Aucklanders revolt against Right’s Supercity

37 comments on “Aucklanders revolt against Right’s Supercity ”

• Comments are now closed

1. MikeG 1

   14 May 2010 at 9:59 am

   The Herald’s Editiorial was almost amusing in it’s backing of the “father figure for this city of cities” !!

   And it’s not fair – “He may be copping the backlash over the Government’s poor handling of the Super City reform, which is unfair as he has voiced concerns over several aspects of that process.”

   What’s that saying – if you lie with dogs you’ll get fleas. Banks has an extremely close associationf with National and ACT, so surprise surprise, Aucklanders associate Banks with the Super City reforms.
2. tc 2

   14 May 2010 at 10:14 am

   Banks represents the rights lack of care about who is the new supermayor as they’ve engineered supercity so it doesn’t matter who gets the fancy necklace.

   It’s a win either way as they’ve sold akl out, kept banksie alongside (as he’s such a loose unit if cut adrift) to front the ‘campaign’……the right wouldn’t be unhappy to finally nail banks into his political coffin when all’s said and done……RIP Banksie….not before time.
3. randal 3

   14 May 2010 at 10:21 am

   cut to the chase.
   who gets all the shares in the new business entities created to steal the citys assets?
   • Bright Red 3.1

     14 May 2010 at 10:30 am

     the council, to sell as they wish. The point is that commercialisation is always a step to privatisation.
4. Armchair Critic 4

   14 May 2010 at 10:37 am

   The whole theme running through the editorial was “why doesn’t everyone love little Johnny?” It’s a shame the Herald can’t or won’t see that little Johnny is not much of a mayor of little old Auckland, and he would be even less of a mayor of the Auckland region.
   Meanwhile, it appears that the link being made between the government’s plans to privatise large chunks of Auckland’s and the government’s close links with little Johnny has worked. People have realised that if they vote for Banks, the city’s infrastructure will be sold off.
   It is a real shame Whangarei currently has an MP who is more competent than Banksie, otherwise National could do everyone a favour and pension him off up north in 2011.
   There is a real opportunity here for opposition parties to say “we will actual fix Auckland, rather than gerrymander it.” Probably as part of rejigging local government throughout the country, rather than just Auckland (and Canterbury). Nothing concrete at present, just offering to actually do something sensible, preferably in accordance with what people want, and over a reasonable timeframe, (i.e. everything NAct didn’t do) would be good.
5. Sanctuary 5

   14 May 2010 at 10:45 am

   “…The Right has forced the Supercity on Aucklanders who don’t want it, don’t need it, and won’t benefit from it…”

   I would disagree with this.

   Most Aucklanders were in favour of major reform of local governance. And therin lies the special genius of Rodney Hide. This vain glorious clown managed to take something most Aucklanders were broadly in agreement with and by dint of his inept and arrogant imposition of a corporatist fascist governance model turned the vast majority of Aucklanders against him. And worse for Nactional, the more Aucklanders hear about the SuperCity the less they like it. And they going to hear a lot more about it indeed.

   Of course, the good news is that not only is this a catastrophe for ACT – Hide is their one trick pony and he is now regarded as a cronyist lying buffoon by everyone except a vanishingly small band of loons – but also there is a major political disaster looming for National as well if Labour can turn the next general election in Auckland into a referendum on Rodney Hide.

   Every rate rise, every inflexible and heartless traffic warden, every burst water main at rush hour can and will be used as a stick to beat Hide and National with in Auckland. Labour’s message in Auckland should be party vote National equals a vote for Rodney Hide’s corruption.
6. Undecided 6

   14 May 2010 at 11:11 am

   Im now decided decided Banks is a Fraudster given his polling methods. How can NZ’s most important job be entrusted to this man. DigiPoll (the first idependant poll) reflects the collective intelligence of the public showing Banks for what he real is, a washed up has been.
   • prism 6.1

     14 May 2010 at 12:28 pm

     If the public is so wise why did Auckland vote in Banks as Mayor at all? The man wasn’t new goods like Key. Everyone knew he was a strutting actor like Key – his heartfelt comments about his favourite projects like not cutting bar hours etc showed him as the phony he is.

