on the calibre of the chief executive, then on the quality of the organisation he/she creates, and finally on the
calibre of staff he or she employs.
With the proposed super-Auckland the Hauraki Gulf Islands will have only 0.6% of the electorate. It is therefore unlikely that we would have a councillor of our own, because that would give us 1 out of a council of 20--which would be 5% of the representation, about 8 times our share of the electorate.
If the Chief Executive is someone like David Rankin we are doomed. From the islands' point of view that position needs to be someone far stronger and more able than usual, because most of the 2300 staff now in Auckland City Council will remain and they will be the ones we will be dealing with in the main. So they will have to wrenched into reality. That will take strength, determination and great skill.
Our two Community Board will be the same size as now, with five elected members. And it seems that that will be all, because in the government's pronouncement on the Royal Commission there is no mention of a councillor on them.
In stark contrast, if the Local Government Commission goes ahead and approves the Thames-Coromandel application we would have 23.15% of the electorate and three councillors. Two for Waiheke and one for Great Barrier. The Community Boards would also be bigger and have far more extensive powers, even developing the local budgets and local rates
The Waiheke Board would have nine members: five elected as now, the two councillors, the mayor, and an elected Maori representative. Great Barrier's Board would have eight members because it would have one councillor. The Regional Councillor would be present at every Community Board meeting. (See
www.waihekenotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/draft-reorganisation-proposal-for.html)
The three Hauraki Gulf Island councillors would sit on a council of twelve including the mayor.
Steve Ruru in Thames-Coromandel is a skilled and very able Chief Executive, with a good organisation made up of staff who are of a noticeably higher calibre than we are used to in Auckland.
The government's pronouncement also heralds the abrupt end of the Auckland City Council subsidy/gravy-train. It specifically says on page 14 that the 20 or 30 community boards will 'influence the Auckland Council by petitioning for extra services that their community wants. Services would be paid for through a targeted rate for the local area, a local rate rise or a change in priorities.'
So much for those who were against splitting from Auckland 'because only Auckland has the money.'
The government has said what it wants. But in law it can only ask the Local Government Commission to do the reorganisation. It cannot command. It has no more power than any citizen. Only the Local Government Commission has the power to make and hand down reorganisation rulings (unless the government bends the rules by altering the law). The Minister could, in theory, refuse to recommend that the LGC's ruling becomes an Order in Council (the Executive Council, signed off by the Governor General), but that would be most improper, and he would be wide open to a charge of stepping outside the rule of law.
That unelected CEO in charge of 6000 bureaucrats in the super-city proposal means that it will actually be a super-bureaucracy. All the problems on the islands come from the present city-oriented bureaucracy. A powerful super-bureaucracy will be even worse. On the peninsula there is a staff of only 192 and a good CEO, one who works well with the elected council and is monitored by it via a committee chaired by their excellent mayor (she got 97.33% of the vote on the final count at the last election).
It is going to be an interesting few months.
calibre of staff he or she employs.
With the proposed super-Auckland the Hauraki Gulf Islands will have only 0.6% of the electorate. It is therefore unlikely that we would have a councillor of our own, because that would give us 1 out of a council of 20--which would be 5% of the representation, about 8 times our share of the electorate.
If the Chief Executive is someone like David Rankin we are doomed. From the islands' point of view that position needs to be someone far stronger and more able than usual, because most of the 2300 staff now in Auckland City Council will remain and they will be the ones we will be dealing with in the main. So they will have to wrenched into reality. That will take strength, determination and great skill.
Our two Community Board will be the same size as now, with five elected members. And it seems that that will be all, because in the government's pronouncement on the Royal Commission there is no mention of a councillor on them.
In stark contrast, if the Local Government Commission goes ahead and approves the Thames-Coromandel application we would have 23.15% of the electorate and three councillors. Two for Waiheke and one for Great Barrier. The Community Boards would also be bigger and have far more extensive powers, even developing the local budgets and local rates
The Waiheke Board would have nine members: five elected as now, the two councillors, the mayor, and an elected Maori representative. Great Barrier's Board would have eight members because it would have one councillor. The Regional Councillor would be present at every Community Board meeting. (See
www.waihekenotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/draft-reorganisation-proposal-for.html)
The three Hauraki Gulf Island councillors would sit on a council of twelve including the mayor.
Steve Ruru in Thames-Coromandel is a skilled and very able Chief Executive, with a good organisation made up of staff who are of a noticeably higher calibre than we are used to in Auckland.
The government's pronouncement also heralds the abrupt end of the Auckland City Council subsidy/gravy-train. It specifically says on page 14 that the 20 or 30 community boards will 'influence the Auckland Council by petitioning for extra services that their community wants. Services would be paid for through a targeted rate for the local area, a local rate rise or a change in priorities.'
So much for those who were against splitting from Auckland 'because only Auckland has the money.'
The government has said what it wants. But in law it can only ask the Local Government Commission to do the reorganisation. It cannot command. It has no more power than any citizen. Only the Local Government Commission has the power to make and hand down reorganisation rulings (unless the government bends the rules by altering the law). The Minister could, in theory, refuse to recommend that the LGC's ruling becomes an Order in Council (the Executive Council, signed off by the Governor General), but that would be most improper, and he would be wide open to a charge of stepping outside the rule of law.
That unelected CEO in charge of 6000 bureaucrats in the super-city proposal means that it will actually be a super-bureaucracy. All the problems on the islands come from the present city-oriented bureaucracy. A powerful super-bureaucracy will be even worse. On the peninsula there is a staff of only 192 and a good CEO, one who works well with the elected council and is monitored by it via a committee chaired by their excellent mayor (she got 97.33% of the vote on the final count at the last election).
It is going to be an interesting few months.
Friday, 10 April 2009
RANKIN TO REPRESENT AKL TO LGC
An indication that Auckland City Council is now taking seriously the application before the Local Government Commission to carve the Hauraki Gulf Islands off Auckland's territory and move them to Thames-Coromandel District Council is shown by the fact that it has just nominated its CEO, David Rankin, to speak for it when the LGC holds its submissions hearings.
Interesting. Christine Watson, who had been handling the matter, has been set aside in favour of the man at the top.
But in many other ways Auckland is carrying on as if nothing has happened, as if neither that proposal to the LGC nor the one from the government for the super-council have happened. It is still making decisions inside its bubble. It is true that it cannot be expected to put local government on hold, but there are decisions that should not be made by an entity that will soon cease to exist. Such as spending a lot of time and money on the LTCCP.
Nor should it be making decisions about the Hauraki Gulf Islands as if it will be running them for ever. One way or the other that will cease, because a new council will be. Either the Thames-Coromandel District Council or the Auckland super-Council.
All eight of the councils that are to be eliminated should be restricting themselves just to day-to-day actions and very short-term decisions. Anything else would be presumptuous, arrogant, wasteful and morally wrong.
Interesting. Christine Watson, who had been handling the matter, has been set aside in favour of the man at the top.
But in many other ways Auckland is carrying on as if nothing has happened, as if neither that proposal to the LGC nor the one from the government for the super-council have happened. It is still making decisions inside its bubble. It is true that it cannot be expected to put local government on hold, but there are decisions that should not be made by an entity that will soon cease to exist. Such as spending a lot of time and money on the LTCCP.
Nor should it be making decisions about the Hauraki Gulf Islands as if it will be running them for ever. One way or the other that will cease, because a new council will be. Either the Thames-Coromandel District Council or the Auckland super-Council.
All eight of the councils that are to be eliminated should be restricting themselves just to day-to-day actions and very short-term decisions. Anything else would be presumptuous, arrogant, wasteful and morally wrong.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
VALUE OF WAIHEKE'S AIRPORT SHARES
Page 451 of the Royal Commission's report says Auckland City Council owns 12.8% of the shares in Auckland International Airport, and that they are now worth $303.7 million. Hard on the heels of that a council report said its dividend from the shares this year was $9.7 million (and that that was below normal).
Last year I asked the airport company what percentage of shares Waiheke County Council had before Auckland took over in 1989. It wrote back saying that it was 0.115%, but could not give me the current value. The figures in the Royal Commission's report show that they are now worth $2,728,555, and that this year's dividend would have been $87,150.
Under Section 13(b)(iv) of the reorganisation proposal now before the Local Government Commission for the Thames-Coromandel application, the shares would return to the island.
Last year I asked the airport company what percentage of shares Waiheke County Council had before Auckland took over in 1989. It wrote back saying that it was 0.115%, but could not give me the current value. The figures in the Royal Commission's report show that they are now worth $2,728,555, and that this year's dividend would have been $87,150.
Under Section 13(b)(iv) of the reorganisation proposal now before the Local Government Commission for the Thames-Coromandel application, the shares would return to the island.
Friday, 3 April 2009
SUMMARISED REACTION TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION
This the letter sent to Gulf News after reading the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. It is a summary of the much longer posting uploaded last week.
...
O goody! The Royal Commission wants Auckland City Council to become Tamaki-makau-rau Local Council. So ACC would be TLC. What a macabre joke!
And the structure the Royal Commission wants is illegal for the rest of the country, because it falls outside the Local Government Act 2002 (see page 664 of the report), so a special Act of Parliament would be needed just for Auckland. Therefore under the heading of local government Auckland would be a country within a country. That would create a local government apartheid. A very bad move.
We should have one law for all New Zealand. Auckland is too full of itself as it is. Underlining its selfishness and arrogance in legislation would be over the top.
The Royal Commission calls its recommendation a unitary council. But it isn't, because it is not a true unified one-layer council. Nor is it the usual two-level structure of regional council and city/district councils. It is this new illegal thing, a mix of regional council and local councils. Neither fish nor fowl.
It recommends for the Hauraki Gulf Islands a few delegated crumbs, which are yet to be decided, except for being allowed to look after our own halls and reserves (big deal!), and one more member on our two community boards. But our representation on councils will be reduced. Our lone councillor would be one of 22 in the TLC. And all we would have on the Auckland Council would be one councillor out of 23 shared with all of Rodney.
...
O goody! The Royal Commission wants Auckland City Council to become Tamaki-makau-rau Local Council. So ACC would be TLC. What a macabre joke!
And the structure the Royal Commission wants is illegal for the rest of the country, because it falls outside the Local Government Act 2002 (see page 664 of the report), so a special Act of Parliament would be needed just for Auckland. Therefore under the heading of local government Auckland would be a country within a country. That would create a local government apartheid. A very bad move.
We should have one law for all New Zealand. Auckland is too full of itself as it is. Underlining its selfishness and arrogance in legislation would be over the top.
The Royal Commission calls its recommendation a unitary council. But it isn't, because it is not a true unified one-layer council. Nor is it the usual two-level structure of regional council and city/district councils. It is this new illegal thing, a mix of regional council and local councils. Neither fish nor fowl.
It recommends for the Hauraki Gulf Islands a few delegated crumbs, which are yet to be decided, except for being allowed to look after our own halls and reserves (big deal!), and one more member on our two community boards. But our representation on councils will be reduced. Our lone councillor would be one of 22 in the TLC. And all we would have on the Auckland Council would be one councillor out of 23 shared with all of Rodney.
Monday, 30 March 2009
APOLOGIES FOR THE FALSE SHUTDOWN
I apologise for the outage that afflicted this blog in the last few days. But some fiend generated a false accusation that it was spam, so Google had to go through its investigation process to determine the truth.
Some will try anything to shut down freedom of speech when they don't like the message.
Some will try anything to shut down freedom of speech when they don't like the message.
Saturday, 28 March 2009
LOCAL GOVERNMENT APARTHEID BY ROYAL COMEDIANS
The Royal Commissions Report on Auckland's Local Governance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Looked at just as a report it is very good. Well-researched, well-written, well-structured, well laid out, comprehensive.
But its recommendation is bad. A fudge. A confused mess.
If the government does what it wants New Zealand would become a two-tier country. Auckland would be a country within a country, and a very powerful one at that--a country called Auckland loosely affiliated with the one called New Zealand. Auckland's local government would be run under one set of laws, the rest of New Zealand would run under a different set. What Auckland would have would be illegal everywhere else. That is bad, very bad. There should be one New Zealand, all operating under one law. Auckland might as well run up a flag with that big, blue A on it and secede.
It is just the old battle between Auckland and Wellington; this time Auckland is determined to come out on top.
We would have a kind of duchy. The duke, the mayor of Auckland, would preside the new Auckland Council, and would have a enormous power (for instance, he would appoint the deputy mayor and the chairs of all the council committees). So would his council. They would preside over an empire with a third of New Zealand's population, stretching from Mercer to north of Wellsford. They would have their own special minister in the Cabinet. The power of the mayor would rival, if not exceed, that of the prime minister; and the power of the council would rival that of the government.
Auckland is too full of itself anyway. Enshrining its selfishness, arrogance and hubris in law and making it a law unto itself, would be way over the top.
In setting up a structure that needs a special law to make it legal the Royal Commission has exceeded its brief. Under 'Relevant Matters' it was told that it could investigate and receive representations on, amongst other things, 'what changes to current legislation (consistent with the purposes and principles of local government as described in the Local Government Act 2002) are considered desirable to achieve or support the achievement of the inquiry's objectives.' But it has gone beyond 'current legislation'--which is mainly the Local Government Act 2002--and invented a new Act, the Auckland Act. An Act so powerful that if that clashed with any other Act it would override it. That is monstrous.
Before the Royal Commission issued this ridiculous, hubristic thing, it was conjectured that its preferred model would be the 'super-city'. But this is a super-region. It cannot be called a city, because it contains vast swathes of rural land, although the report constantly talks of a world-class city. But that is just marketing, because the city proper ceases to exist in legal and linguistic terms. Instead there are four urban wards, which contain the 'metropolitan urban limit'--the MUL, as the Royal Commission calls it. There is no real designation of city, no definition. The super-council, the Auckland Council, presides over the whole thing, a mix of urban and rural.
The excellent legal definition of 'city in the Local Government Act 2002 has been ignored. So has the normal definition in the language. The result is a blurry fudge. Where is the city proper? What will people be able to point to and say 'That is Auckland city'? What will the world be able to point to? The Royal Commission has fudged both law and language.
It has obviously avoided 'regional' and 'city' in the legal titles it recommends so that it could evade the legal definitions in the Local Government Act 2002. The way it uses 'unitary council' is also outside the Act, in the Act that is a territorial authority that has had conferred upon it the powers of a regional council. But the Royal Commission has turned that on its head: its 'unitary council' is a regional council that operates locally through illegal 'local councils'.
And under the Act there are only three ways that a unitary council can be proposed--by a resolution of one of the affected councils, the Minister of Local Government, or a petition signed by at least 10% of the affected registered electors. There is no mention of a Royal Commission. If this so-called unitary council is to be legal it must be proposed and set up one of those ways.
