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.
Monday, 30 March 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