     He has been able to talk his way up despite his faults. Public speaking is a real art, and apparently in research it has been ticked as being more feared than death. ‘Sort of I’d rather be dead than heard’. Giving our preferred politicians a lot of practice might be a useful boost to an rise to high places equalling John Banks’.
     • prism 6.1.1

       14 May 2010 at 12:32 pm

       Want to edit my comment. I’m still in time,. Noone else seems to have submitted. Tried twice ?
       • lprent 6.1.1.1

         14 May 2010 at 1:01 pm

         Get that occasionally. Give me your OS and Browser versions and I’ll see if I can reproduce. Ajax isn’t exactly stable…

         Is anyone else getting issues with the re-edit? (answer in OpenMike please)..
     • lprent 6.1.2

       14 May 2010 at 1:02 pm

       No-one of any real capability wanted the job? He got voted in on name recognition? The voter turnout dropped?
7. B 7

   14 May 2010 at 11:55 am

   The herald called Brown’s popularity an “anyone-but-Auckland-City mentality ”

   I think its an “anyone but Banks” mentality. Banks has been the only mayor who has not firmly opposed much of the supercity reform – that’s why he’s unpopular. The other factor is that if you’re going to make the disparate factions of Auckland one city then the left will probably come out on top. The big cities of Waitakere and Manakau have left leaning councils and have usually voted left at general elections. Bring on the vote!
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   14 May 2010 at 12:01 pm

   The Herald Editorial misses one point that counts against Banks – he’s National to the bone and the people of Auckland don’t like National after they stole our democracy from us.
9. Adrian 9

   14 May 2010 at 12:23 pm

   Encourage Winston to run in Epsom and Phil Twyford could win it. Hide is dogtucker even there.
10. The Hun 10

    14 May 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Didn’t Labour institute the royal commission report on Auckland reform that all but made it a foregone conclusion that a supercity must be formed?

    And before you start crowing that the ‘right’ setup the transition authority and shaped the makeup of the bureaucracy, shouldnt we wait to see how the thing works before we deride it?

    Fuck who am i kidding, you people (yeah im as good at generalising as you are) disagree with anything that your ideology didn’t come up with.
    • mickysavage 10.1

      14 May 2010 at 1:19 pm

      It did but there were a few major differences:

      1. The Commission was headed by a highly respected former Judge.
      2. Its proposal was totally different to the mess that we have now.
      3. In particular it thought that the local representation (board level) needed to be strengthened and also that it would let Auckland decide on what CCOs there would be and what they did.
      4. The 18 months of painstaking work performed was dumped within a couple of weeks of the release of the Commission’s decision.
11. Gooner 11

    14 May 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Opposing the Super City is easy, just like opposing anything is. But opposing it when it is a fait accompli seems odd.

    I oppose certain aspects of it; you can’t please all of the people all of the time. But I support the concept. The election should be focused on candidates who want to make it work, rather than complain incessantly about how “bad” it all is. Otherwise, Aucklanders will elect councillors who are not willing to be constructive and that’s bad for everyone inthe country, like it or not.
    • B 11.1

      14 May 2010 at 12:48 pm

      you’re right its HOW its being implemented thats the problem. And its not complaining to speak out about the undemocratic way its being structured as Brown has done, he’s simply representing the majority view of Aucklanders which is what we want.
    • Roger 11.2

      14 May 2010 at 12:55 pm

      Candidates who will make things work? You have Council Controlled Organisations that Council will have no control over. Local boards that cannot actually do anything without having to ask first. Boundaries that are too controversial to be forced on people. We may as well elect a bunch of pot plants considering the level of control our new council will have over local affairs.
12. Gooner 12

    14 May 2010 at 1:15 pm

    The speed or the structure or both?

    If it’s speed, I don’t think there was any other choice.