The Royal Commission has done rather more than turn 'unitary council' on its head. It has fudged its meaning, because although it calls its proposed Auckland Council a unitary council it isn't one. A unitary council is the single-level alternative to the normal two-level structure in which there are a number of city and/or district councils and a regional council. In a unitary council a single regional-territorial council combines the two functions. But what the Royal Commission has invented for Auckland is neither fish nor fowl. Its 'unitary council' is somewhere between a unitary and a two-level structure. The Auckland Council is a regional council with six 'local councils'--a new sort of council that is illegal under the LGA2002 (as the Royal Commission admits on page 664). That is why they need that special Auckland Act.
The seven existing territorial councils would be trimmed to six local councils. They would be pretty much the same as they are now, except for the two in the south that would be merged into one, and they would have greatly reduced powers--only what were delegated by the super-council. The staff in the local councils would be employed by the CEO of the super-council, and managed day-to-day by their local council managers, but they would be answerable to the CEO. One of the tasks of those local councils would be 'place-shaping.'
Royal Commission? No, Royal Comedy.
The most macabre part of the joke is that the Hauraki Gulf Islands would for day-to-day matters be under the same council as now, except it would no longer be called Auckland City Council. It would be renamed the Tamaki-makau-rau Local Council. So ACC would become TLC! The same people under whose tender loving care we have been for twenty years...
The pressure of submissions from the Hauraki Gulf Island, coupled with the Royal Commission's desire to nullify the Thames-Coromandel application to the Local Government Commission, caused it to recommend more for them than for any other community. It says they should keep their community boards. But its attempt to gazump the Thames-Coromandel application has come nowhere near the level of local government that that would give the islands. And it was an attempt, because when the Commission came to Waiheke I spoke with the chairman, Hon. Peter Salmon, in the lunchbreak, and he they might come up with something that would even satisfy what was behind the LGC application. So the application has had at least that positive effect. But the trifling delegations that the Commission has proposed are nothing compared with the wide-ranging local decision-making power that community boards have with Thames-Coromandel.
Thames-Coromandel's community boards have a wide range of duties and powers, including developing local budgets and local rates, determining library hours, setting the priorities on roadworks, even sitting on some council committees. The Royal Commission has only chucked the islands a few crumbs. With Thames-Coromandel we would have a whole loaf.
The crumbs are that our community boards would have one extra member each, and they would be allowed to run their local halls and reserves (big deal!), plus whatever other delegations the super-council might allow them. For day-to-day things they would come under the TLC, except for ones not delegated it by the super-council.
Under the recommendation from the Royal Comedians all the islands would be deemed rural, except for Waiheke's main villages--i.e., all but Orapiu. They would be within the metropolitan urban limit--i.e., part of the metropolis. So for resource-consents the Royal Commission says they would trot off the TLC. The rest of Waiheke and all the other islands would go to the super-council.
The islands would have the same one councillor, but she would be 1 out of 22 on the TLC instead of 1 out of 19 on ACC. We would have no representation of our own on the super-council, the Auckland Council. For that we would share one councillor with the whole of Rodney, because the Hauraki Gulf Islands and Rodney District would make up the Northern Rural Ward, which would have 1 super-councillor out of the 23. That councillor would obviously be someone from Rodney, because it has by far the dominant population. We would have only 8.78% of the whole.
Thus the representation for the islands would be different on the super-council than for our local council. For the local council we would still be with Auckland, renamed Tamaki-makau-rau, because we would be deemed part of central Auckland. But for the super-council we would be with Rodney, because we would be in the Northern Rural Ward. Very odd.
The committee structure for the super-council would include a Rural & Islands Committee. But there are only two rural wards, each with only one councillor, and committees typically contain several times that number, and the islands would share their councillor with Rodney. Therefore even if both rural councillors were on that committee the island's voice would be very weak. Or weaker than weak, given that the chairs of all the committees would be appointed by the mayor. If he didn't care a hoot about the islands we might as well dig a hole and bury ourselves.
History says our voice would probably be weaker than weak, because at the takeover by Auckland in 1989 the then Local Government Commission stipulated that there be an island committee for at least five years. Auckland did set one up, but it refused to put the island councillor on it, and dumped the whole thing when the time was up. We therefore should not be filled with optimism if the Royal Commission's recommendations are implemented.
In saying that the Hauraki Gulf Islands should remain with central Auckland the Royal Commission has allowed itself to be seduced by that specious ferries argument (i.e., that because there are lots of ferries to Auckland we should be under the council in Auckland). But ferries are not councils, or councillors or council staff. They do not provide local government. They certainly do not create quality local government. They do not 'enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.' Two ferries a day, or twenty--it does not make any difference to how the council operates. But it doesn't matter if getting to the central council office is a ferry and a walk or a ferry and an 80-minute drive. What does matter, and very much, is the quality of local government you get there.
Please, LGC, get us out of here into the normal world, get us out of the belly of this monstrous beast into the small-scale, friendly world of Thames-Coromandel! It is a much better council than ACC--and the Royal Commission envisages each Local Council in the Auckland empire as having the same staff as now, so the TLC is likely to have the same mindset. Exhaustive research has shown that Thames-Coromandel is a much better council, that it gives more responsive, more engaged local government, and that it cares about keeping to the Local Government Act 2002--especially the heart of the Act enshrined in section 10: 'The purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and in the future.'
The proposed royal empire, the state within a state that would govern a third of the country's population, is not local government. Local has been consumed by overweening vanity and the lust for power and territory.
Shifting the islands to the peninsula would shrink the proposed Auckland empire to something reasonable. A large chunk of territory on its eastern flank would be removed. It would not stretch from the Tasman Sea right out into the Pacific Ocean. The result would be far more palatable to the nation, especially if the southern boundary did not extend past the Bombay Hills, Auckland's traditional limit.
The only silver lining in this right royal cloud is that high and mighty Auckland City Council would be reduced to a mere local council.
The Royal Commission has inadvertently underlined Auckland City Council's shonky accounting, because the data for revenue it gave the Commission is different to what it had previously given in response to requests made under the Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act.
The Royal Commission's researchers did get a figure I have been wanting for some time, namely the value of the shares in Auckland International Airport that were once held by the Waiheke County Council. The airport informed me last year that Waiheke County Council had 0.115% of the shares before Auckland took over in 1989, but it could not tell me their value. The Royal Commission reports Auckland's percentage as 12.8%, worth $303.7 million. This year's dividend to Auckland has just been reported as $9.7 million (down from normal).
Therefore under Section 13(b)(iv) of the reorganisation proposal that is now before the Local Government Commission, we would get back shares now worth $2,728,555, and this year's dividend would have been $87,150. A nice little windfall every year. If the LGC moves us.
Failing a move east, courtesy of the Local Government Commission, the best we can hope for if we have to keep going west is that the mayor and the CEO of the super-council will have skill, imagination, flair and vision. And that the CEO will hire staff of like character. And that the staff and the local councillors will care about their communities and engage with them. The Royal Commission repeatedly expresses great faith that all that will happen. But Auckland's history is mainly the opposite, so no one could be optimistic that that it would, especially for the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
There is no doubt that there are things wrong with the way Auckland is run. There is a lot wrong with Auckland, full stop. But this vast upheaval is not needed to fix the worst of it. Far simpler--and far cheaper in these economically constrained times--would be to make two changes to the Local Government Act 2002, in effect a couple of tweaks to section 14(1)(e). One would force adjacent city councils under the same regional council to have a common computer and billing system, and the other would force planning issues that cross city/district council boundaries to be handled by the regional council. That would solve most of the costly problems in Auckland without rearranging the country and doing assault and battery to the LGA2002--or to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Looked at just as a report it is very good. Well-researched, well-written, well-structured, well laid out, comprehensive.
But its recommendation is bad. A fudge. A confused mess.
If the government does what it wants New Zealand would become a two-tier country. Auckland would be a country within a country, and a very powerful one at that--a country called Auckland loosely affiliated with the one called New Zealand. Auckland's local government would be run under one set of laws, the rest of New Zealand would run under a different set. What Auckland would have would be illegal everywhere else. That is bad, very bad. There should be one New Zealand, all operating under one law. Auckland might as well run up a flag with that big, blue A on it and secede.
It is just the old battle between Auckland and Wellington; this time Auckland is determined to come out on top.
We would have a kind of duchy. The duke, the mayor of Auckland, would preside the new Auckland Council, and would have a enormous power (for instance, he would appoint the deputy mayor and the chairs of all the council committees). So would his council. They would preside over an empire with a third of New Zealand's population, stretching from Mercer to north of Wellsford. They would have their own special minister in the Cabinet. The power of the mayor would rival, if not exceed, that of the prime minister; and the power of the council would rival that of the government.
Auckland is too full of itself anyway. Enshrining its selfishness, arrogance and hubris in law and making it a law unto itself, would be way over the top.
In setting up a structure that needs a special law to make it legal the Royal Commission has exceeded its brief. Under 'Relevant Matters' it was told that it could investigate and receive representations on, amongst other things, 'what changes to current legislation (consistent with the purposes and principles of local government as described in the Local Government Act 2002) are considered desirable to achieve or support the achievement of the inquiry's objectives.' But it has gone beyond 'current legislation'--which is mainly the Local Government Act 2002--and invented a new Act, the Auckland Act. An Act so powerful that if that clashed with any other Act it would override it. That is monstrous.
Before the Royal Commission issued this ridiculous, hubristic thing, it was conjectured that its preferred model would be the 'super-city'. But this is a super-region. It cannot be called a city, because it contains vast swathes of rural land, although the report constantly talks of a world-class city. But that is just marketing, because the city proper ceases to exist in legal and linguistic terms. Instead there are four urban wards, which contain the 'metropolitan urban limit'--the MUL, as the Royal Commission calls it. There is no real designation of city, no definition. The super-council, the Auckland Council, presides over the whole thing, a mix of urban and rural.
The excellent legal definition of 'city in the Local Government Act 2002 has been ignored. So has the normal definition in the language. The result is a blurry fudge. Where is the city proper? What will people be able to point to and say 'That is Auckland city'? What will the world be able to point to? The Royal Commission has fudged both law and language.
It has obviously avoided 'regional' and 'city' in the legal titles it recommends so that it could evade the legal definitions in the Local Government Act 2002. The way it uses 'unitary council' is also outside the Act, in the Act that is a territorial authority that has had conferred upon it the powers of a regional council. But the Royal Commission has turned that on its head: its 'unitary council' is a regional council that operates locally through illegal 'local councils'.
And under the Act there are only three ways that a unitary council can be proposed--by a resolution of one of the affected councils, the Minister of Local Government, or a petition signed by at least 10% of the affected registered electors. There is no mention of a Royal Commission. If this so-called unitary council is to be legal it must be proposed and set up one of those ways.
The Royal Commission has done rather more than turn 'unitary council' on its head. It has fudged its meaning, because although it calls its proposed Auckland Council a unitary council it isn't one. A unitary council is the single-level alternative to the normal two-level structure in which there are a number of city and/or district councils and a regional council. In a unitary council a single regional-territorial council combines the two functions. But what the Royal Commission has invented for Auckland is neither fish nor fowl. Its 'unitary council' is somewhere between a unitary and a two-level structure. The Auckland Council is a regional council with six 'local councils'--a new sort of council that is illegal under the LGA2002 (as the Royal Commission admits on page 664). That is why they need that special Auckland Act.
The seven existing territorial councils would be trimmed to six local councils. They would be pretty much the same as they are now, except for the two in the south that would be merged into one, and they would have greatly reduced powers--only what were delegated by the super-council. The staff in the local councils would be employed by the CEO of the super-council, and managed day-to-day by their local council managers, but they would be answerable to the CEO. One of the tasks of those local councils would be 'place-shaping.'
Royal Commission? No, Royal Comedy.
The most macabre part of the joke is that the Hauraki Gulf Islands would for day-to-day matters be under the same council as now, except it would no longer be called Auckland City Council. It would be renamed the Tamaki-makau-rau Local Council. So ACC would become TLC! The same people under whose tender loving care we have been for twenty years...
The pressure of submissions from the Hauraki Gulf Island, coupled with the Royal Commission's desire to nullify the Thames-Coromandel application to the Local Government Commission, caused it to recommend more for them than for any other community. It says they should keep their community boards. But its attempt to gazump the Thames-Coromandel application has come nowhere near the level of local government that that would give the islands. And it was an attempt, because when the Commission came to Waiheke I spoke with the chairman, Hon. Peter Salmon, in the lunchbreak, and he they might come up with something that would even satisfy what was behind the LGC application. So the application has had at least that positive effect. But the trifling delegations that the Commission has proposed are nothing compared with the wide-ranging local decision-making power that community boards have with Thames-Coromandel.
Thames-Coromandel's community boards have a wide range of duties and powers, including developing local budgets and local rates, determining library hours, setting the priorities on roadworks, even sitting on some council committees. The Royal Commission has only chucked the islands a few crumbs. With Thames-Coromandel we would have a whole loaf.
The crumbs are that our community boards would have one extra member each, and they would be allowed to run their local halls and reserves (big deal!), plus whatever other delegations the super-council might allow them. For day-to-day things they would come under the TLC, except for ones not delegated it by the super-council.
Under the recommendation from the Royal Comedians all the islands would be deemed rural, except for Waiheke's main villages--i.e., all but Orapiu. They would be within the metropolitan urban limit--i.e., part of the metropolis. So for resource-consents the Royal Commission says they would trot off the TLC. The rest of Waiheke and all the other islands would go to the super-council.
The islands would have the same one councillor, but she would be 1 out of 22 on the TLC instead of 1 out of 19 on ACC. We would have no representation of our own on the super-council, the Auckland Council. For that we would share one councillor with the whole of Rodney, because the Hauraki Gulf Islands and Rodney District would make up the Northern Rural Ward, which would have 1 super-councillor out of the 23. That councillor would obviously be someone from Rodney, because it has by far the dominant population. We would have only 8.78% of the whole.
Thus the representation for the islands would be different on the super-council than for our local council. For the local council we would still be with Auckland, renamed Tamaki-makau-rau, because we would be deemed part of central Auckland. But for the super-council we would be with Rodney, because we would be in the Northern Rural Ward. Very odd.
The committee structure for the super-council would include a Rural & Islands Committee. But there are only two rural wards, each with only one councillor, and committees typically contain several times that number, and the islands would share their councillor with Rodney. Therefore even if both rural councillors were on that committee the island's voice would be very weak. Or weaker than weak, given that the chairs of all the committees would be appointed by the mayor. If he didn't care a hoot about the islands we might as well dig a hole and bury ourselves.
History says our voice would probably be weaker than weak, because at the takeover by Auckland in 1989 the then Local Government Commission stipulated that there be an island committee for at least five years. Auckland did set one up, but it refused to put the island councillor on it, and dumped the whole thing when the time was up. We therefore should not be filled with optimism if the Royal Commission's recommendations are implemented.
