When is the required referendum?

19 comments on “When is the required referendum? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rex Widerstrom 1

   20 April 2009 at 3:29 pm

   Better to delay elections, if necessary, than deny voters a referendum. Hopefully a Question to the Minister as soon as Parliament resumes will clear this up.
2. randal 2

   20 April 2009 at 3:29 pm

   hey lp
   wodney always wants to ignore democratic process
   that would require listening to people and being civil
   the very thing he says he wants but the very thing he will not deal with
   Auckland deserves more than being railroaded by a gang of retailers and realtors
   the same sharks that held up reform when they could get more out of it but now it suits them to bulldoze the entire structure to achiever their venal ends
3. the sprout 3

   20 April 2009 at 3:37 pm

   Arrogant and out of touch already.

   What will they be like in a year’s time?
4. Tigger 4

   20 April 2009 at 3:45 pm

   Word is that Key has allowed Hide to run free on this issue – he’s said he just wants a result and doesn’t care how its done. So effectively this whole thing is one big ACT project. Not only does Rodney want to ignore due process, he’s throwing tantrums to push things through even faster.

   Hide doesn’t care about ‘Maori’ stuff either – he’s already been talking about any wards with Maori names in disparaging terms (literally ‘We don’t need that Maori sh*t’).

   Further word is that Rodney is already talking about selling council properties (the new Waitakere building was mentioned by name) and prepping council assets for sale post the next election.
5. Jasper 5

   20 April 2009 at 3:49 pm

   Ah, but if you read further, no poll is required if the matters pertain to one or more of Subclause 40.

   40 (2) b.,

   “whether or not good local government would be promoted by the inclusion of any part of the district or region in the district or region of another local authority (whether by the constitution of a new district or region or by the alteration of boundaries)”

   40 (2) c –
   whether or not the system of representation in the district or region best meets the “criteria in clause”

   and 40 (2) d-
   “Whether or not good local government of the district or region would be best promoted by
   (i) the system of communities (if any) and the responsibilities, duties, and powers of the community boards in the district or region; or
   (ii) an alternative system of communities; or
   (iii) a change in the responsibilities, duties, and powers of the community boards in the district or region”

   It looks like to me that there is no requirement for a poll.
   • lprent 5.1

     20 April 2009 at 4:10 pm

     Wrong, they cannot approve under that clause. That simply gives criteria that they have to consider for simple reorganization related to shifts in the electorate – ie for demographic change. The key word is ‘solely’ in clause 49.

     They will have to approve under clause 46(1).

     49 Polls must be held
     (1) If a draft reorganisation scheme has been approved under clause 46, a poll of electors on the proposal that the reorganisation scheme proceed must be held in each district or region that is directly affected by the scheme.
     (2) Despite subclause (1), no poll of electors must be held on a reorganisation scheme that deals solely with 1 or more of the matters listed in clause 40(2)(b), (c), or (d).

     Damn just noticed that I’d accidentally put clause 46 in the post when I meant clause 49… Fixed.
6. sean 6

   20 April 2009 at 4:05 pm

   and which of those sub-clauses is relevant to the supercity? None of them.

   When Banks Peninsula merged with Christchurch City we had a referendum first.
7. Rich 7

   20 April 2009 at 4:31 pm

   I thought that, but was assuming they simply plan to pass legislation that removes the need for a referendum.
   • Ari 7.1

     20 April 2009 at 4:45 pm

     In which case they’re leaving themselves wide-open for all sorts of attacks on how they’re repealing our democracy.
     • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.1

       20 April 2009 at 8:36 pm

       And in which case I would hope to see a revival of the Free Speech Coalition. Looks like it was mothballed a little too quickly…
8. Graeme 8

   20 April 2009 at 4:59 pm

   While the point about needing democratic buy-in is well-made, the obvious and simple response to the idea that this is legally required is that:

   1. Schedule 3 applies to re-organisation proposals proposed under section 24 of the Local Government Act 2002.

   2. This is not a re-organisation proposal under section 24 of the Local Government Act 2002.

   3. Therefore schedule 3 does not apply.
   • lprent 8.1

     20 April 2009 at 5:57 pm

     If this isn’t a re-organisation of the governing structure of Auckland – then what is it? In particular what act(s) are they going to hook this auckland legislation to?

     Or is this going to be a seperate act that obviates the Local Government Act? I think that we should raise a petition under the Local Government Act to change whatever Rodney brings in (assuming it as stupid as what he is currently proposing).

     I’m pretty sure that we can get a lot of support and easily 10% to get a reorganisation proposal under the Local Government Act.
     • Graeme 8.1.1

       21 April 2009 at 12:00 am

       This is going to be a separate law. It has to be.

       We’re to create an semi-executive Mayor, allow the mayor the appoint the deputy mayor and council chairs and propose the budget; create never-before seen local boards, etc. etc.

       It needs a new law if they’re going to do it.
9. Jasper 9

   20 April 2009 at 5:36 pm

   I stand corrected.
10. jarbury 10

    20 April 2009 at 6:42 pm

    This is an interesting issue that you’ve raised lprent. I have heard that the government wants to introduce an “Auckland Bill” – which I guess will try to bypass all these referendum issues. Perhaps the government is trying to push a dodgy “this is not amalgamation, but rather dis-establishment of all existing councils and re-establishment of one new council”.

    It is pretty dodgy though.
11. wren 11

    20 April 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Graeme, that’s only because the government is going to extraordinary steps to bypass the normal reorganisation process by putting up this Auckland Bill. Why can’t the Auckland Bill include a referendum like the normal process?
12. Macro 12

    20 April 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Dodgy it is! and that’s is just another example of the way this crowd work! Not one of them you could trust as far as you could throw them. The electors were warned before the election that it was a choice about who one could trust – many chose to ignore that warning and now the majority are paying for it. The people of Epsom have a lot to answer for!
    Despite Graeme’s legal exposition – it would still be worth a shot to challenge the proposed amalgamation in the Courts – and would HIGHLIGHT to the people of NZ just how dodgy and undemocratic this whole shoddy mess is.
13. Adrian 13

    21 April 2009 at 1:08 am

    There is no democracy at the local level. When only about 30% of people vote how can one even talk about democracy?

    Maybe with a single council there will be more voter turn out. That can only be a good thing for the left. Usually the higher the voter turn out the better the left does. I live on the North Shore and with a very low turnout we got stuck with Williams or whatever his name is. How many of us can name any councillors let alone our community board members, or health board, or the many other boards and councils that we vote for every 3 years – usually based on a paragraph of information in the booklet that comes with the ballot.

    As soon as the sick council is put to sleep the better.

Links to post

1. It’s called sovereignty, stupid! at The Standard: posted on 9 June 2009 at 6:01 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS