This newsitem has 3 comments.

• ‘Whatever views you or I might have on the subject of abolishing Regional councils, it seems that they will mean little or nothing in the face of the National Party’s present policy. Their plans to downsize regional and local representation and reduce costs of local body operations have continued unabated since they were elected. The introduction of earlier legislation involving centralizing of resource consents followed by the Auckland Super City arrangement and the Sacking of Environment Canterbury should have sounded warning bells. The worst is yet to come with retrenchment schemes involving outsourcing and the sell off of public assets. ’
• ‘My experience of the Regional Council is that its lack of accountability is appalling. There are councillors who actively flaunt the fact that they are not accountable to the much of the region that they are responsible for. Example: When the council’s Economic Wellbeing Committee voted in favour of the Basin flyover, I wrote to regional councillors and said that I did not think that the Council had sought or received a mandate from Wellington residents to progress the proposal. I said that I am a resident of south Wellington and am therefore have a strong interest in the subject. In response, Councillor Peter Glensor (chair of the committee in question) wrote back with a glib response saying that “As I am a representative of the Lower Hutt constituency I suspect you won’t be in a position in any case” to affect his future election, as I vote outside his constituency. I thought this was terrible. When councillors actively thumb their noses at the people who are affected by their decisions, there is something rotten in the system. ’
• ‘The Regional Council’s proposal also advocated getting rid of the Regional Council …. the only recommendation of their’s that makes sense. Seems like everyone is on the same page, so “Just Do It” ’

You can add own comments here.

This newsitem has 10 comments.

• ‘There is now an urgent need for a wider discussion given that the Regional Council has an agenda item for next Tuesday (27th March) outlining the government’s position on local govt reform, with recommendations for an independent Review Panel, criteria for their selection, terms of reference, engagement, timelines etc. It proposes to delegate to the Chair and Deputy chair the responsibility to work with participating organisations to select and appoint members of the independent review panel, and directs the Regional Council’s CEO to put in place administrative and funding arrangements to support the independent review panel and subsequent process. http://www.gw.govt.nz/greater-wellington-to-trigger-formal-process-to-examine-local-government-reform/ As fuel price rises and we start to get periodic shortages, transport and employment opportunities will become even more important to the survival of those communities. Decisions need to be made at the lowest level possible. This means neighbourhood groups working on share schemes, community gardens and orchards and care for local streams and the environment. The cross boundary and common issues need to be dealt with at a higher level as Cr Ponter has said. Neighbourhood groups, residents assns, community boards, City Council and the Regional Council are all important. However, engagement needs to be deliberative at every level, with multiple ways of engagement. Representatives may make the final decisions after these debates have been held, but they need to be accountable with limited tenure (ie no long life politicians), and to note that if there is no consensus, then the status quo can still be the better option. Decisions need to made at the most appropriate level, with a catchment based regional council to maintain a base water supply, flood control, workable transport networks between urban islands, pest control, emergency management etc. The level at which decisions are made needs to be continuously debated. Decisions on social welfare, education and health are made at the national level, but there also must be local engagement. ’
• ‘I’ve said before that we absolutely should talk about regional governance, though it doesn’t seem of great interest to most people. There are three key outcomes we should be looking for : 1. Co-operation between local authorities recognising that we have a small regional population and that we need to work together 2. Maximising efficiency 3. Maximising opportunity for engagement between Councils and the communities they represent. 1. There is progress on shared services. More is needed. Areas with potential include water services, waste management, IT, rates collection, economic development, events and visitor attractions etc etc. In my view Councils need to show action on this. There will be areas of policy disagreement between Councils, and that’s actually fine if Councils are acting in what they see as the best interests of the region, not just parochially. There would of course be disagreements within a super Council too ! The areas of disagreement locally don’t seem to be that extensive, and it seems the personalities involved are working more collaboratively than in the recent past. In terms of co-operation, Celia has kicked off working with Councils throughout central New Zealand, and there’s also collaboration amongst metropolitan authorities on many issues. The backdrop of thinking about regional governance encourages this collaboration, and that’s good. 2. Efficiency – there seems to be a widely held view that there’s probably not a huge amount in this, and not much more than shared services could deliver. 3. Community engagement. There is little doubt that bigger Councils will change the relationship, and reduce accessibility of decision makers, and the ability to participate in the democratic process. Warmest regards Andy Foster Wellington City Councillor ’
• ‘I am sure you are right Andy that the process of amalgamation would not be easy, but I assume that the two parties were aware of that when they made the commitment, one which it seems they were not obliged to make by any overt commitment to the public, or (as far as I am aware) to special interests. I assume that the process of creating one plan out of several is one which Auckland has to undertake and it would be interesting to know what is their timetable and what governing critieria (if any) controll the process. I agree that a single DP applying the same objectives, policies and rules throughout a district is not consistent with the ability of communities to influence the nature of their neighbourhoods. But that may be an indication that there is a conflict between the objectives of commerce (which would want consistency and rapidity) and communities which would wish to conserve the valued special characteristics of their neighbourhoods. It is not in the nature of these inter-party agreements (the price for essential parliamentary support) to be ignored, unless it is in the interests of both parties to do so. It may be up to the territorial authorites to do just that. I hope that they are working now to find out more about the government’s intentions and to be prepared to discuss details and implications, both with Ministers and with the general public.. ’

You can view the remaining comments and submit your own here.

This newsitem has 4 comments.