In saying that the Hauraki Gulf Islands should remain with central Auckland the Royal Commission has allowed itself to be seduced by that specious ferries argument (i.e., that because there are lots of ferries to Auckland we should be under the council in Auckland). But ferries are not councils, or councillors or council staff. They do not provide local government. They certainly do not create quality local government. They do not 'enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.' Two ferries a day, or twenty--it does not make any difference to how the council operates. But it doesn't matter if getting to the central council office is a ferry and a walk or a ferry and an 80-minute drive. What does matter, and very much, is the quality of local government you get there.
Please, LGC, get us out of here into the normal world, get us out of the belly of this monstrous beast into the small-scale, friendly world of Thames-Coromandel! It is a much better council than ACC--and the Royal Commission envisages each Local Council in the Auckland empire as having the same staff as now, so the TLC is likely to have the same mindset. Exhaustive research has shown that Thames-Coromandel is a much better council, that it gives more responsive, more engaged local government, and that it cares about keeping to the Local Government Act 2002--especially the heart of the Act enshrined in section 10: 'The purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and in the future.'
The proposed royal empire, the state within a state that would govern a third of the country's population, is not local government. Local has been consumed by overweening vanity and the lust for power and territory.
Shifting the islands to the peninsula would shrink the proposed Auckland empire to something reasonable. A large chunk of territory on its eastern flank would be removed. It would not stretch from the Tasman Sea right out into the Pacific Ocean. The result would be far more palatable to the nation, especially if the southern boundary did not extend past the Bombay Hills, Auckland's traditional limit.
The only silver lining in this right royal cloud is that high and mighty Auckland City Council would be reduced to a mere local council.
The Royal Commission has inadvertently underlined Auckland City Council's shonky accounting, because the data for revenue it gave the Commission is different to what it had previously given in response to requests made under the Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act.
The Royal Commission's researchers did get a figure I have been wanting for some time, namely the value of the shares in Auckland International Airport that were once held by the Waiheke County Council. The airport informed me last year that Waiheke County Council had 0.115% of the shares before Auckland took over in 1989, but it could not tell me their value. The Royal Commission reports Auckland's percentage as 12.8%, worth $303.7 million. This year's dividend to Auckland has just been reported as $9.7 million (down from normal).
Therefore under Section 13(b)(iv) of the reorganisation proposal that is now before the Local Government Commission, we would get back shares now worth $2,728,555, and this year's dividend would have been $87,150. A nice little windfall every year. If the LGC moves us.
Failing a move east, courtesy of the Local Government Commission, the best we can hope for if we have to keep going west is that the mayor and the CEO of the super-council will have skill, imagination, flair and vision. And that the CEO will hire staff of like character. And that the staff and the local councillors will care about their communities and engage with them. The Royal Commission repeatedly expresses great faith that all that will happen. But Auckland's history is mainly the opposite, so no one could be optimistic that that it would, especially for the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
There is no doubt that there are things wrong with the way Auckland is run. There is a lot wrong with Auckland, full stop. But this vast upheaval is not needed to fix the worst of it. Far simpler--and far cheaper in these economically constrained times--would be to make two changes to the Local Government Act 2002, in effect a couple of tweaks to section 14(1)(e). One would force adjacent city councils under the same regional council to have a common computer and billing system, and the other would force planning issues that cross city/district council boundaries to be handled by the regional council. That would solve most of the costly problems in Auckland without rearranging the country and doing assault and battery to the LGA2002--or to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
WAIHEKE LIBRARY HOURS WITH THAMES-COROMANDEL
Some have asked me about what the library's opening hours would be if the Local Government Commission transfers the Hauraki Gulf Islands to Thames-Coromandel District Council. They point out that the opening hours in Thames are different to what we have here.
The answer, from the Thames-Coromandel mayor, Philippa Barriball, is that with that council the community decides, through the community board, what it wants and is willing to pay for.
So if for example we went to extremes and decided that we wanted the library open 24 hours a day, and were willing to pay for that, the community board would set a targeted local rate accordingly (with Thames-Coromandel, the council does the district rates and the community boards do the local, ward rates).
(At present the library costs each ratepayer about $43 a year, reckoning on Auckland City Council figures).
The answer, from the Thames-Coromandel mayor, Philippa Barriball, is that with that council the community decides, through the community board, what it wants and is willing to pay for.
So if for example we went to extremes and decided that we wanted the library open 24 hours a day, and were willing to pay for that, the community board would set a targeted local rate accordingly (with Thames-Coromandel, the council does the district rates and the community boards do the local, ward rates).
(At present the library costs each ratepayer about $43 a year, reckoning on Auckland City Council figures).
Thursday, 5 March 2009
GETTING THE BEST IS NEVER CRAZY
There are many islanders who say that the application to the Local Government Commission to change the council is crazy, or looney, or some such.
Really?
Is it crazy or looney to try to try to get the best available council? It is crazy or looney to take advantage of the procedure put into the law for every New Zealander so that we can get good local government to the highest standard?
Of course not.
It can certainly be called 'crazy', or not very bright, to put up with the worst year after year, decade after decade, and not do a thing about it--never to try to better ourselves.
We can ask the LGC the question: 'Which council is best for us?' We should ask it. We have asked it.
The LGC is now going through a rigorous process, point by point, whose statutory aim is good local government for us--that the council we are put with or kept with is the best. No one needs to fear getting the best. No one should.
Really?
Is it crazy or looney to try to try to get the best available council? It is crazy or looney to take advantage of the procedure put into the law for every New Zealander so that we can get good local government to the highest standard?
Of course not.
It can certainly be called 'crazy', or not very bright, to put up with the worst year after year, decade after decade, and not do a thing about it--never to try to better ourselves.
We can ask the LGC the question: 'Which council is best for us?' We should ask it. We have asked it.
The LGC is now going through a rigorous process, point by point, whose statutory aim is good local government for us--that the council we are put with or kept with is the best. No one needs to fear getting the best. No one should.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
WAIHEKE COMMUNITY BOARD IS BREAKING THE LAW
Everyone elected to a local government office in New Zealand has to go through a formal swearing-in at which he or she must make the statutory promise set down in the Local Government Act 2002. For every member of the Waiheke Community Board that is: 'I, [name], declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgement, execute and perform, in the best interests of Waiheke, the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or imposed upon, me as a member of the Waiheke Community Board by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.'
That is, or is meant to be, a legally binding promise to the community. Therefore board members who in any issue fail to be faithful and impartial, who fail to act according the best of their individual skill and judgement, who fail to act in the best interests of the Waiheke Community are not just doing badly, they are breaking the law. They are in breach of the Local Government Act 2002 (and could be prosecuted).
Over the last twenty years the Waiheke Community Board has considered many issues, small, medium and large. In very many of them it has done brilliantly. The present Board is no exception. When it is on song and acting as should it does superbly well.
But over the last year or so it has been faced with the biggest issue that has ever come before it, the biggest issue that ever could come before it: Which is the best council for this community? Which of the two councils available, Auckland City Council or Thames-Coromandel District Council provides the best in local government, particularly for village-rural-island communities? That is the question posed by the application to the Local Government Commission (LGC) in which it has been asked to make a boundary-change, which if successful would transfer us from Auckland City Council to Thames-Coromandel District Council. That is a very serious question. The answer will affect the lives of islanders for a long time.
What was the Community Board's response? Did it do an exhaustive comparative analysis of the two councils so that it would know with certainty which is the best, and would be able to say so confidently to the community? No. It did the abject opposite. By majority vote it has twice voted to disassociate itself from anything to do with the application to the LGC, and now by majority it has voted to make a submission opposing it. In all that it has broken the law, because it has not been faithful and served the community according to statute; it has been partial not impartial because it refused to consider any option except Auckland; it has not exercised any skill and judgement at all, let alone its best, because it has done no investigation--nothing--certainly not the exhaustive research needed to establish which council is best and is best for our community. Therefore it cannot have acted in the community's best interests, because it has no idea which option is best. And it has not carried out the detailed analysis required by the Local Government Act 2002, so it cannot say anything about this issue that can have any validity under the laws of New Zealand--laws put there to ensure that we get the best in local government.
It has in effect said to the community, 'We don't care if you have the best council or not, because we are not going to look for the best on your behalf. As far as we are concerned you will be staying with Auckland, no matter whether it is good, bad or mediocre.'
Therefore in this great issue five of its six members have turned their statutory promise into a lie. They have broken faith with the Waiheke community. They have acted in contempt of it.
..
Now, even if they had the will to, and they don't, they cannot do the vast amount of research needed to act in this matter as the Local Government Act 2002 demands, because there is not enough time before the deadline set under the Act. They have to do analyses under at least four areas of it, and huge amounts of information must be gathered from many sources in both councils, both documentary and live witnesses. That takes a long time. They have only a fraction of what is necessary. So anything they do now can be no more than cursory, and therefore will fall well below the best of their skill and judgement. In this most important issue they have not worked in the best interests of the community according to the Act; now they cannot.
That is, or is meant to be, a legally binding promise to the community. Therefore board members who in any issue fail to be faithful and impartial, who fail to act according the best of their individual skill and judgement, who fail to act in the best interests of the Waiheke Community are not just doing badly, they are breaking the law. They are in breach of the Local Government Act 2002 (and could be prosecuted).
Over the last twenty years the Waiheke Community Board has considered many issues, small, medium and large. In very many of them it has done brilliantly. The present Board is no exception. When it is on song and acting as should it does superbly well.
But over the last year or so it has been faced with the biggest issue that has ever come before it, the biggest issue that ever could come before it: Which is the best council for this community? Which of the two councils available, Auckland City Council or Thames-Coromandel District Council provides the best in local government, particularly for village-rural-island communities? That is the question posed by the application to the Local Government Commission (LGC) in which it has been asked to make a boundary-change, which if successful would transfer us from Auckland City Council to Thames-Coromandel District Council. That is a very serious question. The answer will affect the lives of islanders for a long time.
What was the Community Board's response? Did it do an exhaustive comparative analysis of the two councils so that it would know with certainty which is the best, and would be able to say so confidently to the community? No. It did the abject opposite. By majority vote it has twice voted to disassociate itself from anything to do with the application to the LGC, and now by majority it has voted to make a submission opposing it. In all that it has broken the law, because it has not been faithful and served the community according to statute; it has been partial not impartial because it refused to consider any option except Auckland; it has not exercised any skill and judgement at all, let alone its best, because it has done no investigation--nothing--certainly not the exhaustive research needed to establish which council is best and is best for our community. Therefore it cannot have acted in the community's best interests, because it has no idea which option is best. And it has not carried out the detailed analysis required by the Local Government Act 2002, so it cannot say anything about this issue that can have any validity under the laws of New Zealand--laws put there to ensure that we get the best in local government.
It has in effect said to the community, 'We don't care if you have the best council or not, because we are not going to look for the best on your behalf. As far as we are concerned you will be staying with Auckland, no matter whether it is good, bad or mediocre.'
Therefore in this great issue five of its six members have turned their statutory promise into a lie. They have broken faith with the Waiheke community. They have acted in contempt of it.
..
Now, even if they had the will to, and they don't, they cannot do the vast amount of research needed to act in this matter as the Local Government Act 2002 demands, because there is not enough time before the deadline set under the Act. They have to do analyses under at least four areas of it, and huge amounts of information must be gathered from many sources in both councils, both documentary and live witnesses. That takes a long time. They have only a fraction of what is necessary. So anything they do now can be no more than cursory, and therefore will fall well below the best of their skill and judgement. In this most important issue they have not worked in the best interests of the community according to the Act; now they cannot.
Friday, 27 February 2009
WHY CARRIG'S LETTER IS DEFAMATORY
Its overall tenor is defamatory. Its obvious aim was to bury me in public odium and contempt. Its clearly malicious intent and torrent of provable falsehoods go well beyond fair comment.
I am accused of turning Waiheke into a joke. Proof? And making a fool of the Community Board. Proof?
I am accused of breaking my promise for 'good sound governance.' False. That is what this process is all about, and it can be proved beyond all shadow of a dream of a nuance of doubt--with a pile of documentary evidence--that Thames-Coromandel is much better at it than Auckland. To accuse someone in public office of lying to get that office is serious.
I am accused of having a hidden agenda towards Auckland City, another accusation of gaining public office by lying, this time with concealment. The accusation is also false. My campaign leaflet made perfectly clear what I thought of Auckland and touched on its shortcomings, such as the planning botch at Matiatia. The leaflet also had the address of my blog, which made that even clearer. The blog also mentioned, as an idea, Thames-Coromandel, but I can prove with three witnesses and documentary evidence that I did not know till the 11th of January, well after the election, just what process was available to us for a change in council, so I could not possibly have planned it before the election; and my first contact with Thames was on November the 5th, for which I have witnesses and my phone bill as evidence. I also put the matter before the community board at the earliest opportunity after I had been able to get in touch with everyone necessary.
Then the letter descends into a wild attempt to blacken me by associating me with a farrago of nonsense, as if I would be the cause of all the ruin and catastrophe it prophesies.
I am accused of lunacy. If that is true he should try to have me committed under section 8 of the Mental Health Act. Pursuing a legal, democratic process open to all New Zealanders in an attempt to have us moved to a better council cannot fairly or truly be described as lunacy.
The 'community vote' is another falsehood with which he tries to portray me as a profligate bogeyman. There is no referendum. And local government with Thames would be millions of dollars cheaper than with Auckland. That again is provable with documentary evidence. To falsely accuse a public official of wilfully setting out to waste public money is defamatory.
I told the truth; I am doing what I am sworn to do under the Local Government Act 2002; I have hidden nothing. His letter maliciously says the opposite.
I am accused of turning Waiheke into a joke. Proof? And making a fool of the Community Board. Proof?
I am accused of breaking my promise for 'good sound governance.' False. That is what this process is all about, and it can be proved beyond all shadow of a dream of a nuance of doubt--with a pile of documentary evidence--that Thames-Coromandel is much better at it than Auckland. To accuse someone in public office of lying to get that office is serious.
I am accused of having a hidden agenda towards Auckland City, another accusation of gaining public office by lying, this time with concealment. The accusation is also false. My campaign leaflet made perfectly clear what I thought of Auckland and touched on its shortcomings, such as the planning botch at Matiatia. The leaflet also had the address of my blog, which made that even clearer. The blog also mentioned, as an idea, Thames-Coromandel, but I can prove with three witnesses and documentary evidence that I did not know till the 11th of January, well after the election, just what process was available to us for a change in council, so I could not possibly have planned it before the election; and my first contact with Thames was on November the 5th, for which I have witnesses and my phone bill as evidence. I also put the matter before the community board at the earliest opportunity after I had been able to get in touch with everyone necessary.