    The government made the decisions pretty quickly into its term and went about putting it in place. The other options were to make it over 5 years which meant it would be in place at the 2013 local body elections, or delay this year’s elections by a year to allow more time. I don’t think the first option was a goer; Auckland has waited too long. The second one would mean local body and general election in the same year which the public would not like.

    The “undemocratic’ way in which it is being implemented is a nice catch-cry but is not borne out by the facts. There is no legal duty to hold a referendum, despite what some opponents say. Thousands of groups, individuals, ratepayers etc were consulted during the referendum. The first bill set up the ATA so it going through under urgency is not a great drama. Sure, there are aspects of the third bill that some might find upsetting but thee is nothing undemocratic about parliament passing laws simply because the Left, in general, disagree with them. I am concerned about some of the CCOs being a little too far removed from accountability, but that can be changed by the council when it is elected.

    Overall, the poll this morning said 42% or so want this to improve management of the city; merging 8 councils into one involving $24 billion dollars was never going to be easy, but I’m glad action is finally being taken. Consultation is great, but sometimes we have a paralysis by analysis in this country.
    • lprent 12.1

      14 May 2010 at 7:44 pm

      Consultation was done. There would have been pretty widespread support for what the Royal Commission came up with.

      However there is virtually no support for the incredibly ignorant and stupid plan that the ACToids and Rodney Hide foisted on us. Act is about to become history at the end of next year because of it. His plan for making sure that the rates abd charges on Aucklanders become profit centres for largely unaccountable monopolies and a self-perpetuating business clique in council probably won’t be too far behind.

      You’re a fool if you think that anything different will happen
13. gingercrush 13

    14 May 2010 at 1:18 pm

    I think the left risks being far too arrogant. Yes its likely the left will have more seats on the council than the right and yes its true the mayor is likely to be left. But we’re talking Local Government here and turn-out can be impressively low. Turn-out will be higher than previous council elections but lets not delude ourselves that it’ll be much better. Who is likely to turn-out more? Why Auckland City, North Shore and urban-rural areas while South Auckland and West Auckland turn-out less. That could be particularly problematic in regards to the mayoralty race.

    What I’m saying is if the left actually wants to run council then don’t go celebrating what the polls say and concentrate on getting your people to vote. Because its turn-out and who actually votes that will determine what happens in Auckland.
    • george 13.1

      14 May 2010 at 1:30 pm

      Is this what a “concern troll” looks like?
14. Gooner 14

    14 May 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Mickey, the royal commission practically lay the fault of Auckland with community boards – it recommended they be abolished. That would have removed local democracy. The government has done the right thing and re-installed them and got rid of the (mostly) useless councils.

    Clark & Cullen made a few tough decisions but in local government they made none. The Shand report was ignored, and the McLeod report on tax was used as toilet paper. At least this RC was put into action.
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 14.1

      14 May 2010 at 1:56 pm

      (mostly) useless councils- what do you mean by that? They certainly struggled to start with after the last lot of mergers, but satisfaction surveys have been increasing since.

      Don’t know much about developments elsewhere- But since its inception Waitakere Council has given us the Henderson Film Studios (a major new employer), Trusts Stadium, a new athletics stadium, a new indoor netball centre at Te Pai Park, numerous NEW libraries, new train stations at New Lynn, Glen Eden and Henderson and are facilitating a major new town centre at Wetsgate. Not bad for a (mostly) useless council. I’m sure the Manakau people can point to similar developments. Oh and they also got the Waitakere Ranges Protection Bill passed (despite the opposition of Paula Bennett).
15. wtl 15

    14 May 2010 at 1:47 pm

    BS, the Royal Commission understood the need to balance local needs vs. those of a centralised body, and recommended ways in which this could be done (shared governance). If you haven’t read the report, at least take a look at Rod Oram’s brief low down on it:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/2327720/Rod-Oram-Welcome-to-grater-Auckland
16. Gooner 16

    14 May 2010 at 2:06 pm

    You forgot Bob Harvey’s gold-plated $200 million dollar new council building.
    • Armchair Critic 16.1

