Member's Bill Would Reduce The Number Of Auckland Local Boards
A new Member's bill that would reduce the number of local boards in Auckland from 21 to 15 would make local Government in Auckland more efficient, says National MP for Upper Harbour, Cameron Brewer.
'Last year, Auckland Council established a Joint Governance Working Group to explore options to reorganise local boards to improve efficiencies and better align governance structures.
'The working party's 'Local Board Reorganisation Plan – Next Steps' report estimated that the potential efficiencies to be $6.9m per annum. Identified one-off costs associated with the reorganisation were estimated at $1.9m.
'In the end, despite significant potential savings for Auckland ratepayers, the proposal did not proceed to public consultation last year. Most councillors chose not to advance it, nor seek the support or views from Aucklanders.
'My Member's bill would effectively align the number of local boards with the number of council wards. This would mean 13 local boards aligned with the 13 existing council wards. However, as the working party also proposed, the provision for two additional boards – one for Waiheke Island and one for Great Barrier Island, given their distinct characteristics and needs.
'The bill would amend section the Local Government Act to set a statutory cap on Auckland local board numbers at 15. However, this does not necessarily mean fewer local board members – currently at 149.
'This bill aligns with National's aim to achieve greater efficiencies for taxpayers and ratepayers, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, while maintaining strong and effective local representation. It now just needs to get drawn from the ballot, so Aucklanders can have their say,' says Mr Brewer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
15 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
Opinion: The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints. In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy. First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate. At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express 'the will of the people.' Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations. Like the Treaty Principles Bill, this undermines the principles of proportionality and accountability to the electorate on which the MMP electoral system is based. That, in turn, corrodes trust in democratic arrangements in New Zealand. Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested. These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment. Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them. Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic. It aims to establish a 'Regulatory Standards Board' selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act's libertarian ideas. This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed. Sixth, as the minister's own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary. Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any particular political party. Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act's professed intentions in relation to this bill. Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point. Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed. Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise. As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others. The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world. It is inimical to the very idea of democracy as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' in which governments are supposed to serve the interests of citizens, not of capital or corporations. As social cohesion is undermined by radical inequality and an over-emphasis on private property and individual rights, the danger is that it tips over into anarchy; and by removing limits on the right to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of others, into oligarchy. We are seeing something like this in the United States at present. Around the world, democracies that were once strong are collapsing. It is the responsibility of our Parliament to ensure that this does not happen here. Act's attempt to paint this bill as an innocuous attempt to promote good law-making in the interests of citizens is disingenuous, and should be recognised as such. Rather, this is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders, and democratic principles. It must not be allowed to pass.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: DCC, Ardern and tourism
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including open conversations about DCC funding, the carping about Jacinda Ardern's memoir, and visitor levies. Finance policy queried, the DCC offers answer At a recent council meeting a significant change to the Dunedin City Council revenue and financing policy was pushed through the meeting, without public consultation and with little debate. While it may have sounded like a technical adjustment, the implications are anything but minor and should be of public concern. The change specifically allows more spending to be funded through debt, as in borrowing even more money. Debt can now be used to cover costs that many ratepayers would (rightly) expect to be paid from the annual (operational) budget, day-to-day costs dressed up as long-term investment, funded by loans and added to the debt. Here is one problem I see with this, under the Local Government Act, changes to this policy that are considered significant (especially those with wide financial impact), and must go through public consultation. It's not just best practice, it is the law. I have re-read the draft nine-year plan consultation document and there was no mention of this change. There was no staff report on the agenda, that I can find, that refers to this change. This change seems to have just materialised on the day. The change affects the financial future of Dunedin. Whether you agree with the change or not we (the ratepayers) should have had a voice. Who is calling the shots here? Now more than ever, we need open conversations about how DCC is funded, what is actually being built and spent and who is the beneficiary. We cannot afford to have major financial moves pushed through without reports, rigorous debate or consultation. Future Dunedin councillor candidate [Sandy Graham, DCC chief executive replies: "I would not normally comment on a potential candidate's public claims, but it appears Ms Twemlow has misunderstood the situation and I think public clarification is necessary. The Dunedin City Council has an existing revenue and financing policy, which has been in place for some years. This policy already allows for debt to be used to fund operational expenditure, including grants (you can find reference to it on page 221 of our last 10-year plan 2021-24). The changes introduced by council during deliberations on the nine-year plan simply clarify the parameters under which debt can be used in this way. This responds directly to requests from the community for additional financial support for the performing arts sector, and council's request for staff to consider the best ways of delivering this support. It is not a significant