Then the letter descends into a wild attempt to blacken me by associating me with a farrago of nonsense, as if I would be the cause of all the ruin and catastrophe it prophesies.
I am accused of lunacy. If that is true he should try to have me committed under section 8 of the Mental Health Act. Pursuing a legal, democratic process open to all New Zealanders in an attempt to have us moved to a better council cannot fairly or truly be described as lunacy.
The 'community vote' is another falsehood with which he tries to portray me as a profligate bogeyman. There is no referendum. And local government with Thames would be millions of dollars cheaper than with Auckland. That again is provable with documentary evidence. To falsely accuse a public official of wilfully setting out to waste public money is defamatory.
I told the truth; I am doing what I am sworn to do under the Local Government Act 2002; I have hidden nothing. His letter maliciously says the opposite.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
REQUEST TO MARKETPLACE OVER CARRIG'S LETTER
PROMINENT APOLOGY, PLEASE
Printing a letter, open or not, addressed to me but not giving me right of reply in the same issue is very unfair as well as a breach of the principles of the New Zealand Press Council. Using as an excuse that it was advertising not editorial when it was so obviously editorial masquerading at advertising only compounds the error of judgement. Even worse, there was no truth in the letter. The writer was communicating with his own unsupportable guesses, wild accusations and fictitious headlines, not with me. I am very disappointed that Marketplace fell from its usual high standard and printed the thing. The very least you should have done was to hold it over for a week so as to give me the right of reply that good journalism demands.
Printing a letter, open or not, addressed to me but not giving me right of reply in the same issue is very unfair as well as a breach of the principles of the New Zealand Press Council. Using as an excuse that it was advertising not editorial when it was so obviously editorial masquerading at advertising only compounds the error of judgement. Even worse, there was no truth in the letter. The writer was communicating with his own unsupportable guesses, wild accusations and fictitious headlines, not with me. I am very disappointed that Marketplace fell from its usual high standard and printed the thing. The very least you should have done was to hold it over for a week so as to give me the right of reply that good journalism demands.
MY REPLY TO BILL CARRIG'S LETTER
I should be grateful to you, Bill Carrig. Because if the best the opposition can hurl at our attempt to get the best local government for the islands is the rubbish you published at great expense in your open-letter advertisement in Waiheke Marketplace (February the 25th 2009), the attempt must be on the right track. [Letter reproduced below this reply]
There is not a word of truth in your diatribe, and you show in every line his abysmal ignorance of any facts and of local government law. You have interviewed your mirror, your have communed with your word--processor, you have invented an army of straw men then viciously knocked them over, you have whirled down a malignant spiral of your own invention and told the world that it has my name on it.
First you accuse me of having 'a personal hidden agenda towards the Auckland City Council.' False. The pre-election leaflet that I handed out by the thousands, I assume also to you, clearly said, 'I love this island and don't want to see it trashed. I want to remain its good old pleasant self. The Board's first duty is to defend it against speculators who see it as a money-machine instead of a place to live, developers who carelessly wreck its pleasantness, and the ruinous skulduggery of Auckland City.' There was other material in similar vein. Then at the foot of the leaflet, in large letters, I said: 'Local decisions should be made locally. Waiheke is NOT a suburb of Auckland.' Also on the leaflet was the address of this blog, which still has at the start the first postings made before the election, albeit with some updates made in the light of later knowledge (such as in the next paragraph). Nothing was hidden. Everything was in plain view. If you failed to see it that was because you were not looking.
I also have three reputable witnesses to the fact that I did not know till the 11th of January 2009, months after the election, just what change-of-council process existed in the Local Government Act 2002 for the Hauraki Gulf Islands relative to Thames-Coromandel, or any council. It was therefore impossible for me to have planned it before the election in September and October the previous year. The most Thames-Coromandel could have been was a theoretical thought, which is what it was--not of how it could be done, if that was a better council than Auckland. I had no contact with Thames-Coromandel before the 5th of November 2008, and I can prove that from notes, the witnesses I spoke to, and my telephone bills.
You also say that I promised to be a 'team player' when I talked to you on the boat. I most certainly did not. Nor should I, and it would be quite improper to, because no member of any community board is required to be. Everyone elected to local government must in law swear to act to the best of his or her individual skill and judgement. It is a community board operating under the law for the community, not a rugby team trying to beat the opposition.
Yes, I did promise sound governance. That is why, having identified with exhaustive research that Thames-Coromandel District Council is a much better at it than Auckland City Council, I initiated the democratic legal process to change the boundary (a better council, note, not perfect, because perfection does not exist on earth). I am keeping my promise.
You have done no research, like the rest of the Waiheke Community Board, so you are incapable of making a judgement worthy of the name. Neither are they. Except that they, in failing to do that, have broken the law. You have only broken sense, logic and good judgement.
The costs you then fling at the community are as much fiction and nonsense as the rest of your foolish letter. First there is no community vote (the assumption that there was one is what put people off trying for a change of council before this). But even if there were, the cost for all the islands would not be $1 million, not $500,000, not even $100,000. It would be $27,000. For Waiheke alone it would be $25,000 (costings supplied by Independent Election Services).
You say 'in anybody's language it is not going to be a cost-effective exercise in today's economic climate.' Really! That may be so in your language, which is clearly divorced from reality. The truth is that the difference between the huge sum that Auckand allocates to the islands for our 'share' of running the 2300-person empire on the isthmus and what we would contribute to Thames-Coromandel if we were with them is $3.92 million. So we would be $3.92 million better off. In today's economic climate, slashing $3.92 million off our costs would probably be considered a better situation. Except, obviously, by you and others of similar sort who prefer hubristic guesses to the truth. (Figures supplied by Auckland and Thames-Coromandel.)
Next come your so-called 'commercial facts and future media headlines', a list of fictions so far off the wall that even Chicken Licken would be ashamed of such knavish scaremongering. She at least could claim to have been hit on the head by a falling nut.
To call 'lunacy' using a democratic legal process set up by Parliament to ensure that we can get the best available standard of local government shows that you care nothing for truth and think that loud defamation makes a good substitute.
Having said all that, even if I had planned the petition/application before the election and concealed it, neither you nor anyone else could have any valid complaint, because all New Zealanders are deemed to know all the law, including you, and the application is a legal process open to everyone. To act within the law in the best interests of the community is a laudable thing, and to condemn it is to condemn an excellent piece of democratic law.
Everyone in public office is expected to do his best, using the tools available in law, and because everyone is deemed to know the law, you are deemed to know that a petition/application of this kind might be started by anyone, including someone elected, even someone you voted for. You should be applauding.
In future, Bill Carrig, do the research, establish the real facts, don't interview your mirror, take an intensive course in logical thought. And spend your spare thousands on people in need. Don't waste it on defamatory advertorial excrement and vomit.
There is not a word of truth in your diatribe, and you show in every line his abysmal ignorance of any facts and of local government law. You have interviewed your mirror, your have communed with your word--processor, you have invented an army of straw men then viciously knocked them over, you have whirled down a malignant spiral of your own invention and told the world that it has my name on it.
First you accuse me of having 'a personal hidden agenda towards the Auckland City Council.' False. The pre-election leaflet that I handed out by the thousands, I assume also to you, clearly said, 'I love this island and don't want to see it trashed. I want to remain its good old pleasant self. The Board's first duty is to defend it against speculators who see it as a money-machine instead of a place to live, developers who carelessly wreck its pleasantness, and the ruinous skulduggery of Auckland City.' There was other material in similar vein. Then at the foot of the leaflet, in large letters, I said: 'Local decisions should be made locally. Waiheke is NOT a suburb of Auckland.' Also on the leaflet was the address of this blog, which still has at the start the first postings made before the election, albeit with some updates made in the light of later knowledge (such as in the next paragraph). Nothing was hidden. Everything was in plain view. If you failed to see it that was because you were not looking.
I also have three reputable witnesses to the fact that I did not know till the 11th of January 2009, months after the election, just what change-of-council process existed in the Local Government Act 2002 for the Hauraki Gulf Islands relative to Thames-Coromandel, or any council. It was therefore impossible for me to have planned it before the election in September and October the previous year. The most Thames-Coromandel could have been was a theoretical thought, which is what it was--not of how it could be done, if that was a better council than Auckland. I had no contact with Thames-Coromandel before the 5th of November 2008, and I can prove that from notes, the witnesses I spoke to, and my telephone bills.
You also say that I promised to be a 'team player' when I talked to you on the boat. I most certainly did not. Nor should I, and it would be quite improper to, because no member of any community board is required to be. Everyone elected to local government must in law swear to act to the best of his or her individual skill and judgement. It is a community board operating under the law for the community, not a rugby team trying to beat the opposition.
Yes, I did promise sound governance. That is why, having identified with exhaustive research that Thames-Coromandel District Council is a much better at it than Auckland City Council, I initiated the democratic legal process to change the boundary (a better council, note, not perfect, because perfection does not exist on earth). I am keeping my promise.
You have done no research, like the rest of the Waiheke Community Board, so you are incapable of making a judgement worthy of the name. Neither are they. Except that they, in failing to do that, have broken the law. You have only broken sense, logic and good judgement.
The costs you then fling at the community are as much fiction and nonsense as the rest of your foolish letter. First there is no community vote (the assumption that there was one is what put people off trying for a change of council before this). But even if there were, the cost for all the islands would not be $1 million, not $500,000, not even $100,000. It would be $27,000. For Waiheke alone it would be $25,000 (costings supplied by Independent Election Services).
You say 'in anybody's language it is not going to be a cost-effective exercise in today's economic climate.' Really! That may be so in your language, which is clearly divorced from reality. The truth is that the difference between the huge sum that Auckand allocates to the islands for our 'share' of running the 2300-person empire on the isthmus and what we would contribute to Thames-Coromandel if we were with them is $3.92 million. So we would be $3.92 million better off. In today's economic climate, slashing $3.92 million off our costs would probably be considered a better situation. Except, obviously, by you and others of similar sort who prefer hubristic guesses to the truth. (Figures supplied by Auckland and Thames-Coromandel.)
Next come your so-called 'commercial facts and future media headlines', a list of fictions so far off the wall that even Chicken Licken would be ashamed of such knavish scaremongering. She at least could claim to have been hit on the head by a falling nut.
To call 'lunacy' using a democratic legal process set up by Parliament to ensure that we can get the best available standard of local government shows that you care nothing for truth and think that loud defamation makes a good substitute.
Having said all that, even if I had planned the petition/application before the election and concealed it, neither you nor anyone else could have any valid complaint, because all New Zealanders are deemed to know all the law, including you, and the application is a legal process open to everyone. To act within the law in the best interests of the community is a laudable thing, and to condemn it is to condemn an excellent piece of democratic law.
Everyone in public office is expected to do his best, using the tools available in law, and because everyone is deemed to know the law, you are deemed to know that a petition/application of this kind might be started by anyone, including someone elected, even someone you voted for. You should be applauding.
In future, Bill Carrig, do the research, establish the real facts, don't interview your mirror, take an intensive course in logical thought. And spend your spare thousands on people in need. Don't waste it on defamatory advertorial excrement and vomit.
BILL CARRIG'S DEFAMATORY LETTER
25 February 2009 {{published in Waiheke Marketplace}}
Open Letter to Nobilangelo Ceramalus
Dear Nobilangelo,
Normally, I neither have the time or the inclination to write an open letter, but I feel compelled to in this instance.
Finding someone who voted for you at the 2007 elections is like trying to get someone to admit they voted for MMP!
Well, I'll will [stet] put my hand up and say I did vote for you. (I can hear the roar of laughter at my momentary act of stupidity from my friends, most of whom are fellow commuters. To them I say, 'Live by the sword then die by the sword.')
I have however come to realise, this single tick, in my moment of madness, is the most regretted decision, in my entire voting life. Owning up, however, to giving you my tick, gives me the right to tell you what a complete fool you a making of yourself, the Community Board and, by association, the rest of the residents on our beautiful island. You have turned us into a joke--back to the days when we were known as 'Cadbury Island' and not as we should be, the 'Jewel in the Gulf'.
Let's recap why I voted for you-you promised good sound governance. Isn't that what you told me on the ferry? I seem to recall `team player' being mentioned as well. Not some hair brained idea of secession from Auckland City. Did you tell me before I voted for you that you had a personal hidden agenda towards the Auckland City Council? Why didn't you? Would this have altered my decision? You bet, along with, I suspect, the other 1096 voters--assuming you voted for yourself.
Who knows what the ultimate cost of this will be--estimates range from as low as $100,000 to as high as over $500,000 to a full community vote of over $1million. Now go and mathematically calculate this on a per household basis. In anybody's language it is not going to be a cost effective exercise in today's economic climate.
Putting aside for one moment your personal agenda towards Auckland City, let's think about some of the commercial facts and future media headlines.
'Tourism Auckland withdraws funding from Waiheke'
'Island seniors may possibly lose Super Gold Card travel privileges if Waiheke goes with Thames Coromandel/Waikato Regional Council'
'Health services review their involvement in Waiheke'
'Thames-Coromandel Council declines sponsorship of headland-Sculpture on the Gulf'
'Landfill to be established on Waiheke as too costly to transport to the Waikato'
My message is simple, if you have not already gathered. Stop this lunacy especially in these tough and challenging economic times--or haven't you noticed? An overwhelming majority in our community do not want secession from Auckland City--and you know what, you are going to be shown we don't.
Yours faithfully,
Bill Carrig.
Authorised and paid for by Bill Carrig, Te Whare Wiremu, 21 Coromandel Road, Sandy Bay, Waiheke Island.
Open Letter to Nobilangelo Ceramalus
Dear Nobilangelo,
Normally, I neither have the time or the inclination to write an open letter, but I feel compelled to in this instance.
Finding someone who voted for you at the 2007 elections is like trying to get someone to admit they voted for MMP!
Well, I'll will [stet] put my hand up and say I did vote for you. (I can hear the roar of laughter at my momentary act of stupidity from my friends, most of whom are fellow commuters. To them I say, 'Live by the sword then die by the sword.')
I have however come to realise, this single tick, in my moment of madness, is the most regretted decision, in my entire voting life. Owning up, however, to giving you my tick, gives me the right to tell you what a complete fool you a making of yourself, the Community Board and, by association, the rest of the residents on our beautiful island. You have turned us into a joke--back to the days when we were known as 'Cadbury Island' and not as we should be, the 'Jewel in the Gulf'.
Let's recap why I voted for you-you promised good sound governance. Isn't that what you told me on the ferry? I seem to recall `team player' being mentioned as well. Not some hair brained idea of secession from Auckland City. Did you tell me before I voted for you that you had a personal hidden agenda towards the Auckland City Council? Why didn't you? Would this have altered my decision? You bet, along with, I suspect, the other 1096 voters--assuming you voted for yourself.
