Rodney and John roger Rodney

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 am, August 26th, 2009 - 18 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, democracy under attack, national/act government - Tags:

democracy-under-attack

Maori seats? Who cares eh? If democratic process is ignored to override the Maori, who cares? But what if it’s some nice Pakeha?
 
The Government is going to slice Rodney council in two. The North half goes to Kaipara. The other half goes into the Supercity.
 
The people of Rodney overwhelmingly don’t want to be in the Supercity. They don’t want to be lumped in with the underfunded Kaipara Council, which doesn’t want them and can’t afford them. The people of Rodney certainly don’t want to be carved up and split between the two. They just want to be left alone. 

Hide says it will be up to the select committee to decide on the boundaries of the Supercity (just like it was up to the select committee to decide on the Maori seats, eh?). At the same time, Key says for “all intents and purposes” Cabinet has decided the boundaries of the Supercity, he won’t say what they are. His reaction to the fact that Rodney doesn’t want him screwing around with their local government? “We listened to the submissions. That does not mean we have to agree with them”. One’s lying, the other’s dissembling and keeping secrets.

The will of the people clearly doesn’t matter. Gotta love this transparent and open Tory government that listens to the people.

18 comments on “Rodney and John roger Rodney ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    26 August 2009 at 9:21 am

    Perhaps the people of Rodney should start a referendum going for the 2010 election. I realise that this pack of anti democratic power mad crazies will be ignoring any public input on the super shitty. However unless they revise the local goverment act, the locals can petition for a referendum to change boundaries

  2. dave 2
    26 August 2009 at 9:39 am

    One of the few posts on your site i agree with word for word. Well done

  3. Daveski 3
    26 August 2009 at 9:39 am

    The problem with the line that’s been developed here is that it’s all sizzle not sausage.

    I realise that this pack of anti democratic power mad crazies will be ignoring any public input on the super shitty.

    On that basis, I wait expectantly for the strident post at the Standard based on the latest referendum result.

    As for our naive and most confused Zet:

    The will of the people doesn’t matter

    Democracy is about the process of electing the people to make the decisions. Not all decisions will be popular – tax increases for one. The will of the people is tested every three years – that is democracy.

    The rest of your post is simply taking a position in opposition to National regardless of the issue – however, that is your democratic right.

    A final comment – be wary of what you demand. Would you really want the “will of the people” to drive decision making? Really?

    • Macro 3.1
      26 August 2009 at 11:35 am

      “The will of the people doesn’t matter”
      In total only 47.5% of voters chose to tick “No” – for whatever reason in the “violence against children” referendum. So what does that prove?
      So what is the will of the people?

      anti spam word “proves”

      • Daveski 3.1.1
        26 August 2009 at 11:40 am

        % are irrelevant as you know. But your comments “proves” my point that you can’t rely on polls or referenda to govern (and if Labour was in Govt, this blog would be arguing that the democratic election process has given the Government the mandate to make decisions).

        I find it amusing the many here attack Key for being populist but selectively attack Key for not abiding by the will of the people.

    • Quoth the Raven 3.2
      26 August 2009 at 3:27 pm

      Daveski – That is representative democracy. You are tyring to argue from one form of government to the meaning of democracy – that is simply wrong. Go read a fucking book.

  4. schrodigerscat 4
    26 August 2009 at 10:06 am

    Should Rodney be seperated (halved/quartered) as part of democratic local government reform?

  5. Tim Ellis 5
    26 August 2009 at 10:18 am

    My family has a place at the beach in teh Rodney district and I’m not a big fan of the Rodney Council. It’s fine for the citizens of Orewa who get a lot of services, but the rates bills further North have been going through the roof and don’t reflect the services they receive.