change and does not require further consultation. Ms Twemlow is welcome to contact our finance team for further clarification should it be required.] Well done Hats off to Duncan Connors for his fine and thoughtful article (Opinion ODT 10.6.25) on an assessment of the South Island in relation to the North Island. I often think that we in the South are the poor cousins compared with the north when their needs appear to be listened to and dealt with much more quickly than we "down under". Is the temptation by politicians to think that because voting power is predominantly in the north, they are given preference while we southerners have to go on bended knees? Dunedin hospital is a prime example. Politicians need to realise that they are voted in to serve the common good and care for all the people. Santana Minerals plan The piece by Jonathan West (Opinion ODT 9.6.25) brilliantly and clearly explained the effects of the proposed Bendigo to Ophir mine and what this will mean in the very heart of Central Otago. Short-term gain for long-term pain. Ignore the carping, memoir is a terrific read Take no notice of the sniping directed at Jacinda Ardern's autobiography by a little posse of New Zealand journalists. Political prejudice taints their judgement. This is a wonderful book, a completely different kind of political memoir. Deeply personal, rich in anecdote, revealing, often very funny, it enchanted me as it has enchanted readers across the world. It is a love story, to husband, daughter, mother, father. A thoroughly female account of power and the political life. (What other memoir of a public figure begins in a bathroom where the protagonist sits waiting for the red lines on a pregnancy test to appear?) It is a devastating record of terrible historical events and the tumultuous business of being in charge, making decisions day by day, hour by hour. It is compelling and beautifully, fluently written. Ignore the carping chorus. Read it. It is fantastic. Tourism levy should not be for other things So, the government chooses to use the funds from the international visitor levy to fund yet more visitors, in order to fund yet more levies. Funds which were originally devised to offset the environmental damage and infrastructure shortfalls from the tourism overload which has weighed on a number of high-profile visitor areas, especially central Otago. What a rort. Our Minister for the South Island says that "the levy fund allows ministers to invest the funding in a way which best suits the current economic conditions, which is growth". What an absolute perversion of what the fund was really intended to be used for. In Central Otago we are already nearly 50% ahead of pre-Covid visitor numbers: prior to Covid tourism overload was reaching a point where significant local resentment was emerging as a result of environmental and infrastructure incapacity beginning to seriously impact on local quality of life, not to mention visitor experience. Despite general consensus that we needed to use the Covid pause to engage in a reset and choose quality over quantity, virtually nothing has changed. The QLDC mayor calls out for yet more growth, whilst Queenstown becomes disabled by transport gridlock, ever worsening affordable housing shortage, dysfunctional and inadequate sewerage provision, and environmental degradation in our rivers and the big lakes. The other main thing that this never-ending growth has produced in the region is a serious reduction in quality of life for the residents. No wonder the QLDC has ended up with a resident approval rating somewhere between 4% and 17% depending on which survey you choose to accept. Yes, we need central government funds to cope with overtourism, but even if we do manage to get funding for such things it can only be effective if it is accompanied by a complete pause on growth so that we can get the shortfalls behind us. [Abridged — length. Editor.] Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Luxon secures Xi Jinping meeting in China
As he faces criticism at home for weakening ties with Beijing, Prime Minister Chris Luxon has booked a meeting with China President Xi Jinping next week. The National Party leader has announced the longest international trip of his tenure, spending four days in China and five in Europe in a stretch also taking in the NATO Summit in the Netherlands. Since taking office in late 2023, Mr Luxon has also continued a shift in New Zealand's foreign outlook - begun by Jacinda Ardern's Labour government in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - to more closely align with Australia and the United States. This has not been uncontroversial. Last week, former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer headed an open letter arguing New Zealand was" risking its sovereignty" by strategic alignment and integration with Australia, and it should not antagonise Beijing, for fear of losing a critical trade relationship. "We do believe that a military relationship with the United States directed against China has many risks for New Zealand," the letter stated. "That is especially true in a situation where the United States itself has recently become more ambivalent about its defence relationships with traditional partners. "Your forthcoming visit to Beijing is a vital opportunity to make it clear at the highest level that New Zealand retains its bipartisan commitment to its strategic partnership with China in the interests of a peaceful and prosperous region and world." Foreign Minister Winston Peters has dismissed their arguments, saying the letter was written by "various former politicians/officials who appear to be suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome". In a statement announcing his travel, Mr Luxon said time spent in Shanghai and Beijing would be focused on bilateral trade, measured at $NZ37 billion last year, calling China "a vital part of our economic story". "New Zealand is a trusted supplier of safe, high-quality food and beverage products to Chinese consumers. It is an important market, and I look forward to doing what I can to support Kiwi businesses to thrive," Mr Luxon said. A key promise of the National-led coalition has been to double the value of Kiwi exports in the next decade. Coaxing Chinese students back to New Zealand's education system is also likely to be feature in government-to-government discussions, with enrolments running at just over half their pre-pandemic peak. Accompanying Mr Luxon will be a delegation of business leaders, and a group of Maori performers. National kapa haka champions Te Kapa Haka o Ngati Whakaue will travel on the NZDF plane to China, despite the government's troubled relationship with Maoridom. On the second leg of his trip, Mr Luxon will broaden his focus to include security, meeting with EU leaders in Brussels, and then NATO nations in The Hague. "Prosperity is only possible with security, and our discussions will focus on connections between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security environments," he said. Like Australia, New Zealand is invited to annual NATO gatherings as part of the "Indo-Pacific Four" grouping, which also includes Japan and South Korea.