Who knows what the ultimate cost of this will be--estimates range from as low as $100,000 to as high as over $500,000 to a full community vote of over $1million. Now go and mathematically calculate this on a per household basis. In anybody's language it is not going to be a cost effective exercise in today's economic climate.
Putting aside for one moment your personal agenda towards Auckland City, let's think about some of the commercial facts and future media headlines.
'Tourism Auckland withdraws funding from Waiheke'
'Island seniors may possibly lose Super Gold Card travel privileges if Waiheke goes with Thames Coromandel/Waikato Regional Council'
'Health services review their involvement in Waiheke'
'Thames-Coromandel Council declines sponsorship of headland-Sculpture on the Gulf'
'Landfill to be established on Waiheke as too costly to transport to the Waikato'
My message is simple, if you have not already gathered. Stop this lunacy especially in these tough and challenging economic times--or haven't you noticed? An overwhelming majority in our community do not want secession from Auckland City--and you know what, you are going to be shown we don't.
Yours faithfully,
Bill Carrig.
Authorised and paid for by Bill Carrig, Te Whare Wiremu, 21 Coromandel Road, Sandy Bay, Waiheke Island.
Friday, 20 February 2009
ARC'S BENT BUDGET FOR BECKHAM
The Auckland Regional Council's gamble with ratepayers' money on soccer star David Beckham's New Zealand fizzer, which lost it $1.79 million, is being exposed as a nasty little sty of corruption. Is Auckland Regional Council as shonky as Auckland City Council?
May the Almighty free the Hauraki Gulf Islands from both of them and transfer us ASAP to Thames-Coromandel District Council and Environment Waikato! Surely the Local Government Commission cannot decide otherwise. Thames-Coromandel and EW are councils that stick to the basics, stick to the law and do a good job. They do not get above themselves and behave as if they are Lord High Everything.
Here is New Zealand Herald's take on the story. And Stuff NZ's.
There was also ARC's big $8-million wastage a few years back on its contract with EDS for a billing system. It had been sending its rates bills inexpensively by adding a line or two to the rates bills of all the district councils. Then it decided to get its own computer empire, so it signed a three-year contract for $11 million with EDS. A comprehensive analysis showed that if it had gone elsewhere and not used an obsolete empire like EDS it could have got the same thing for $3 million. It's only your money, folks. ARC's chairman Mike Lee kept very quiet about that one. (Now the Auditor-General's office is going to take a look at it.)
With that sort of thing going on, the so-called Super City is more likely to be Shonky City. The elected part of ARC has obviously not been keeping a good enough watch on the employed part. The latter is given far too much leeway.
But for John Banks to come over all smug and holier-than-thou shows how out of touch he is with David Rankin's inept empire. Handing him authority to spend up to $4 million over his own signature, as ACC has just done, is putting temptation in the way of incompetence and inviting yet more nasty shemozzles to the city's doorstep.
May the Almighty free the Hauraki Gulf Islands from both of them and transfer us ASAP to Thames-Coromandel District Council and Environment Waikato! Surely the Local Government Commission cannot decide otherwise. Thames-Coromandel and EW are councils that stick to the basics, stick to the law and do a good job. They do not get above themselves and behave as if they are Lord High Everything.
Here is New Zealand Herald's take on the story. And Stuff NZ's.
There was also ARC's big $8-million wastage a few years back on its contract with EDS for a billing system. It had been sending its rates bills inexpensively by adding a line or two to the rates bills of all the district councils. Then it decided to get its own computer empire, so it signed a three-year contract for $11 million with EDS. A comprehensive analysis showed that if it had gone elsewhere and not used an obsolete empire like EDS it could have got the same thing for $3 million. It's only your money, folks. ARC's chairman Mike Lee kept very quiet about that one. (Now the Auditor-General's office is going to take a look at it.)
With that sort of thing going on, the so-called Super City is more likely to be Shonky City. The elected part of ARC has obviously not been keeping a good enough watch on the employed part. The latter is given far too much leeway.
But for John Banks to come over all smug and holier-than-thou shows how out of touch he is with David Rankin's inept empire. Handing him authority to spend up to $4 million over his own signature, as ACC has just done, is putting temptation in the way of incompetence and inviting yet more nasty shemozzles to the city's doorstep.
HGI REORGANISATION PROPOSAL
The latest version of the reorganisation proposal, as submitted to the Local Government Commission, is at this address.
is at this address. It has been updated many times from the first version posted in April 2008, and there have been many postings since then so it is now well down the blog. This posting will make it much easier to find.
It has also been revised and updated since the version that was sent to the LGC with the petition/application, so it differs from the one shown on the LGC's website. But the excellent map shown there is accurate because the area of the proposal has not changed, just the wording. There have been improvements, corrections, deletions, modifications, and information that has come in since lodgement has generated some new sub-sections. But it is essentially the same. The variation is only in detail.
(My apologies to islanders other than Waihekeans for the name of this blog, which has become more of a Hauraki Gulf Islands blog than a Waiheke one, but the name was chosen well before the reorganisation application was thought of and initiated.)
is at this address. It has been updated many times from the first version posted in April 2008, and there have been many postings since then so it is now well down the blog. This posting will make it much easier to find.
It has also been revised and updated since the version that was sent to the LGC with the petition/application, so it differs from the one shown on the LGC's website. But the excellent map shown there is accurate because the area of the proposal has not changed, just the wording. There have been improvements, corrections, deletions, modifications, and information that has come in since lodgement has generated some new sub-sections. But it is essentially the same. The variation is only in detail.
(My apologies to islanders other than Waihekeans for the name of this blog, which has become more of a Hauraki Gulf Islands blog than a Waiheke one, but the name was chosen well before the reorganisation application was thought of and initiated.)
LGC MEDIA RELEASE SUBMISSIONS PHASE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: Media Release, 16 February 2009 {{with my additions}}
COMMISSION CONSULTS ON HAURAKI GULF PROPOSAL
The Local Government Commission is calling for submissions on a proposal for the transfer of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (except for Rangitoto Island and Browns Island) from Auckland City and Auckland Region to Thames-Coromandel District and Waikato Region.
The proposal was initiated by a petition signed by over 700 electors living within the area.
In November 2008 the Auckland City Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Auckland Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council decided that the proposal should be referred to the Commission for consideration and decision rather than being dealt with by the Councils.
Further information about the proposal, including a map of the affected area can be viewed at the Commission's website (www.lgc.govt). {{The latest, revised version of the proposal, submitted to the LGC in January 2009, can seen at this address}}
Submissions may be made on any matter relevant to the proposal, including
* whether or not the proposal should proceed; and
* whether some modification or variation of the proposal should be adopted.
The Commission is also consulting with the affected and adjoining local authorities, the proposer, relevant government agencies, and iwi.
The closing date for submissions is 20 April 2009.
After the closing date for submissions the process is as follows:
* The Commission sends copies of the submissions it has received to the representative of the electors [1], and provides the opportunity for the representative of the electors to withdraw the proposal.
* If the proposal is not withdrawn, the Commission decides whether to issue a draft reorganisation scheme (based on the proposal or on some modification of or variation to the proposal), or not to proceed with the proposal.
* As part of making that decision the Commission will meet with the proposers, the affected and neighbouring local authorities and those submitters who wish to meet with the Commission. In addition, the Commission may make any further inquiries and investigations that it considers appropriate.
* If the Commission issues a draft reorganisation scheme, it invites submissions on the draft scheme.
* The Commission considers all submissions it has received, and decides whether to issue a final reorganisation based on the draft scheme (with or without modifications), or to decline to proceed with the scheme.
Further information about the procedure to be followed may be found on the Commission's website by clicking the 'Guidelines' button.
Media inquiries:
Donald Riezebos
Chief Executive Officer
Local Government Commission
Phone: 04 460 2241
Fax: 04 460 2201
[1] The representative of electors may act on behalf of the proposers. The representative of electors is one of the proposers appointed by the Commission to carry out that role. {{In January 2009, the Commission appointed Nobilangelo Ceramalus to be the representative.}}
COMMISSION CONSULTS ON HAURAKI GULF PROPOSAL
The Local Government Commission is calling for submissions on a proposal for the transfer of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (except for Rangitoto Island and Browns Island) from Auckland City and Auckland Region to Thames-Coromandel District and Waikato Region.
The proposal was initiated by a petition signed by over 700 electors living within the area.
In November 2008 the Auckland City Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Auckland Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council decided that the proposal should be referred to the Commission for consideration and decision rather than being dealt with by the Councils.
Further information about the proposal, including a map of the affected area can be viewed at the Commission's website (www.lgc.govt). {{The latest, revised version of the proposal, submitted to the LGC in January 2009, can seen at this address}}
Submissions may be made on any matter relevant to the proposal, including
* whether or not the proposal should proceed; and
* whether some modification or variation of the proposal should be adopted.
The Commission is also consulting with the affected and adjoining local authorities, the proposer, relevant government agencies, and iwi.
The closing date for submissions is 20 April 2009.
After the closing date for submissions the process is as follows:
* The Commission sends copies of the submissions it has received to the representative of the electors [1], and provides the opportunity for the representative of the electors to withdraw the proposal.
* If the proposal is not withdrawn, the Commission decides whether to issue a draft reorganisation scheme (based on the proposal or on some modification of or variation to the proposal), or not to proceed with the proposal.
* As part of making that decision the Commission will meet with the proposers, the affected and neighbouring local authorities and those submitters who wish to meet with the Commission. In addition, the Commission may make any further inquiries and investigations that it considers appropriate.
* If the Commission issues a draft reorganisation scheme, it invites submissions on the draft scheme.
* The Commission considers all submissions it has received, and decides whether to issue a final reorganisation based on the draft scheme (with or without modifications), or to decline to proceed with the scheme.
Further information about the procedure to be followed may be found on the Commission's website by clicking the 'Guidelines' button.
Media inquiries:
Donald Riezebos
Chief Executive Officer
Local Government Commission
Phone: 04 460 2241
Fax: 04 460 2201
[1] The representative of electors may act on behalf of the proposers. The representative of electors is one of the proposers appointed by the Commission to carry out that role. {{In January 2009, the Commission appointed Nobilangelo Ceramalus to be the representative.}}
LGC MEDIA RELEASE (BELATED POSTING)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: Media Release, 10 December 2008 {{with my additions}}
PROPOSAL FOR TRANSFER OF HAURAKI GULF ISLANDS TO THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT
The Local Government Commission has received a proposal for the transfer of responsibility for the Hauraki Gulf Islands (except for Rangitoto Island and Browns Island) from Auckland City Council and Auckland Region to Thames-Coromandel District and Waikato Region.
The proposal was initiated by a petition signed by over 700 electors living within the area. In November 2008, the Auckland City Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Auckland Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council decided that the proposal should be referred to the Commission for consideration and decision rather than being dealt with by the Councils.
A copy of the proposal and a map of the affected area can be viewed at the Commission's website (www.lgc.govt). {{The latest, revised version of the proposal, submitted to the LGC in January 2009, can seen at this address}}
The next step in the process is for the Commission to determine a person or organisation to be the representative of the electors who signed the proposal. This is required by clause 36 of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002. The representative of electors may act on behalf of the proposers. {{In January 2009 the Local Government Commission appointed Nobilangelo Ceramalus the representative.}}
Following the appointment of a representative, the Commission will call for public submissions. Members of the public will have 60 days in which to make a submission. The Commission will also consult with the affected and adjoining local authorities, relevant government agencies, and iwi.
Further information on the process may be found on the Commission's website by clicking the 'Guidelines' button.
Media inquiries:
Donald Riezebos
Chief Executive Officer
Local Government Commission
Phone: 04 460 2241
Fax: 04 460 2201
PROPOSAL FOR TRANSFER OF HAURAKI GULF ISLANDS TO THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT
The Local Government Commission has received a proposal for the transfer of responsibility for the Hauraki Gulf Islands (except for Rangitoto Island and Browns Island) from Auckland City Council and Auckland Region to Thames-Coromandel District and Waikato Region.
The proposal was initiated by a petition signed by over 700 electors living within the area. In November 2008, the Auckland City Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Auckland Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council decided that the proposal should be referred to the Commission for consideration and decision rather than being dealt with by the Councils.
A copy of the proposal and a map of the affected area can be viewed at the Commission's website (www.lgc.govt). {{The latest, revised version of the proposal, submitted to the LGC in January 2009, can seen at this address}}
The next step in the process is for the Commission to determine a person or organisation to be the representative of the electors who signed the proposal. This is required by clause 36 of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002. The representative of electors may act on behalf of the proposers. {{In January 2009 the Local Government Commission appointed Nobilangelo Ceramalus the representative.}}
Following the appointment of a representative, the Commission will call for public submissions. Members of the public will have 60 days in which to make a submission. The Commission will also consult with the affected and adjoining local authorities, relevant government agencies, and iwi.
Further information on the process may be found on the Commission's website by clicking the 'Guidelines' button.
Media inquiries:
Donald Riezebos
Chief Executive Officer
Local Government Commission
Phone: 04 460 2241
Fax: 04 460 2201
Thursday, 19 February 2009
MALICE NOT MATHS
A malicious rumour being put about by the small-but-nasty tribe says that if the Local Government Commission rules in favour of transferring the Hauraki Gulf Islands to Thames-Coromandel District Council the changeover would cost us $2 million.
Bunkum!
Those responsible for that fiction are obviously no good at simple arithmetic, and know nothing relevant about computer systems. Nowadays office information is held on computers; and council information centres on property records. There are 7843 properties on the islands (occupied by 8648 people and several hundred dogs), so what the malicious are saying is that it would cost $255 to copy and reformat each computerised property record. That means that if all that fictitious work were done manually by people on the average income--$40,000 or $153 a day--it would take a day and half to convert each record, which would add up to a staggering 13,000 man-days of work--i.e., 54 years of slog for one person or 5.4 years for ten people.
That may look real on some weird planet where they worship the Tooth Fairy, eat their left feet and drink nitric acid. But back here in the real world (where my career includes being computer manager for a local body and systems executive for a large company), that would not be how the conversion would be done. Most of it would be done at computer-speed by computers, not at snail-speed by people. Which means it would not take years or cost millions.
I have had a quotation for one of the most difficult bits, and it would take only two or three days at $1250 a day--a maximum of $3750. Other parts of the conversion would cost the same sort of money, because all you need to do is get a copy of the data on a disk (and a few thousand records is a trivial number for a computer), then you run them through small, easily-written programs to change the format from the one used by Auckland to the one used by Thames-Coromandel. There would also need to be some manual data-entry to fill any gaps, but even if every bit of the entire 7843 property records had to be entered, which would certainly not be the case, that would take only days for a handful of moderately competent operators being paid $15-20 an hour. A fast operator, such as I have employed, can do 27,000 keystrokes an hour.
