Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, April 21st, 2009 - 12 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, democracy under attack - Tags:

democracy-under-attack1John Key on criticism that the Government is arrogantly ramming through its Supercity plans without consulting Aucklanders:

“The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions that are made before or during the select committee process,” Mr Key said yesterday.*

If Key doesn’t want to look arrogant then he should stop with the fake consultation and hold a referendum so the people can have their say. What could he possibly be afraid of?

12 comments on “Arrogance”

  1. BLiP 1

    John Key says National’s not so arrogant that they won’t listen to the select committee submissions. In that case, why have the fuckers completely ignored the thousands of submissions to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance?

  2. What could he possibly be afraid of?

    If he has seen a summary of the long-term consequences of referenda from the last 100 years he would have plenty to be afraid of. Ratepayers seem to pick the worst option as often as they pick the best one.

    The worst referendum outcome was probably the ‘no’ vote to the Tramway Loan referendum in 1927, that led to Auckland becoming a car-centric city.

  3. What exactly was the commission for? They have adopted almost the entire recommendations put forward by the commission and added more local representation and not included race based seats. You are trying to make a massive issue out of nothing. The only people whining are soon to be unemployed mayors and you!
    A referendum might not get you what you want either. Many Auckland ratepayers are sick to death of petty rules and ever increasing rates bills.
    Whether amalgamation will deliver improvements or not it is going to be pretty hard for the incumbent trough feeders to argue against such claims.

    • lprent 3.1

      NACT didn’t retain most of the recommendations. They removed the mid-tier that did have some power, and pushed it down to a wider bottom tier of representation that is powerless. On the way through they destroyed any effective local representation. Essentially they changed the whole proposal structure.

      If you don’t understand why this is a change, then I’d suggest you actually do some more reading.

      In practice we’re finding in the Mt Albert campaign that the super-city is a very hot topic as people are becoming aware of the deficiencies of Rodneys useless proposal. Aucklanders like having effective local representation because it is a strongly local city.

      • jerry 3.1.1

        “Aucklanders like having effective local representation because it is a strongly local city.”

        Maybe … but it doesn’t happen, all we have had for many decades is a small turnout vote every few years followed by an inevitable rates increase with the occasional useful project amongst a whole heap of waste, the depressing thing is the supercity proposal will probably just be more of the same gahhhhhhhhhh sods the lot of them !

  4. Tigger 4

    If this is true why is Hide already at meetings on this issue making concrete plans? Not suggestions for plans – actual plans he expects to be carried out.

    Why is Hide saying ‘what I say goes’?

    Mr Key, do you care what your ACT government partner is doing?

  5. Rich 5

    They’re building a gerrymander.

    Based on General Election voting, the Auckland region went with the Labour government in ’05 and with NACT in ’08. ACT are a small minority (2.2% in ’05 and 5% in ’08).

    Now they’re trying to build a corrupt FPP system which will put ACT’s man in every time. It isn’t democracy, because ACT, deep down, believe that democracy is theft.

    Of course they won’t have a referendum.

  6. exbrethren 6

    I hope they continue on this track. They have tied themselves to a concept that will fail and fail massively. This will almost certainly lose them the next election.

    Go Rodney go.

  7. ripp0 7

    Wrote Barnsley bill — Auckland ratepayers are sick to death of petty rules and ever increasing rates bills.

    Clear inference is that fewer reps stay rates rises..

    From memory hasn’t the Christchurch City Council gone through this fewer reps loop. Did that result in a stay on rates increases(bills).. anyone..?

    Different cities, yes, yet some basis on intent or for for comparison could assist surely..

    • ripp0 7.1


      consequent following the next thread’s (Rob Thomas etc) link @ NZHerald I happened on two pertinent contributions per.. (my emphases)

      Penny Webster(Rodney Mayor) said ratepayers should not believe the Super City would save a lot of money. It would bring some efficiencies, but would not lead to lower rates.

      Auckland City Mayor John Banks … did not know how much the transition would cost Auckland City ratepayers but the council would probably borrow money to pay the bill.

      Doubtless the cost of money would future impact rates rise potentials in the latter case.

      Given costings by the Royal Commission which I understand panned several scenarios – though inescapable would be a likely up-costing on their figures due to tighter economic times and/or lender opportunity arising therefrom – and Minister Hide’s reported evasionary attitude on this important specific one would have to say how responsibility suggests the imposed time-frame constraints of being ready for the so-called super-city’s first election next October, be revised.

      And/or greater and extensive public consideration enter the debate..

      ps: In recent days the politician’s language has attempted reframe reality in terms of “majority” rule. Majority it should be said, attained nationally last November and which, even then, has a somewhat distinct economic climate operating. Changed, and significantly so, since. Likely further change coming..

      Notwithstanding external factors, rushed decisions are man-made, and local..
      Not begging the question so much as asking well, who would fall for it, and who will be the fall guy.?

      • Tigger 7.1.1

        Based on current strategies when this all turns pear shaped and costs us ratepayers a bunch of cash/doesn’t save any money NACT will blame (a) Labour and/or (b) the recession.

  8. Rich 8

    I guess some people seriously believe that democratic and administrative services are a significant component in council spending. They aren’t. Most of the money goes for front line workers and contractors doing roads, buildings, parks, garbage and that sort of thing. That won’t change with a new council, except by cutting those services.

    (However, an unleashed ACT council would be able to do stuff like selling Maungawhau to developers – I guess that will cut rates a bit).

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    1 week ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago