Ashburton Council Pushes For Four-Year Terms
Article – Jonathan Leask – Local Democracy Reporter
The Ashburton District Council supports a shift to four-year terms – if it is for both local and central government.
One Ashburton councillor believes a shift to four-year terms would 'work better for the ratepayer'.
The Ashburton District Council supports a shift to four-year terms if it is for both local and central government.
The only issue is that draft legislation enabling a four-year term is for Parliament only – not councils.
If passed, it would extend the maximum term of Parliament from three to four years if certain conditions are met.
Ashburton Mayor Neil Brown said that if one changes, they both need to change.
That was the tone of the council's submission, emphasising the importance of the parliamentary term being a fixed four-year period that is matched by local government.
First-term councillor Richard Wilson said he learnt it takes 'six months to get council started' after an election and now supports a move to a four-year term.
'You actually lose a lot of time getting ready and slowing down [for elections].
'If we get another year in the middle, that would make council business a bit more streamlined and work better for the ratepayer.'
Council chief executive Hamish Riach said that if central government moved to four-year terms and local government remained at three, the elections would occur at the same time every 12 years.
He said the local election would be 'swamped by the coverage of the national elections'.
'We don't think that is good for local democracy'.
If both central and local government moved to four-year terms, there would be separate elections two years apart.
The councillors approved the submission on April 16, a day before submissions on the draft legislation closed.
Ashburton's stance is in line with what Local Government NZ (LGNZ) has been advocating for.
LGNZ president Sam Broughton believed there was a strong case for alignment of council and parliamentary terms.
'A four-year term will support the country to be more efficient with infrastructure planning and delivery, basically doubling the number of effective governance years between elections.'
There is also support outside of local governance with Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett backing a four-year parliamentary term, 'but it must be accompanied by the same shift for local government'.
'This is critical if we want alignment between the two tiers of government, and for them to operate and collaborate effectively.'
Leggett said the draft four-year term bill overcomplicates the debate by introducing conditions that allow governments to choose between three- and four-year terms depending on how select committee membership is allocated.
'What's needed is clarity.
'We should ask New Zealanders one simple question at the referendum – do they support moving both central and local government to four-year terms?
'That approach gives each level of government the focus it needs, reduces administrative strain, and ensures important local issues are not drowned out by national campaigns.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Manawatū Tararua Highway Should Open As A Toll Road
Press Release – Infrastructure New Zealand New infrastructure such as the Manawat Tararua Highway comes with significant ongoing costs. Choosing not to use tolling doesnt make those costs disappear, it simply shifts the burden onto all New Zealand road users, including those who … The opening of Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway is a significant milestone for the lower North Island, with safety and travel times both set to improve. However, the decision not to toll the route is disappointing, says Infrastructure New Zealand. 'Not tolling the Manawatū Tararua Highway is a missed opportunity to help fund the ongoing maintenance and future resilience of this critical transport route through a 'user pays' approach,' says Chief Executive Nick Leggett. 'Tolling a new highway isn't about penalising the users of that road or the communities in the area. It's about being honest about the ongoing costs required to ensure the responsible management of the asset and ensuring that those who benefit from the road are making a direct contribution to its delivery and maintenance.' 'New Zealand's problem is that nobody thinks about maintaining a new road when it's nice and new, other than those who are responsible for building it. Those people don't control the money, though.' 'New infrastructure such as the Manawatū Tararua Highway comes with significant ongoing costs. Choosing not to use tolling doesn't make those costs disappear, it simply shifts the burden onto all New Zealand road users, including those who will never use the road,' Leggett says. 'If we want high-quality, modern infrastructure that is well maintained and resilient, we need to be smarter in how we manage and fund it. Having an annual amount of money generated from the road, means that New Zealanders can transparently follow that the money goes back into maintaining the road which generates it.' 'Tolling is one of the few tools we have that can directly link use with funding. It also helps protect the sustainability of the National Land Transport Fund so further investments can be made in critical transport projects into the future.' 'We need to be more inventive with how we fund and maintain infrastructure. Nothing should get off the ground without pricing road usage properly,' Leggett says. 'If New Zealand wants better infrastructure, it's going to need to do things differently at every stage of design, build and operations. That includes funding through tolls.'