The staff in the islands' service centres would need some retraining, but even if twenty-five people each spent a week in Thames living in a hotel at $200 a day, plus travel expenses of $100 each, that would be only $27,500.
In short, the total cost of the changeover would be in the tens of thousands not the millions. But if Auckland did try to flim-flam us by charging fifty alien arms and thirty-two liddle green legs for those disk-copies we could drag it before the Auditor-General and/or the Ombudsmen, and the officers responsible could be haled into the District Court under the Local Government Act 2002 and each fined up to $5000.
Once the changeover to Thames-Coromandel was complete, the latest figures supplied by Auckland show that we would save $3.92 million a year in our allocation to the council's central running-costs ($5.732m-$1.8m), which works out at $16,333 a working day, so the exercise would rapidly pay for itself. For example, if it cost $70,000 it would pay for itself in just four days, or in eight days if it were $140,000--so even that fictitious $2m pricetag would pay for itself in four months.
The nasties are also overlooking another piece of simple arithmetic. If their malicious rumour were true, and a changeover for 8628 islanders to Thames-Coromandel really was going to cost $2 million, then it would also be true that a changeover for 1.4 million mainlanders to the Supercilious City would cost $325 million. Which underlines the falsity of their rumour.
As Victor Hugo said: 'The malicious have a dark happiness.'
Bunkum!
Those responsible for that fiction are obviously no good at simple arithmetic, and know nothing relevant about computer systems. Nowadays office information is held on computers; and council information centres on property records. There are 7843 properties on the islands (occupied by 8648 people and several hundred dogs), so what the malicious are saying is that it would cost $255 to copy and reformat each computerised property record. That means that if all that fictitious work were done manually by people on the average income--$40,000 or $153 a day--it would take a day and half to convert each record, which would add up to a staggering 13,000 man-days of work--i.e., 54 years of slog for one person or 5.4 years for ten people.
That may look real on some weird planet where they worship the Tooth Fairy, eat their left feet and drink nitric acid. But back here in the real world (where my career includes being computer manager for a local body and systems executive for a large company), that would not be how the conversion would be done. Most of it would be done at computer-speed by computers, not at snail-speed by people. Which means it would not take years or cost millions.
I have had a quotation for one of the most difficult bits, and it would take only two or three days at $1250 a day--a maximum of $3750. Other parts of the conversion would cost the same sort of money, because all you need to do is get a copy of the data on a disk (and a few thousand records is a trivial number for a computer), then you run them through small, easily-written programs to change the format from the one used by Auckland to the one used by Thames-Coromandel. There would also need to be some manual data-entry to fill any gaps, but even if every bit of the entire 7843 property records had to be entered, which would certainly not be the case, that would take only days for a handful of moderately competent operators being paid $15-20 an hour. A fast operator, such as I have employed, can do 27,000 keystrokes an hour.
The staff in the islands' service centres would need some retraining, but even if twenty-five people each spent a week in Thames living in a hotel at $200 a day, plus travel expenses of $100 each, that would be only $27,500.
In short, the total cost of the changeover would be in the tens of thousands not the millions. But if Auckland did try to flim-flam us by charging fifty alien arms and thirty-two liddle green legs for those disk-copies we could drag it before the Auditor-General and/or the Ombudsmen, and the officers responsible could be haled into the District Court under the Local Government Act 2002 and each fined up to $5000.
Once the changeover to Thames-Coromandel was complete, the latest figures supplied by Auckland show that we would save $3.92 million a year in our allocation to the council's central running-costs ($5.732m-$1.8m), which works out at $16,333 a working day, so the exercise would rapidly pay for itself. For example, if it cost $70,000 it would pay for itself in just four days, or in eight days if it were $140,000--so even that fictitious $2m pricetag would pay for itself in four months.
The nasties are also overlooking another piece of simple arithmetic. If their malicious rumour were true, and a changeover for 8628 islanders to Thames-Coromandel really was going to cost $2 million, then it would also be true that a changeover for 1.4 million mainlanders to the Supercilious City would cost $325 million. Which underlines the falsity of their rumour.
As Victor Hugo said: 'The malicious have a dark happiness.'
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
REPLY TO YET ANOTHER HOOPERISM
Please, Graham Hooper! Stop interviewing your mirror and your computer. Stop writing fiction that pretends to be fact. Instead do the research and get the truth. Then your writing will be as good as your excellent photography.
First, get the point--which is good local government, and a stack of documentation proves that Thames-Coromandel is much better at it than Auckland. And please realise that applying for good local government in 2009 has no connection whatsoever with where some Waihekeans bought their food in 1840. Truly.
Your conjecture that people signed the petition/application to the Local Government Commission just to escape from me is libellous to me and to them (it also ignores the fact that I did not collect all the signatures). And your claim to superiority in being smart enough not to succumb to a desire for better local government is misplaced vanity piled on libel.
Your letter ended with even more confusion. I made a well-documented point about Auckland failing to get millions of dollars of government roading subsidy, in contrast to Thames-Coromandel. But you managed by some illogical sideslip to turn that into an attack on Thames-Coromandel with your invention that it has never applied for a subsidy to replace the Kopu bridge. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. It did not fail to apply. It could not apply. Because it does not own that bridge. It comes under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Transport Agency (formerly called Transit New Zealand). The NZTA does intend replacing it--as you would know if you had read its projects document for that part of the country (it is prominently displayed in the foyer of the Thames-Coromandel District Council). And it was announced on the 11th of February that work on the $47 million project is to start in July this year.
You say Thames-Coromandel is my 'beloved.' Odd choice of word. I like them, I admire their far more democratic and accountable way of working, I like their close attention to the Local Government Act 2002. I see that their small-community understanding and empathy would work well for the islands; I see that they are a good council at elected level at employed levels and in the relationship between them; I see that they have a much better mayor and CEO.
But my liddle heart doesn't go pitter-pat over them. I have studied them carefully, and have never seen any white wings or golden haloes. I even got down on me hands and knees in the middle of the main street of Thames and had a dig with me Swiss Army knife, backed up with me runcible spoon, and to my acute disappointment found that the targetted rate to pave the streets with gold has yet to be implemented. So they are not perfect. No one is. They are just much better than that shemozzle on the other horizon.
As you would also know if you had done research instead of exploring the fluff in your navel.
I am disappointed that Marketplace fell from its usual high standard in publishing such dubious stuff--and in the very week that Waiheke Week ceased, an unlamented organ that proved again and again that it did not adhere to the principles of the New Zealand Press Council.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely said: 'Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.' Graham's letter was only a small cry in that class, but it was as false and therefore could do no good.
First, get the point--which is good local government, and a stack of documentation proves that Thames-Coromandel is much better at it than Auckland. And please realise that applying for good local government in 2009 has no connection whatsoever with where some Waihekeans bought their food in 1840. Truly.
Your conjecture that people signed the petition/application to the Local Government Commission just to escape from me is libellous to me and to them (it also ignores the fact that I did not collect all the signatures). And your claim to superiority in being smart enough not to succumb to a desire for better local government is misplaced vanity piled on libel.
Your letter ended with even more confusion. I made a well-documented point about Auckland failing to get millions of dollars of government roading subsidy, in contrast to Thames-Coromandel. But you managed by some illogical sideslip to turn that into an attack on Thames-Coromandel with your invention that it has never applied for a subsidy to replace the Kopu bridge. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. It did not fail to apply. It could not apply. Because it does not own that bridge. It comes under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Transport Agency (formerly called Transit New Zealand). The NZTA does intend replacing it--as you would know if you had read its projects document for that part of the country (it is prominently displayed in the foyer of the Thames-Coromandel District Council). And it was announced on the 11th of February that work on the $47 million project is to start in July this year.
You say Thames-Coromandel is my 'beloved.' Odd choice of word. I like them, I admire their far more democratic and accountable way of working, I like their close attention to the Local Government Act 2002. I see that their small-community understanding and empathy would work well for the islands; I see that they are a good council at elected level at employed levels and in the relationship between them; I see that they have a much better mayor and CEO.
But my liddle heart doesn't go pitter-pat over them. I have studied them carefully, and have never seen any white wings or golden haloes. I even got down on me hands and knees in the middle of the main street of Thames and had a dig with me Swiss Army knife, backed up with me runcible spoon, and to my acute disappointment found that the targetted rate to pave the streets with gold has yet to be implemented. So they are not perfect. No one is. They are just much better than that shemozzle on the other horizon.
As you would also know if you had done research instead of exploring the fluff in your navel.
I am disappointed that Marketplace fell from its usual high standard in publishing such dubious stuff--and in the very week that Waiheke Week ceased, an unlamented organ that proved again and again that it did not adhere to the principles of the New Zealand Press Council.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely said: 'Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.' Graham's letter was only a small cry in that class, but it was as false and therefore could do no good.
RATES AND REBATES IN THAMES
An elderly woman came up to me in Placemakers and asked if the rates rebates would still be available if the Local Government Commission moves us to Thames-Coromandel District Council.
Of course. Those rebates for people on low incomes are from the government, not councils. So they are available no matter which council you are with.
She was also worried that our rates would rise, because she had noticed that the rates in Thames township are much higher. Yes, they are higher, but that is because Thames's rates include charges for reticulated water and wastewater, which Waiheke does not have. But even with those charges in Thames and a few other places, the average rates for the whole peninsula are $83 lower than the average on Waiheke. And when those charges are taken off the average rates are $290 lower. Even better, when Auckland's rates-rises over the last two years are replaced with Thames-Coromandel's changes (they actually went down 8.98% in 2007/2008), the peninsula's average is $502 lower than Waiheke's.
On top of that, the reorganisation document rules out an increase in rates for the first year, then it limits any rises to the change in the consumer-price index (unless the community decides otherwise).
Of course. Those rebates for people on low incomes are from the government, not councils. So they are available no matter which council you are with.
She was also worried that our rates would rise, because she had noticed that the rates in Thames township are much higher. Yes, they are higher, but that is because Thames's rates include charges for reticulated water and wastewater, which Waiheke does not have. But even with those charges in Thames and a few other places, the average rates for the whole peninsula are $83 lower than the average on Waiheke. And when those charges are taken off the average rates are $290 lower. Even better, when Auckland's rates-rises over the last two years are replaced with Thames-Coromandel's changes (they actually went down 8.98% in 2007/2008), the peninsula's average is $502 lower than Waiheke's.
On top of that, the reorganisation document rules out an increase in rates for the first year, then it limits any rises to the change in the consumer-price index (unless the community decides otherwise).
THAMES-COROMANDEL'S RATES LOWER
A number of people have said they are afraid that if we were with Thames-Coromandel we would pay much higher rates, because they are very high in Thames township. But Thames has reticulated water and wastewater, which we don't have, so you cannot compare its rates with ours. In fact, the average rates over the whole peninsula are between $290 and $502 lower than ours.
In Thames-Coromandel's 2008-2009 annual plan I was struck by the very low rates-increase. For communities like those on the Hauraki Gulf Islands--i.e., ones without reticulated wastewater and water--the average increase per property was only 2.08%. The previous year, for the same category of properties, there was actually a decrease of 8.98%.
On that basis, given Waiheke's average rate per property of $1624, there would have been an average drop of $226 last year and a rise of $34 this year, making a net drop of $116 over the past two years to make a new average of $1508.
But that is misleading, because of course the starting-point would not have been $1624. That is the starting-point made by Auckland; but the average rates in Thames-Coromandel for properties of our type was $1374. So if we had been with Thames-Coromandel, and the same basis had applied, the average rates per property last year would have gone down from $1374 to $1252, then risen to the new average this year of $1278, a net drop of $96.
Digging the equivalent changes out of Auckland City was a rigmarole. I had to use a channel available to community board members, which showed that there had been an average rise of 3.4% on Waiheke in 2007-2008 (following the 45% the previous year) and 6% in 2008-2009, which made that average of $1624 rise by $55 to $1679 then by $101 to $1780, a net rise of $156.
Thus if there were two identical Waihekes, one under Auckland and one with Thames-Coromandel, the average property with Thames-Coromandel would be paying an average of $502 per year less than the one with Auckland.
In Thames-Coromandel's 2008-2009 annual plan I was struck by the very low rates-increase. For communities like those on the Hauraki Gulf Islands--i.e., ones without reticulated wastewater and water--the average increase per property was only 2.08%. The previous year, for the same category of properties, there was actually a decrease of 8.98%.
On that basis, given Waiheke's average rate per property of $1624, there would have been an average drop of $226 last year and a rise of $34 this year, making a net drop of $116 over the past two years to make a new average of $1508.
But that is misleading, because of course the starting-point would not have been $1624. That is the starting-point made by Auckland; but the average rates in Thames-Coromandel for properties of our type was $1374. So if we had been with Thames-Coromandel, and the same basis had applied, the average rates per property last year would have gone down from $1374 to $1252, then risen to the new average this year of $1278, a net drop of $96.
Digging the equivalent changes out of Auckland City was a rigmarole. I had to use a channel available to community board members, which showed that there had been an average rise of 3.4% on Waiheke in 2007-2008 (following the 45% the previous year) and 6% in 2008-2009, which made that average of $1624 rise by $55 to $1679 then by $101 to $1780, a net rise of $156.
Thus if there were two identical Waihekes, one under Auckland and one with Thames-Coromandel, the average property with Thames-Coromandel would be paying an average of $502 per year less than the one with Auckland.
REMUNERATION AUTHORITY CORRUPTION
A chronic, fundamental problem in New Zealand's local government is that the Remuneration Authority has long been operating illegally. The way remuneration must be set for people elected to local public office is laid down in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002)--Clause 7 Schedule 7 sets down a list of mandatory criteria, a clear, simple, admirable list. But the Authority ignores it. Many years ago it replaced that with its own 'law,' the so-called pool formula.
Clause 7 says those elected to local-body office must be paid a fair amount, that it must be fair to ratepayers (neither robbing them nor letting them down by paying so little that they cannot get good service), and that it must attract and retain competent people.
Why, then does Parliament let the Remuneration Authority get away with treating the law with such obvious contempt? The pool formula begins with a complicated calculation that has nothing to do with the law, instead allocating points to each council on weird system that might as well have been beamed in by Little Green Zonks for all the relevance it has to reality. The points are converted to dollars by multiplying them by 4.080, 3.468, 3.310, or 2.942 at various break-points. That gives the pool of money for each council. Councillors then decide how it should be parcelled out to them and community board members, and put a proposal to the Remuneration Authority. Once the Authority agrees it rubberstamps it, which sets the individual remunerations.
The result is that most community board members in New Zealand, including those under Auckland City, and many councillors, are being paid far below the minimum legal hourly rate. Some community board members are on as little as $206 a year, or $412 or $618. Auckland Regional Councillors, who have to make decisions for 1.4 million people, the biggest region in the country, are paid only $22,000 a year. Hardly enough to 'attract and retain competent people' as the law commands. And very unfair to ratepayers, because the people they vote for cannot afford to spend the time needed for the service they have the right to.
