For example, Nick Smith said he’d take responsibility for genetically modified organisms back into central government control, which is where it belongs.
GM is a national issue and shouldn’t be left to 78 local bodies that simply lack the science to make clear decisions.
The decision to give local councils responsibility for Easter trading was an absolute cop-out by central government. Surely, the powers in Wellington could make a decision without wimping it off to councils.
Finally, there’s the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) before Parliament. It is a total crock and undemocratic. It is effectively central government taking over the provinces by stealth.
We’re fortunate in our area with the Masterton District Council, which is well governed and well managed. We have ready access to the mayor, councillors and officials who are able to be convinced by the merits of an argument.
Our local government elections are robust affairs with plenty of options to consider. They differ from central government elections in that they don’t depend on the most expensive spin merchants and the biggest bank account but on people talking to people.
The one exception was the mayor who is being re-elected unopposed and I can understand why.
I’m also generally happy with the Greater Wellington Regional Council.
So, I don’t want central government meddling in local affairs as the legislation before the House will allow.
There are three major concerns as I see them.
The first is that central government will have the power to set up council-controlled organisations (CCO) to manage a region’s assets or services without the consent of councils.
So, central government can effectively nationalise a local asset.
As it stands, councils have to consult if they want to set up a CCO. As the legislation reads central government can set them up at whim with no consultation.
In addition, there’s a performance criteria where central government can judge and rate councils.
What an arrogant approach.
In Wairarapa we have an energetic and professional local media and we have no problem rating our councils. I don’t want some shiny-arse from Wellington coming and judging anything at council level.
Further, I’d respectfully suggest that judging our council is none of their damned business.
Our council is not a Crown entity like schools and hospitals so why the interference from central government?
One theory advanced is that a person could come in and jerry up a negative report to enable central government to appoint trustees.
It’s an interesting thought but I believe if the National Government wanted to take over a community they would just do it. Who needs reports?
My third point of concern is the legislation will enable the government-appointed Local Government Commission to decide who will amalgamate and with whom, which is again undemocratic.
Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt suggests that move could ultimately take the North Island down to five councils and the South Island to two.
That’s a reduction in local government of 90% which would happen by centrally inspired bureaucratic decree.
I’m reminded of the recent shambles where the commission wanted one great council in the southern North Island governed by a lord mayor.
Thank heavens that’s been kicked for touch but the sword of Damocles is still there and likely to become increasingly so.
I just can’t imagine why they want us all to be like the total shambles that is Auckland. You’d have thought they’d have learned.
Environment Canterbury chairwoman Dame Margaret Bazley was appointed by the Government.
She told a select committee “We don’t want central direction. We just want the power to do what we need to do at a local level. We‘re very much opposed to any change that would allow central government to direct top-down to us.”
I’ve met and had dealings with Dame Margaret over the years and when she talks I listen.
Maybe the Government should too.
Local Government New Zealand chairman Lawrence Yule claimed the legislation went “against our constitutional rights and opportunities to act as local government”.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters described the legislation as suffering PNS, Patronising Nanny State.
He pointed out that since 2008 National has had six different ministers of local government that showed, in his view, the lack of respect by central government for its local counterpart.
Prime Minister John Key has said he won’t “die in a ditch” for the legislation.
If that is the case he should withdraw the stupidity that is the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) and its threat to local democracy.
It would also save a considerable wastage of time and money.