      14 May 2010 at 2:13 pm

      And you forgot Aaron Bhatnagar’s clean-up of John Key’s local beach (hint – it’s miles from Helensville). Which was done in spite of much more pressing priorities.
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 16.2

      14 May 2010 at 2:28 pm

      $40 mill (only out by a factor 5- pretty close). Which co-incidentally is the same cost as the new Supercity IT upgrade.
      If you are worried about overblown office budgets- how much do you think the new SuperCity centre in the CBD is going to set us back? Or do you envisage Banksie squeezing his new empire into his existing office?
17. Gooner 17

    14 May 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Nice to see you expect Banksie to be mayor 🙂
18. tc 18

    14 May 2010 at 4:00 pm

    As long as the likes of self serving wankers like Banksie and that tosser Aaron Bhatnagar are seen off I really don’t care who gets a shot at riding Rodneys Tiger.

    It may get better but with plonkers like these 2 and others being kept on it’ll only get worse…..ask surfers at Parkari/Te Ari point how they like their break ruined to keep re-sanding those elite suburban foreshore beaches so that mother nature can claim it back……a waste of money as well as a decent surf break happily endorsed by the mayor for remurera and his backers…..snort snort.
19. RT 19

    14 May 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Banks along with Citizens & Ratepayers need to be run out of town. If these pricks get back in they will continue to short change anyone outside their agenda. John Banks is much like John Key, loves to hog the limelight. You only see Banks and his C&R lackeys in the Auckland council paper, no room for any of the other Auckland councilors. Don’t get too engrossed with Banks, he can do didly without his C&R support team. Len Brown would be useless should C&R get a majority on the council, which means everyone else will get locked out from any decision making.
20. ak 20

    14 May 2010 at 10:50 pm

    Great opportunity for the Left here . Wanna make a difference? – then join up, burn some shoe leather, leaflet every box, write letters-to-ed and generally rip into it. This is another PCU (Polling-Cock-Up) by NACT, right on top of Mining the Bush (MB) (ok, sorry, that’s it with the capitals…)

    The Left’ll never beat the privately-owned press for influence, but Sandra Lee’s loverley Local Gov Act 2002 has drawn in myriads of our communities’ shapers and shakers – many if not most tories – and they like it. Really. At first they just liked the status (tories, after all), but an insidious osmosis has miraculously occurred: on being <em>compelled</em> to consult and interract with the <em>hoi polloi</em>, many of our former Colonel Blimps and used car salesmen have found Jesus – ok too far – but at least a wee tiny glimpse of the joy that ensues from engaging with and empowering the sterling citizens that comprise our communities’ grass roots. And they won’t want to lose that new-found empathy and purpose; they’ve seen the fruits, enjoyed the rush, and will now be willing to Fight for Democracy (sorry) alongside us.

    Auckland’s where the Kkey lies: and 2010 sweeps us in to 2011.

    As the only NZ politician with a platinum record for consistency, Jim’ll cream ChCh.

    Come in, Ak and Wgtn.
21. jcuknz 21

    15 May 2010 at 9:43 am

    It is obvious that Jafas are just plain dumb .. at least those protesting about Supercity … since as the area is it is plain silly not to be a single entity. Then when it happens Auckland will be a bigger city than Dunedin instead of a collection of warring communities
22. Carol 22

    15 May 2010 at 5:35 pm

    jcuknz, the complaints are not about having a supercity, they are about it being done without consultation, and so that it will have a limited amount of democracy once its done – as you can see from the questions on the referendum linked in the initial article for thsi thread.

    I managed to fill out the online referendum today, even though the end date is given as yesterday. I hope it still will be counted.
    • Marty G 22.1

      15 May 2010 at 5:52 pm

      well, I think the complaints are two-fold: Aucklanders wanted an actual say in whether they would have a supercity, and they wanted a say in how any supercity would function
    • lprent 22.2

      15 May 2010 at 7:43 pm

      An interesting question that I’m trying to find out as well. I’m pulling the database, cleaning out, and checking the table now.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS