A discordant note

Sometimes it'd be possible to write posts to LawsWatch months in advance, it's all so predictable round the Council table. Of course that's what happens when a tyrannical Mayor is mindlessly supported by those either too stupid (yes, we mean you, Nicki, Muzza and Dotty) or to too craven (yes, you Sue Pepperrel, Phillippa et al) to do anything other than precisely what he tells them to do.

Whilst there were a few minor uncertainties in last night's vote - chief amongst them being would Rangi Wills' testicles being found in time for the meeting or would all his contributions be rendered in a wavering falsetto - the eventual outcome was as predictable as it will be damaging to democracy. And no, Rangi, you didn't redeem yourself by voting against the measure when you knew Mickey had the numbers to defeat it, when you could have voted a week or so ago to have the matter put to Council where it would have been overturned.

Points, though, to Randhir Dhaya and Don McGregor who, despite a less-than-stellar performance on other issues, at least remained consistent in their outspoken public opposition to this measure. And even if they and the other non-diVision councillors were, as Laws was so quick to accuse them, interested primarily in self preservation it doesn't make them any less right - just right for the wrong reasons.

In fact, Don McGregor gets an extra point for making the very salient point that referenda are a "valuable tool" but no substitute for democracy. As opposed to the worthless tool sitting... oh, but let's not descend to the level of some commenters. Not a good look, is it Bob?

Before we look at the result, and reaction to it, let's take a step back to pre-election days and remind ourselves of diVision's much-heralded (at the time) "Democracy Policy".

We're still waiting, by the way, for item 2.1 ("establish a mayoral office on Mainstreet"), 2.2 ("ensure that the mayor and councillors are available at that office and at allotted times to meet with residents and address any specific concerns"), 2.4 ("institute quarterly suburban meetings to ensure that the Mayor and councillors go to their constituents rather than vice-versa" - yes, the Mayor has fronted public meetings but when was the last time someone like, say Nicki Higgie, paraded her blind ignorance in front of an open meeting of ratepayers?), 4.1 ("create a "Residents' Rights Charter" that explicitly defines the service standards a ratepayer and/or resident may expect from the Wanganui District Council"), 4.3 ("initiate a Wanganui-wide discount/loyalty card for all ratepayers")...

Oh heck, let's just say we're waiting for everything they promised aside from referenda, which can of course be easily manipulated by controlling the flow of information given to voters prior to the event, then waved about as a "mandate" for doing whatever you want. And if anyone knows about controlling - or simply inventing - information given to electors, it's one Michael Brian Antoinette Beck Laws.

So let's zero in on item 3.5: "Immediately request a Local Government Commission review of representation arrangements in Wanganui with the intention of reducing the number of elected councillors to eight instead of the current twelve (estimated saving $100,000 per annum)".

When the plan was to drop four councillors, the estimated savings, on diVision's own estimates, was $25,000 per councillor. When it became evident that even the placid burghers of Wangas wouldn't swallow a council that small - and, perhaps, when Laws realised he'd got more diVisionites on to Council than he was expecting and thus didn't need to slash numbers quite as much in order to maintain absolute control - the ideal number suddenly became 10.

Using diVision's own formula, that saves Wanganui $50,000 a year. We did a quick scan of the Council budget to see what that might buy ratepayers, and the first item we came across worth $50,000 was "a toilet to be built at the Orient Toilets to accommodate mobility scooters".

So... we lose a sixth of our democracy and gain the price of a dunny.

That's assuming, of course, that the measure actually does save $50,000. There's no reference to any supporting facts in diVision's pre-election propaganda, just as there was no reference to facts in their pre-referendum propaganda.

So, if smaller councils are such a spiffingly great idea, you'd think Local Government New Zealand would be championing the idea. Apparently not. Hot off the press is the latest issue of "Local Government" magazine (an independent publication not affiliated with LGNZ):

The push to reduce councillor numbers across the country will not mean savings for ratepayers and could have an adverse effect on local democracy according to Local Government NZ.

Between 50 and 60 local authorities are reviewing their representation in line with the Local Electoral Act, which stipulates that councils must review representation every six years.

Many of them are locked in debates over reducing councillor numbers and abolishing ward systems, moving towards electing councillors at large from the community. However, LGNZ's governance manager Mike Reid says it is not necessarily the way to go.

"As far as remuneration of councillors goes there are no savings whatsoever for ratepayers," he says.

"The same amount of money will remain in the remuneration pool, it will just be shared among fewer councillors."

Some councils have used the idea that reducing councillors would also reduce costs as a selling point for smaller councils, however others have pointed out that - unless the councillors decided to hand back their pay rises - there would be no cost savings.

LGNZ is also concerned that a reduction in councillor numbers might lead to an erosion of local democracy, with fewer councillors meaning that councils would be less representative of thecommunitiestes.

"There is an impression that the drive to reduce councillor numbers is being partly driven by councillors looking to increase their wage packets and by mayors and CEOs who feel that a smaller council is easier to control," he says.

Mr Reid believes that many councils are assuming the Local Government Commission, which will rule on any proposals put forward by councils, is in favour of smaller councils, but that is not necessarily the case.

"The Commission that did the 2004 review had a clear preference for smaller councils, whether they would admit that or not. We (LGNZ) complained bitterly about that and in the end the Government fired three of the commissioners. It is not Government policy to have smaller councils. The policy is for more diversity on councils."

Oh dear... unlike the ovine diVisionites, the Local Government Commission don't see their purpose in life as being to do Mickey's bidding. And unlike Nicki Higgie, who proved beyond a doubt that stupidity welded to zealotry is perhaps the greatest danger to democracy admittinging to having been "lobbied by many people" but "hearing nothing over the past week that had changed [her] mind", the Commission will actually consider submissions from Wanganui people concerned by the change.

Meanwhile, we challenge Cr Higgie to deliver some of the promised savings by doing as LGNZ suggested and commit to handing back her pay rise if elected to a slimmed-down Council. Well, Nicki?

But the award for most pathetic quote over the whole affair goes hands-down to Philippa Baker-Hogan, who pleaded that the diVisioners "weren't all the same" and asked people not to "judge a book by its cover". Before voting precisely the way Mickey told her to. Did someone suggest the Nuremburg defence, Phillipa, or did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Comments on this post are now closed.