  6. Zaphod Beeblebrox 6
    26 August 2009 at 10:26 am

    Really don’t see whats so radical about separating the rural from the urban areas of Rodney. There is no reason for Warkworth, Wellsford, Matakana, Te Hana, Port Albert, even Helensville to be part of a large urban council- ask the locals and I’m sure thay would agree!
    Of course those living in Auckland with fantasies about having power over half the north coast of Northland may disagree but I would side with the locals on this one.
    The one strange decision is to lump them in with Kaipara. There is no need to do this- they don’t want each other and obviously will ahve no empathy with each other.

  7. mickysavage 7
    26 August 2009 at 11:24 am

    The problem is that from a planning perspective the new super city needs to control a rural buffer. If there is not one then the temptation of a council to develop just on the other side of the boundary near to the urban area is huge. Either the Council will want to do this itself or it will not have the resources to oppose individuals or corporates from doing so.

    If Auckland is to become sustainable and reach the densities where public transport really works it needs to stop growing now. Losing control over half of Rodney will make this much more difficult.

    It will be interesting to see where this push has come from and why the Government has caved in quicker than you can say “no maori representation” to proposals which must come from the pro development lobby.

  8. Pat 8
    26 August 2009 at 11:26 am

    Logically the “line” should be drawn through physical separation of the Dome Valley mountain range, and bring Warkworth and environs into Auckland, and Wellsford north into Kaipara. Sporting competitions have reflected this natural zoning for years – Warkworth and Helensville teams play in Auckland competitions and Wellsford play in Northland competitions (Wellsford are current Northland club rugby champions).

    Warkworth, Orewa, Whangaparaoa, Kumeu and Helensville are for all intents and purposes now outlying suburbs of Auckland, harbouring under the nutbars at Rodney District Council (see The Nautilus if you need further proof). The ARC looks after the regional parks in their environs – for example Tawharanui which is an hour north of Auckland.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 8.1
      26 August 2009 at 1:07 pm

      Warkworth, Matakana, Helensville, Snells Beach etc are small towns surrounded by large tracts of rural farmland and parks. Just because some of us like to drive there on weekends does not make them urban.
      Micky- how many 100’s of kms wide does your rural buffer need to be? What is it about Aucklanders that makes us like to tell everyone else how they should live? Isn’t it slightly paternalistic to lecture small rural townships about how we would like them to look when go there on holidays? Do you think they are incapable of standing up for themselves?

      • Armchair Critic 8.1.1
        26 August 2009 at 1:18 pm

        I think the same argument applies for some of the rural towns south of Auckland, too.

  9. randal 9
    26 August 2009 at 11:32 am

    if I heard right then john keys will not give maori representation on the akl super city because if he does then rodney will leave the the cabinet?
    I think that is what I heard but the gnats have taken to hiding all their konklaves and the rest of it is slowly going down in a made for teevee don martin cartoon.
    the sooner this government is given the boot the better and if they keep going like this then it wont be long.
    new zealand will be relieved.

  10. uroskin 10
    26 August 2009 at 1:10 pm

    I fail to see the case for separate Maori seats. Metiria Turei, Shane Jones, Georgina Te Heu Heu and Tau Henare, among others, don’t owe their MP seat to separate Maori seats but to MMP. (The Maori Party members entirely depend on FPP for their seats)
    If the voting system for the Auckland Council was proportionally based – ideally 50 seats so you would need 2% of the vote for your list – there would be plenty of Maori on the Council, representing several different parties and policy options, not just the race-based one, because it would behove tickets to have the broadest appeal.

    Furthermore I never understood why you can run, as a Maori, in a general seat, but you can’t as a pakeha in a Maori seat. If you want race-based seats, go the whole apartheid hog. It would strip out the hypocrisy of the current system, which we don’t need replicating in our city.

  11. Armchair Critic 11
    26 August 2009 at 3:16 pm

    I thought I heard Steven Joyce say, in answer to a question in parliament (broadcasting on AM frequencies is terrible, especially away from cities), that roads will now be run by a board, with two board members being councillors. The present situation has direct control by council for all local authorities. Another step towards asset privatisation. And, since it will be inconsistent with the way roads are owned and managed through the rest of the country, a pointer for the future of local government elsewhere and the management and ownership of their roads.