Therefore the only people who can afford to stand for local-body positions are those of independent means. So local democracy is not representative, because the positions are not open to everyone. Unrepresentative democracy is not democracy at all.
The Remuneration Authority is acting unlawfully, it has been doing it for years, it is therefore guilty of misfeasance--it is corrupt. It should be sacked.
Clause 7 says those elected to local-body office must be paid a fair amount, that it must be fair to ratepayers (neither robbing them nor letting them down by paying so little that they cannot get good service), and that it must attract and retain competent people.
Why, then does Parliament let the Remuneration Authority get away with treating the law with such obvious contempt? The pool formula begins with a complicated calculation that has nothing to do with the law, instead allocating points to each council on weird system that might as well have been beamed in by Little Green Zonks for all the relevance it has to reality. The points are converted to dollars by multiplying them by 4.080, 3.468, 3.310, or 2.942 at various break-points. That gives the pool of money for each council. Councillors then decide how it should be parcelled out to them and community board members, and put a proposal to the Remuneration Authority. Once the Authority agrees it rubberstamps it, which sets the individual remunerations.
The result is that most community board members in New Zealand, including those under Auckland City, and many councillors, are being paid far below the minimum legal hourly rate. Some community board members are on as little as $206 a year, or $412 or $618. Auckland Regional Councillors, who have to make decisions for 1.4 million people, the biggest region in the country, are paid only $22,000 a year. Hardly enough to 'attract and retain competent people' as the law commands. And very unfair to ratepayers, because the people they vote for cannot afford to spend the time needed for the service they have the right to.
Therefore the only people who can afford to stand for local-body positions are those of independent means. So local democracy is not representative, because the positions are not open to everyone. Unrepresentative democracy is not democracy at all.
The Remuneration Authority is acting unlawfully, it has been doing it for years, it is therefore guilty of misfeasance--it is corrupt. It should be sacked.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
CITY OR ISLAND?
What is Waiheke? Is it an island, or is it part of Auckland City? Is it to stay island or become city? Is island life to become city life? Is it to keep the unique character defined by islanders in Essentially Waiheke, or is it to lose that for ever?
If our future is to be city, we must stay with Auckland City and accept its rule, its terms and conditions, its decisions, and its way of life as our way of life.
If our future is to be island, we must escape from the city. The ideal would be to escape to people like us. Fortunately, in Thames-Coromandel we have that ideal about the same distance from our eastern coast as Queen Street's glass and steel canyon is from our western.
The word peninsula means almost an island; Thames-Coromandel's mayor, Philippa Barriball describes the peninsula as 'one huge big Waiheke Island'; and Coromandel-Colville Councillor John Morrissey describes islanders as 'the closest kin we've got.'
They are our kind of people; like us they fiercely defend their unique, non-city way of life; like us they have a village-rural character and charm. We belong with them, not with the city. Especially a Supercilious City.
If our future is to be city, we must stay with Auckland City and accept its rule, its terms and conditions, its decisions, and its way of life as our way of life.
If our future is to be island, we must escape from the city. The ideal would be to escape to people like us. Fortunately, in Thames-Coromandel we have that ideal about the same distance from our eastern coast as Queen Street's glass and steel canyon is from our western.
The word peninsula means almost an island; Thames-Coromandel's mayor, Philippa Barriball describes the peninsula as 'one huge big Waiheke Island'; and Coromandel-Colville Councillor John Morrissey describes islanders as 'the closest kin we've got.'
They are our kind of people; like us they fiercely defend their unique, non-city way of life; like us they have a village-rural character and charm. We belong with them, not with the city. Especially a Supercilious City.
NOT ORCLAND
This is Waiheke Island. It is an island in the Hauraki Gulf. It is a Hauraki Gulf Island. It is not an Auckland Island, it is not an Auckland City Island, it is not an Auckland City Suburb Island. It is in name, in geography, and in ecology a place apart, a place that rightfully belongs with the other places of the same kind.
Waiheke is immersed in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, which is dominated by three elements: the broad waters of the Gulf, the Coromandel Peninsula and the Gulf Islands. The peninsula and the islands are the only elements immersed in the park; together they have the bulk of the land area and the coastline.
Waiheke is not inextricably linked to Auckland. There are transport links, as there are with everywhere else in New Zealand; there are economic links, as there are with all the rest of New Zealand, for which Auckland is the economic engine; there are personal links, as there are with all the rest of New Zealand. But none of those define our true existence. We are islanders not Aucklanders.
If Auckland city, even the entire Auckland region, were to vanish off the face of the earth, Waiheke would remain. It would go through a time of hardship as it adjusted, but it would survive. But if the Hauraki Gulf were to vanish it would vanish. It is the Hauraki Gulf that we are inextricably linked to in the true sense of that term. We cannot escape from the Gulf; we can escape from Auckland.
If you live next door to the Smiths that does not mean you must think of yourself as part of the Smith family and change your name to Smith. Even if you stayed on your side of the fence you would still not have to let the Smiths run your life. Living next door does not mean that you belong neck and crop to your neighbour.
Especially if your neighbour is the neighbour from hell. Then you owe it to yourself to look elsewhere for good friendship, and if you can find it to nurture it and let it nurture you.
Waiheke is immersed in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, which is dominated by three elements: the broad waters of the Gulf, the Coromandel Peninsula and the Gulf Islands. The peninsula and the islands are the only elements immersed in the park; together they have the bulk of the land area and the coastline.
Waiheke is not inextricably linked to Auckland. There are transport links, as there are with everywhere else in New Zealand; there are economic links, as there are with all the rest of New Zealand, for which Auckland is the economic engine; there are personal links, as there are with all the rest of New Zealand. But none of those define our true existence. We are islanders not Aucklanders.
If Auckland city, even the entire Auckland region, were to vanish off the face of the earth, Waiheke would remain. It would go through a time of hardship as it adjusted, but it would survive. But if the Hauraki Gulf were to vanish it would vanish. It is the Hauraki Gulf that we are inextricably linked to in the true sense of that term. We cannot escape from the Gulf; we can escape from Auckland.
If you live next door to the Smiths that does not mean you must think of yourself as part of the Smith family and change your name to Smith. Even if you stayed on your side of the fence you would still not have to let the Smiths run your life. Living next door does not mean that you belong neck and crop to your neighbour.
Especially if your neighbour is the neighbour from hell. Then you owe it to yourself to look elsewhere for good friendship, and if you can find it to nurture it and let it nurture you.
Saturday, 3 January 2009
HAPPY OLD YEAR
Deputy Mayor David Hay has been quoted by Cr Denise Roche as saying that dealing with Waiheke's rubbish costs $710 per head. But figures prised out of Auckland City Council using the Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act (LGOIMA--pronounced ligoymuh) show him to be very slightly out.
The cost of dealing with our rubbish in the 2007/2008 financial year was $1,961,710 and dealing with our recycling cost $537,077, a total of $2,498,787. The revenue for rubbish (bags, transfer station fees, etc) was $465,053. So the net total was $2,033,744. That comes to $264.50 per head--$5 a week (or $316.54 per property if you prefer--$6 a week).
Nowhere near $710. Perhaps he was using our population figure for 1976, back when it was 2846.
The cost of rubbish/recycling the previous year was $2,104,351, so this year it cost a hefty 18.7% more. Why?
LGOIMA also shows that Auckland made a profit of $254,497 on Waiheke's wharves in 2007/2008 (an income of $1,711,165 less expenditure of $1,456,668).
LGOIMA also shows that Auckland missed out on over $3 million of government roading subsidies for Waiheke in 2007/2008. It achieved only $3,114,329 of the $6,601,822 that it should have got.
The cost of dealing with our rubbish in the 2007/2008 financial year was $1,961,710 and dealing with our recycling cost $537,077, a total of $2,498,787. The revenue for rubbish (bags, transfer station fees, etc) was $465,053. So the net total was $2,033,744. That comes to $264.50 per head--$5 a week (or $316.54 per property if you prefer--$6 a week).
Nowhere near $710. Perhaps he was using our population figure for 1976, back when it was 2846.
The cost of rubbish/recycling the previous year was $2,104,351, so this year it cost a hefty 18.7% more. Why?
LGOIMA also shows that Auckland made a profit of $254,497 on Waiheke's wharves in 2007/2008 (an income of $1,711,165 less expenditure of $1,456,668).
LGOIMA also shows that Auckland missed out on over $3 million of government roading subsidies for Waiheke in 2007/2008. It achieved only $3,114,329 of the $6,601,822 that it should have got.
Friday, 19 December 2008
RESPONSE TO WICKED AND WEAK
Wicked and Weak, also called the Slag Rag, asked me what was my hope for Waiheke in the New Year.
I wonder if it published my response. I never read that so-called newspaper so I shall never know.
Here it is: My hope for the Waiheke Community in 2009 is a much better standard of local government, and for 'Waiheke Week' to start keeping faithfully to the principles of the New Zealand Press Council.
I wonder if it published my response. I never read that so-called newspaper so I shall never know.
Here it is: My hope for the Waiheke Community in 2009 is a much better standard of local government, and for 'Waiheke Week' to start keeping faithfully to the principles of the New Zealand Press Council.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE DISTRICT PLAN
Auckland's habit trying to force what it wants down the throats of the islands created an expensive problem when it launched the Proposed District Plan for the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The thing was called a dog's breakfast, although it is a moot point whether any self-respecting dog would have come anywhere near it for any meal, even if starving. It was badly conceived, badly written, and insensitive to the islands.
It soon faced 4000 submissions from the 8628 islanders. It dealt to swathes of them simply by crossing them out--true democracy, that--but the long-running hearings for what was left did not finish till November 2008. The cost was huge, as figures gained under the Local Government Official Information Act show. For Great Barrier alone the expenditures for 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 were $226,585, $192,669 and $251,012, a total of $670,266, 9.2% of the total council income over those years. On an island of 852 residents it works out at $787 per head. On Waiheke the costs were $896,000, $856,000 and $581,243 in the same three years ($1,135,093 had been budgeted for 2007/2008), a total of $2,333,243, or $306.92 per head. Even tiny Rakino, with a permanent population of only 12, paid out $25,554 in 2006/2007, which was 12.47% of the council's income for the island that year. That all comes to an outrageous $3,029,063, or $351.07 per head over all the islands. But it is not over yet. The hearing committee now has to deliberate until its ruling comes out next April.
To put that in perspective, if isthmus Auckland had gone through the same process and had had the same relativities there would have been been 183,600 submissions from its 396,030 residents, and the whole process would have cost a staggering $139 million.
Auckland's incompetence and poor governance created that problem. The ratepayers paid for it. Again.
It soon faced 4000 submissions from the 8628 islanders. It dealt to swathes of them simply by crossing them out--true democracy, that--but the long-running hearings for what was left did not finish till November 2008. The cost was huge, as figures gained under the Local Government Official Information Act show. For Great Barrier alone the expenditures for 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 were $226,585, $192,669 and $251,012, a total of $670,266, 9.2% of the total council income over those years. On an island of 852 residents it works out at $787 per head. On Waiheke the costs were $896,000, $856,000 and $581,243 in the same three years ($1,135,093 had been budgeted for 2007/2008), a total of $2,333,243, or $306.92 per head. Even tiny Rakino, with a permanent population of only 12, paid out $25,554 in 2006/2007, which was 12.47% of the council's income for the island that year. That all comes to an outrageous $3,029,063, or $351.07 per head over all the islands. But it is not over yet. The hearing committee now has to deliberate until its ruling comes out next April.
To put that in perspective, if isthmus Auckland had gone through the same process and had had the same relativities there would have been been 183,600 submissions from its 396,030 residents, and the whole process would have cost a staggering $139 million.
Auckland's incompetence and poor governance created that problem. The ratepayers paid for it. Again.
AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE
Auckland City Council at elected level cannot claim anything like a mandate, although the way it throws its weight around you would think it had one.
It is so unrepresentative that it is fundamentally undemocratic. Only 37.9% of those who were registered on the electoral roll, and only 31.7% of the eligible population (18+), bothered to vote.
The ruling party, Citizens & Ratepayers, certainly does not have a representative majority because only 23.17% of the eligible population voted for the 12 councillors who belong to it or are alinged with it. The mayor, John Banks, was supported by only 42.8% of those who did vote, and therefore by a mere 12.7% of those who were eligible to.
The very concept of parties in local government is outside the spirit and letter of the Local Government Act 2002, because all who are elected must at their swearing-in promise to be impartial and to act the best of their own skill and judgement. Belonging to a party--being partisan--means by definition that you cannot be impartial, and being driven by party whips means you cannot be acting to the best of your own skill and judgement. But Auckland is dominated and ruled by parties, and not just on the council. Three-quarters of the people who stood for community board stood on party tickets, mostly Citizens & Ratepayers, City Vision and Labour.
Thames-Coromandel District Council, in contrast, is in harmony with the statutory declaration and a democratic mandate, because there are no parties. Every member of its nine-member council is an independent. Thames-Coromandel uses the single-transferrable-vote system at the moment because the community voted for it, so individual tallies are not reported in the official results. But figures from Independent Election Services, which does the count, show the measure of the council‘s mandate, because 53% of the registered electorate voted, which is high by national standards; and 51.6% of those registered voted for the mayor, Philippa Barriball, giving her 97.33% of the allocation in the final iteration. Only 2.67% of the population do not want her at all.
It is so unrepresentative that it is fundamentally undemocratic. Only 37.9% of those who were registered on the electoral roll, and only 31.7% of the eligible population (18+), bothered to vote.
The ruling party, Citizens & Ratepayers, certainly does not have a representative majority because only 23.17% of the eligible population voted for the 12 councillors who belong to it or are alinged with it. The mayor, John Banks, was supported by only 42.8% of those who did vote, and therefore by a mere 12.7% of those who were eligible to.
The very concept of parties in local government is outside the spirit and letter of the Local Government Act 2002, because all who are elected must at their swearing-in promise to be impartial and to act the best of their own skill and judgement. Belonging to a party--being partisan--means by definition that you cannot be impartial, and being driven by party whips means you cannot be acting to the best of your own skill and judgement. But Auckland is dominated and ruled by parties, and not just on the council. Three-quarters of the people who stood for community board stood on party tickets, mostly Citizens & Ratepayers, City Vision and Labour.
Thames-Coromandel District Council, in contrast, is in harmony with the statutory declaration and a democratic mandate, because there are no parties. Every member of its nine-member council is an independent. Thames-Coromandel uses the single-transferrable-vote system at the moment because the community voted for it, so individual tallies are not reported in the official results. But figures from Independent Election Services, which does the count, show the measure of the council‘s mandate, because 53% of the registered electorate voted, which is high by national standards; and 51.6% of those registered voted for the mayor, Philippa Barriball, giving her 97.33% of the allocation in the final iteration. Only 2.67% of the population do not want her at all.