• ‘Many of those at the conference were from organisations of interested and informed residents. It was obvious that those convening the meeting had an agenda which is likely to be frustrated by the fact that each community organisation represents a wide spectrum of views in regards to local democracy and other topics. Many local groups recognise this reality by being focused on the parochial where there is likely to be some consensus, though this is also not guaranteed. “Local Democracy” requires involvement from an exploratory stage in matters under consideration by a local or territorial entity. To achieve this, citizens should be kept informed of matters under consideration that will impact on social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing. How this is done is by eliciting views, modifying, reviewing, consulting, modifying, reviewing and then reaching a broadly agreed view before implementing the proposal. Rather than the present position where consultation sometimes appears to be a means of promoting a view/objective rather than seeking opinions/alternatives. On reflection it seems to me that individual voices are best represented by a loose body (eg: “A Citizens Assembly”) that promotes a view that is broadly reflective of the people most concerned by any changes to local democracy. It’s unlikely that any existing organisation can achieve this objective. Engaging with people interested, informed and willing to share their skills and knowledge allows for the wide dissemination on information thus enabling individuals to act and respond coherently, in turn empowering other citizens. Perhaps that engagement can be achieved if people of goodwill work together with open minds and hearts. The only barrier in this sea of uncertainty is that of Central Government which may not have the patience required to achieve this outcome and may act precipitately to eradicate what some within it see as “barriers to progress” , “nay sayers” or “obstacles”. Our goal as citizens should be to try and harness those in power, building trust and confidence, until they are convinced that those with divergent views need not be feared. ’
• ‘I want to acknowledge the many delegates from residents’ associations who attended this inaugural conference. My only regret is that we didn’t have another week of conference time to discuss everything that needed to be talked about. However this was not the end of discussion – but the beginning. I encourage you all to keep in touch with one-another. Update your details on residents.org.nz. Make an effort to share what your organisation is doing with others… you saw at the conference that you are not alone! Thanks must also go to the organising committee: a collaboration between FWPRA, the Social and Civic Policy Institute, the International Association of Public Participation, and my colleagues at Council Watch. I hope that we will find equal enthusiasm in other parts of the country for this form of discussion around citizen democratic participation. Keep an eye out for updates throughout the week on http://www.residents.org.nz. ’
• ‘The Organising Committee wishes to thank all participants for their contribution to a very successful conference We also wish to acknowledge the presence of Wellington Regional Council elected representatives Chris Laidlaw and Fran Wilde. Also Councillor Wade Brown of the Wellington City Council as a resident of Island Bay. Thanks to Beverley Wakem of the Ombudsman’s Office for listening to the events of the day and her valuable contribution in the last session. Tom Law For Organising Committee Residents 2010 ’

You can view the remaining comments and submit your own here.

This newsitem has 5 comments.

• ‘They only have power because ordinary citizens allow it to happen through their apathy. ’
• ‘The only reason for a supercity is for more power – Prendergast and Wilde need to look after their own city and leave the running of the other cities to their elected mayors who actually care for their cities. ’
• ‘Supercity is an option that politicians seem hell bent to foist on us, regardless of ratepayer opinion or concern. The reports coming out of Auckland via the Herald indicate that the bureaucrats have got hold of the process and community consultation and input are out the window! There are certainly no savings. Sensible options such as better regional cooperation and sharing of resources need to happen and wcc needs to look at its own bloated staffing to make savings, as continual rate increases above the rate of inflation are unjustified and unnecessary! Amalgamation should be discussed sensibly and the public should be brought along with the process. ’

You can view the remaining comments and submit your own here.

This newsitem has 7 comments.

• ‘The ideal would of course to have a single Mayor for the entire Wellington region with each “ward” electing its own “Community Council” (CC) with a paid and elected local Chairman who would take (CC) decisions to a “Central Community Forum” chaired by the Mayor. The forum would then instruct the various CEO’s to implement projects from a centrally monitored budget, funds obtained from Rates and supplemented by Central Government. Projects would be administered and monitored by the Community Forum in collaboration with Council Officers. The Mayor would have a figurehead role promoting the goals of the various “CCs” only. Members of Community Councils would be unpaid as would the Mayor. CEO’s and other Council Officers would continue being paid! Community Council elections should be managed and monitored by the Regional “Electoral College” bulk funded by Central Government to ensure that no candidates are disadvantaged financially. All advertising would be funded by the same body. This form of “subsidiarity” would therefore achieve a centrality of both Opex and Capex funding with all projects being matched to the wishes of local representatives and then prioritised by the Community Forum. Of course the Local Government Act would need to be amended to allow this change. This “solution” will encourage like minded groups to form to reflect their “communities of interest”, and then, who knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we elected our representatives in the same proportion as they do in France we would have 1 Government, 7 Departments [? Regional Governments? or Community Fora] and 2627 Communes [or Community Councils]…meeting regularly and providing advice to their elected reps. We would need fewer MP’s too. But the downside could be even greater power to non-elected officials unless they were obliged by legislation to not only heed but to act on the decisions of the Community Councils!!! Rosamund ’
• ‘To those concerned with the plans for a Super Council, I would suggest they read Scoop “Regional” 11th April North Shore Press Release l under the heading Rodney Hide misled the PM and Aucklanders. The apparent lack of consultation should be of concern to all thinking New Zealanders…..so much for democracy. ’
• ‘They say that one of the reasons for a super Council is cost efficiencies. With the current regimes of Wellington Councils it can take ages to get an answer out of Council on just about any matter. Will less Council staff covering a greater area improve that. I think not. Over the super council area there will continue to be the same number of developments, projects, proposal, events, facilities to be approved, authorised, promoted, organised etc. Will this be done with fewer people. I recall one of the reasons for the 1987 local government reorganisation was the same very – greater efficiency, more effective local government, rate savings, greater democracy etc etc etc. Did they eventuate – I don’t think so. ’

You can view the remaining comments and submit your own here.