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Manawatū Tararua Highway Should Open As A Toll Road
The opening of Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway is a significant milestone for the lower North Island, with safety and travel times both set to improve. However, the decision not to toll the route is disappointing, says Infrastructure New Zealand. 'Not tolling the Manawatū Tararua Highway is a missed opportunity to help fund the ongoing maintenance and future resilience of this critical transport route through a 'user pays' approach,' says Chief Executive Nick Leggett. 'Tolling a new highway isn't about penalising the users of that road or the communities in the area. It's about being honest about the ongoing costs required to ensure the responsible management of the asset and ensuring that those who benefit from the road are making a direct contribution to its delivery and maintenance.' 'New Zealand's problem is that nobody thinks about maintaining a new road when it's nice and new, other than those who are responsible for building it. Those people don't control the money, though.' 'New infrastructure such as the Manawatū Tararua Highway comes with significant ongoing costs. Choosing not to use tolling doesn't make those costs disappear, it simply shifts the burden onto all New Zealand road users, including those who will never use the road,' Leggett says. 'If we want high-quality, modern infrastructure that is well maintained and resilient, we need to be smarter in how we manage and fund it. Having an annual amount of money generated from the road, means that New Zealanders can transparently follow that the money goes back into maintaining the road which generates it.' 'Tolling is one of the few tools we have that can directly link use with funding. It also helps protect the sustainability of the National Land Transport Fund so further investments can be made in critical transport projects into the future.' 'We need to be more inventive with how we fund and maintain infrastructure. Nothing should get off the ground without pricing road usage properly,' Leggett says. 'If New Zealand wants better infrastructure, it's going to need to do things differently at every stage of design, build and operations. That includes funding through tolls.'
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scraping the bottom of the barrel
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they often do. That is precisely what we have seen politically this week when it comes to the behaviour of our politicians. As if Leader of the House Chris Bishop's ill-conceived and poorly controlled ramblings at the Aotearoa Music Awards about a Stan Walker performance featuring Toitū Te Tiriti banners and people waving tino rangatiratanga flags weren't enough, the country had to endure even ghastlier behaviour in Parliament on Thursday. The debate about whether to endorse the recommendation to suspend three Te Pāti Māori MPs really showed New Zealanders the worst of Parliament. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi have now been barred from the House for seven days, 21 days and 21 days respectively for performing a haka in Parliament during debate last November about the waste of time, energy and money that was the Act party's contentious Treaty Principles Bill. Their intimidatory behaviour towards Act MPs then was at the core of the complaints considered by the Privileges Committee. Despite efforts by Opposition parties to reduce the length of the recommended suspensions, the government on Thursday ratified the committee's recommendations for punishments which, in the case of Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi, are the most severe ever handed down to MPs. While there can be little doubt that the behaviour of the three MPs last November was threatening and failed to meet the standards of Parliament, the severity seems unnecessarily vindictive. Interestingly, an RNZ poll of just over 1000 people, with a margin of error of 3.1 %, now shows that most respondents – 37% – think the punishment is 'about right" while 36.2% consider it too harsh. It is 'too lenient" in the minds of 17.2% of those surveyed. Of Labour Party supporters, 8% believe it should have been tougher, as do 3.8% of Green Party followers and, surprisingly, 9% of Te Pāti Māori supporters. The poll shows 54.2% of respondents either support the penalties or think they were too weak, a reflection of the government's view. While the impromptu haka by the three was seen by some as unacceptable and a breach of parliamentary protocol, it was Ms Ngarewa-Packer's foolish mimicry of shooting Act MPs which was the worst and most intimidatory action that day. The second she put her two fingers together, made the pretend gun and pointed it at Act leader David Seymour and colleagues marked the start of this whole sorry saga – though of course it can also be argued the real start came with the introduction of Mr Seymour's divisive Bill, allowed to happen by a prime minister too focused on stitching up a coalition deal with him at the top. The inciting incidents, the response and the reactions this week leave a stain on the reputation of Parliament. Some of the grandiloquence in the House on Thursday was vituperative and unwarranted. NZ First leader Winston Peters went way too far when he likened Mr Waititi's moko to scribbles, though he did apologise after the Speaker's intervention. Mr Waititi also stepped over the line by bringing a noose into the House. It was a bit rich for Mr Peters to tell RNZ it was a sad day in Parliament when he played a significant role in making it that. Parliament is no place for shrinking violets. We have seen that time and time again. It has had more than its share of biffo and nastiness over the years, which never led to suspensions anywhere near the length of those rubberstamped this week. Let us hope we don't see the like of this miserable drama again. Saw that coming It was always going to be a case of 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us". The implosion in recent days of United States President Donald Trump's simpering friendship with Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has been both highly predictable and highly amusing. Mr Musk has become increasingly caustic and is now calling for Mr Trump to be impeached. In turn, the president wants all Mr Musk's government contracts to be cancelled. When two such massive egos meet, there can only be one winner. Who that will ultimately be remains to be seen. In the meantime, let's be honest, the feud provides some much-needed light relief.