DEMOCRACY OF THE SECOND KIND
There are two ways in which decisions can be made democratically. They can be made by ballot, referendum, majority petition, etc. Or they can be made according to law arrived at by democratic process. For example, a judge who sends a man to jail for theft is making a democratic decision, because the law against theft was arrived at by due democratic process. So what is really happening is that the majority of the people are jailing the thief.
The application to the Local Government Commission to put the Hauraki Gulf Islands under a much better council is decided in the same way. It is a legal process; it must be decided according to democratic law--first and foremost under the heading 'Good Local Government.' It is not a ballot, a vote, a referendum. What people's tastes may be on the matter is irrelevant. To take the point to extremes, the entire population of New Zealand may think a move to Thames-Coromandel is looney, but if after rigorous examination under the points laid down in the Local Government Act 2002, the LGC says we would get good local government there, not under Auckland, it should move us. Or if everyone thinks Thames-Coromandel is brilliant, but the LGC's legal analysis says no, that Auckland provides the best in local government, we must stay with it.
The application to the Local Government Commission to put the Hauraki Gulf Islands under a much better council is decided in the same way. It is a legal process; it must be decided according to democratic law--first and foremost under the heading 'Good Local Government.' It is not a ballot, a vote, a referendum. What people's tastes may be on the matter is irrelevant. To take the point to extremes, the entire population of New Zealand may think a move to Thames-Coromandel is looney, but if after rigorous examination under the points laid down in the Local Government Act 2002, the LGC says we would get good local government there, not under Auckland, it should move us. Or if everyone thinks Thames-Coromandel is brilliant, but the LGC's legal analysis says no, that Auckland provides the best in local government, we must stay with it.
Monday, 24 November 2008
COUNCILLOR BHATNAGAR YOU ARE DEAD WRONG
Once again Auckland City Councillor Aaron Bhatnagar has in his blog waxed on about the application to the Local Government Commission (LGC) to shift the Hauraki Gulf Islands from the jurisdiction of Auckland City Council to that of Thames-Coromandel District Council. His posting has also been picked up by Kiwiblog.
This time pretty well everything he says is wrong in fact, wrong in law, or both.
He says, for example, a lot about a poll. In an application to change the boundary there is no poll, according to Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, the summary of it prepared by the LGC, and the LGC itself, so everything he says about that is rubbish.
He also misses the legal nature of these applications. For example, it is not an application by one person, me, as he says, it is an application by 10% of registered affected electors. The actual number that sign the application is immaterial, the counting stops a bit past 10%, because it is all about satisfying the law. Even if everyone signed it the counting would still say 10% officially, because that is all the law is interested in.
The ruling by the LGC is also all done on the law, which is there for all to read in Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002.
He also misses the point of these applications. It is all about the key phrase in the Act: 'good local government.' And there is no doubt on a detailed, exhaustive comparative analysis of the two councils that Thames-Coromandel is a much better council than Auckland, particular for communities of our type.
Those who wax on about 'Auckland's' money have to get it into their heads that the world does not owe the islands a living. The isthmus certainly does not owe us a living, nor should it be coerced, without a word of consultation, at the point of the rates-notices gun into handing over millions that should be spent where they live not where we live.
This application is about communities, not about money. It is about how well they are governed. Everyone on earth deserves good local government. In New Zealand we have that right enshrined in law, and the process set up to get it elsewhere if we are not getting it where we are.
But if you cannot run communities with a combined population of 8628 on the present rates/charges revenue of $20 million you are mad, sad, or bad. Or all three.
The abysmal ignorance of the facts and the law shown in Councillor Bhatnagar's blog illustrates well the rubbishy governance that the islands have had to put up with for nineteen years. Please, Councillor, get yourself properly informed.
(He also wrong in his complaint that I covered 'Auckland City Council' on the badge issued to me as a member of the Waiheke Community Board, because it is wrong in law to claim that community board members come under a council or are part of a council. I am not a member of the Auckland City Council Waiheke Community Board. In law I am a member of the Waiheke Community Board, which is an independent body set up to be an advocate for the Waiheke Community. Therefore to correct the incorrect badge is perfectly proper.)
This time pretty well everything he says is wrong in fact, wrong in law, or both.
He says, for example, a lot about a poll. In an application to change the boundary there is no poll, according to Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, the summary of it prepared by the LGC, and the LGC itself, so everything he says about that is rubbish.
He also misses the legal nature of these applications. For example, it is not an application by one person, me, as he says, it is an application by 10% of registered affected electors. The actual number that sign the application is immaterial, the counting stops a bit past 10%, because it is all about satisfying the law. Even if everyone signed it the counting would still say 10% officially, because that is all the law is interested in.
The ruling by the LGC is also all done on the law, which is there for all to read in Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002.
He also misses the point of these applications. It is all about the key phrase in the Act: 'good local government.' And there is no doubt on a detailed, exhaustive comparative analysis of the two councils that Thames-Coromandel is a much better council than Auckland, particular for communities of our type.
Those who wax on about 'Auckland's' money have to get it into their heads that the world does not owe the islands a living. The isthmus certainly does not owe us a living, nor should it be coerced, without a word of consultation, at the point of the rates-notices gun into handing over millions that should be spent where they live not where we live.
This application is about communities, not about money. It is about how well they are governed. Everyone on earth deserves good local government. In New Zealand we have that right enshrined in law, and the process set up to get it elsewhere if we are not getting it where we are.
But if you cannot run communities with a combined population of 8628 on the present rates/charges revenue of $20 million you are mad, sad, or bad. Or all three.
The abysmal ignorance of the facts and the law shown in Councillor Bhatnagar's blog illustrates well the rubbishy governance that the islands have had to put up with for nineteen years. Please, Councillor, get yourself properly informed.
(He also wrong in his complaint that I covered 'Auckland City Council' on the badge issued to me as a member of the Waiheke Community Board, because it is wrong in law to claim that community board members come under a council or are part of a council. I am not a member of the Auckland City Council Waiheke Community Board. In law I am a member of the Waiheke Community Board, which is an independent body set up to be an advocate for the Waiheke Community. Therefore to correct the incorrect badge is perfectly proper.)
Friday, 7 November 2008
THE APPLICATION TO THE LGC SO FAR
The petition/application to the Local Government Commissions to move the Hauraki Gulf Islands to Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) was personally lodged with the four affected councils, starting on Friday the 26th of September 2008 with the original to TCDC, followed by copies to the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) and Auckland City Council (ACC) in the morning of the following Monday, and Environment Waikato Regional Council (EW) in the afternoon.
Also in the morning it was delivered to Independent Election Services with a covering letter from Thames-Coromandel's CEO, Steve Ruru, asking that it be validated to make sure it had the necessary minimum number of signatures. In law it must be signed by 10% or more of registered affected electors.
That hurdle was easily passed on the first pass (counting the easy ones), so at 10.5% the count was stopped. The petition/application was now legal. That was announced by Independent Election Services on Friday the 3rd of October.
The chairman of ARC acknowleged the petition/application in a brief letter a few days later. EW did the same in a precisely-worded letter, perfectly sheeted home to Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, which is the governing legislation for the process that has now been set in train. TCDC had of course acknowledged it personally on Friday the 26th, and with the covering letter from Steve Ruru.
In law the four councils had to decide if the Reorganisation Scheme based on the Reorganisation Proposal will be developed by a joint committee or if one council will be nominated to do it. If they cannot agree within 60 days, in this case by the 25th of November, the application must go straight to the LGC.
Auckland Regional Council, Environment Waikato Regional Council and Thames-Coromandel District Council have now all voted to send it straight to the LGC, so it no longer matters what Auckland City Council wants. It never said a word about it at its last meeting on the 24th of October, but now whether it agrees or disagrees the result is the same--it has to go straight to the LGC. That means the councils have also given up any right to stop the application further down the track. It also shortens the process somewhat.
The next phase is submissions to the LGC from interested parties, a phase which lasts two months once it begins, then the LGC makes its ruling. That will be sometime early next year.
Submissions must be grounded in the points of law that the LGC's decision must be made on. They cannot just be 'I agree' or 'I disagree', 'It's brilliant' or 'It's looney.' Submitters have to offer evidence or proof to support their contention that under one of those points the application should be granted or denied.
Also in the morning it was delivered to Independent Election Services with a covering letter from Thames-Coromandel's CEO, Steve Ruru, asking that it be validated to make sure it had the necessary minimum number of signatures. In law it must be signed by 10% or more of registered affected electors.
That hurdle was easily passed on the first pass (counting the easy ones), so at 10.5% the count was stopped. The petition/application was now legal. That was announced by Independent Election Services on Friday the 3rd of October.
The chairman of ARC acknowleged the petition/application in a brief letter a few days later. EW did the same in a precisely-worded letter, perfectly sheeted home to Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, which is the governing legislation for the process that has now been set in train. TCDC had of course acknowledged it personally on Friday the 26th, and with the covering letter from Steve Ruru.
In law the four councils had to decide if the Reorganisation Scheme based on the Reorganisation Proposal will be developed by a joint committee or if one council will be nominated to do it. If they cannot agree within 60 days, in this case by the 25th of November, the application must go straight to the LGC.
Auckland Regional Council, Environment Waikato Regional Council and Thames-Coromandel District Council have now all voted to send it straight to the LGC, so it no longer matters what Auckland City Council wants. It never said a word about it at its last meeting on the 24th of October, but now whether it agrees or disagrees the result is the same--it has to go straight to the LGC. That means the councils have also given up any right to stop the application further down the track. It also shortens the process somewhat.
The next phase is submissions to the LGC from interested parties, a phase which lasts two months once it begins, then the LGC makes its ruling. That will be sometime early next year.
Submissions must be grounded in the points of law that the LGC's decision must be made on. They cannot just be 'I agree' or 'I disagree', 'It's brilliant' or 'It's looney.' Submitters have to offer evidence or proof to support their contention that under one of those points the application should be granted or denied.
REPLY TO GRAHAM HOOPER'S MARKETPLACE LETTER
Please, Graham! You misunderstand completely, because once again you have not bothered with the facts or the law. The 'petition' is not a petition. It is a petition/application. An application that becomes valid if at least X registered voters sign it. Parliament has laid down that X has to be 10%. So the people that validate an application count only that far, plus a small margin to make sure, then they stop. You could collect 90% and the count would only show 10%.
It is certainly not a petition of the referendum or ballot kind, where if there were 1000 people in the population and 501 signed it they win, or if only 499 signed it they lose.
It is an application to a quasi-judicial body, the Local Government Commission, which then decides on points of law which council we should have. By far the most important point is good local government. If the LGC thinks, after rigorous examination of the facts, that we will get the best local government with Auckland City Council, we stay. If with Thames-Coromandel District Council, we move.
It is a not a popularity contest, a survey of uninformed opinion. It is a careful legal process to make sure we will get the best.
If nothing else it will put Auckland City under a microscope.
It is certainly not a petition of the referendum or ballot kind, where if there were 1000 people in the population and 501 signed it they win, or if only 499 signed it they lose.
It is an application to a quasi-judicial body, the Local Government Commission, which then decides on points of law which council we should have. By far the most important point is good local government. If the LGC thinks, after rigorous examination of the facts, that we will get the best local government with Auckland City Council, we stay. If with Thames-Coromandel District Council, we move.
It is a not a popularity contest, a survey of uninformed opinion. It is a careful legal process to make sure we will get the best.
If nothing else it will put Auckland City under a microscope.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
THAMES-COROMANDEL IS NOT THE RATES-MONSTER
If the Local Government Commission (LGC) moves the islands from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council to Thames-Coromandel District Council and Environment Waikato, the rates must not go into outer-space (mine included), so the Reorganisation Proposal has been written to prevent that (see http://waihekenotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/draft-reorganisation-proposal-for.html).
But some islanders know people in Thames who pay much higher rates, and they think we would get the same. Not so. On the peninsula they have local rates and district rates. Local rates are developed by the community boards, after community consultation, and reflect what the communities want. Ones that wanted reticulated wastewater and water systems got them and pay for them. That makes a huge difference, but we wouldn't have those charges.
Comparing ACC+ARC rates with TCDC+EW for the average Waiheke property, shows about $200 in TCDC's favour: $1618 instead of $1813. But a fair chunk of the rates would be under the community board's control, after community consultation, and because there would be a financial firewall between the peninsula and the islands, plus a 23.2% ceiling on shared administrative costs, a minimum of $1.2 million would be knocked off our expenditure. Other savings mean that we would have much more money available even if the rates were the same.
Added to that is the fact that this financial year (2008-2009), for properties with neither wastewater nor water reticulation, Thames-Coromandel raised rates by only 2.08%. For 2007-2008 it lowered them 8.98%. So over the last two years they had a net drop of 7.09%. Auckland's overall average rise last year was 3.6% and this year was 5.1%, a net rise of 8.88%. But for Waiheke alone the rises were 5.4% and 6.0%, a net rise of 11.17%. Great Barrier rose 6.1% and 9.1%, a net rise of 11.58%.
Islanders can therefore expect to be better off overall if the LGC moves us.
On top of that, under the Reorganisation Proposal rates are not to rise in the first year if the LGC moves us, then by no more than the change in the consumer-price index (CPI), unless the community wants a bigger change to pay for some project.
But some islanders know people in Thames who pay much higher rates, and they think we would get the same. Not so. On the peninsula they have local rates and district rates. Local rates are developed by the community boards, after community consultation, and reflect what the communities want. Ones that wanted reticulated wastewater and water systems got them and pay for them. That makes a huge difference, but we wouldn't have those charges.
Comparing ACC+ARC rates with TCDC+EW for the average Waiheke property, shows about $200 in TCDC's favour: $1618 instead of $1813. But a fair chunk of the rates would be under the community board's control, after community consultation, and because there would be a financial firewall between the peninsula and the islands, plus a 23.2% ceiling on shared administrative costs, a minimum of $1.2 million would be knocked off our expenditure. Other savings mean that we would have much more money available even if the rates were the same.
Added to that is the fact that this financial year (2008-2009), for properties with neither wastewater nor water reticulation, Thames-Coromandel raised rates by only 2.08%. For 2007-2008 it lowered them 8.98%. So over the last two years they had a net drop of 7.09%. Auckland's overall average rise last year was 3.6% and this year was 5.1%, a net rise of 8.88%. But for Waiheke alone the rises were 5.4% and 6.0%, a net rise of 11.17%. Great Barrier rose 6.1% and 9.1%, a net rise of 11.58%.
Islanders can therefore expect to be better off overall if the LGC moves us.
On top of that, under the Reorganisation Proposal rates are not to rise in the first year if the LGC moves us, then by no more than the change in the consumer-price index (CPI), unless the community wants a bigger change to pay for some project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
