Discussion: Regarding Auckland
318 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Who decides the resource consents?
Current practice among many councils is:
Low level consents, not requiring hearing, will be decided by council officers, using specific delegated authority.
A mid-level application, with a hearing, may be determined by local councillors/community board members. They will get standard meeting allowances.
High level applications are often heard by panels that have a mix of councillors and commissioners. Commissioners are professional people, lawyers, planning consultants or former councillors, who have passed commissioner exams, and who get well paid for their work (at the applicant's expense).
The big advantage of commissioners is that they are seen as professional and impartial and may bring specialist skills to a hearings panel. However, no-one elected them and they do cost.
An applicant with a lot at stake will often chose a Commissioner hearing over a local councillors' hearing, despite having to pay for it. This is because they feel that decisions are not being made by people with political ambitions or a constituency to please.
My guess is that things will not change much in the new super city - except all those local board members will be hanging out for something meaningful to do.
-
I hereby accuse Kyle Matthews of stealing my thoughts.....
Snooze you lose baby.
Um I'm pretty sure that I've never seen a councilor in any of the planning departments that I've been into (which isn't that many to be fair) and I didn't think councilors bothered themselves with resource consents either.
I dunno about Auckland, but an Otago Regional Council resource consent hearing that I helped round up about 200 people to oppose (the University of Otago bridge to no where) was heard by three ORC councillors, including the chair.
If Maori want representation, they can stand alongside all the other candidates.
I suspect some would argue that if Maori want representation, they should get it in some form, as the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees them that.
-
It would take an absence of non-Maori (sic) under the current system to convince me that they need special treatment.
Sharples made the point that they had stood multiple Maori candidates in Waitakere - some with national status, with not result to date.
North Shore elected a Polynesian councillor for several terms. In Auckland about the last Maori councillor I can remember was Sandra Lee.
So yes, I guess that you can say that there is an absence of Maori on councils.
-
haha, and I'm so fastidious about using "Preview". Whoops. Yes, I meant "absence of Maori".
One could also argue that the Treaty doesn't apply to local government, and that the consultation requirements currently followed by councils ensures that Maori don't get ignored when decisions are made.
Roger, that's interesting. Certainly Auckland City is very gentrified, particularly when it comes to the parts that actually vote, so I'm not surprised in the least by suggestions that ACC is lacking ethnic diversity. I mean, this is the city that re-elected Banks.
-
I suspect some would argue that if Maori want representation, they should get it in some form, as the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees them that.
Another way to look at it is that if the Europeans want representation, they can go back to Europe.
-
Who decides the resource consents?
Bear in mind the RMA is being remixed as we speak.
-
One could also argue that the Treaty doesn't apply to local government
That must be why local government has been the largest taker of Maori land for public works then?
I will now remove tongue from cheek... but then again perhaps I shouldn't?
-
Another way to look at it is that if the Europeans want representation, they can go back to Europe
Brilliant!
-
2) I'm not sorry to see the Maori seats go. It's not "acceptable" to say so, I'm sure, but I'm not. If Maori want representation, they can stand alongside all the other candidates.
The thing is, Maori representation at local government levels has been historically very poor, and the proposed "at large" voting system will entrench this.
The fact is, Auckland is home to circa 25% of Maori, as well as the (IIRC) most disenfranchised iwi of all - Ngati Whatua. The proposed system - based on historical observation - will not deliver improved Maori representation.
Is it any coincidence that suburbs with high Maori populations (Glen Innes / Pt England / Otahuhu) have been received the worst levels of funding\investment by the Auckland City Council ? e.g. to where did the million-dollar beach upgrades go ?
The way forward is not to harken back to the 1950s, rather we should be integrating a bi-cultural model in our local government to make sure we get better decisions, ones that are cognisant of everyone's interests - including Maori.
What really annoyed me about Hide's feeble attempt to sell this flawed approach is that he labelled the seats "token", and in the next breath went on about establishing some kind of "consultatiion panel". FFS, "consultation" is even worse than tokenism !
-
Here's a question for those of you with more knowledge/time to check Wikipedia: are there any other cities *of a similar population size and geographic area* which we can compare this set-up to? Most of the comparisons I've seen have been to places like Sydney (5 million in the urban area) or London (11 million.) They don't quite work for me.
-
Another way to look at it is that if the Europeans want representation, they can go back to Europe.
Where, pray tell, in Europe? After six generations, New Zealand is no less my family's only home than it is the only home of any Maori person. I don't belong anywhere else.
-
And why my computer decided to repost that comment when I turned it on three hours later is truly a mystery for the ages. WTF.
-
Where, pray tell, in Europe? After six generations, New Zealand is no less my family's only home than it is the only home of any Maori person. I don't belong anywhere else.
Seconded. And this is why I hate the expression "New Zealand European"; I'm not a European, never have been, and never will be, unless I go through a very long immigration process, after which I expect people would grumble that I should go back where I came from.
-
Where, pray tell, in Europe? After six generations, New Zealand is no less my family's only home than it is the only home of any Maori person. I don't belong anywhere else.
I've been here to ten years and I don't want to go anywhere either, but I'd also like the country to recognise a bit more forcefully the privileged status of Maori and their unique relationship to the crown. In the very uncertain tansition to the super city there was an opportunity to enshrine Maori representation, which to my mind is intrinsically democratic (and has benefits that go far beyond the specific cultural-ethnic constituency). Scrapping the recommended quota is a step backward and casts doubts on the commitment to democracy of this new institution.
-
The way forward is not to harken back to the 1950s, rather we should be integrating a bi-cultural model in our local government to make sure we get better decisions, ones that are cognisant of everyone's interests - including Maori.
Not to be flippant, but what about Asian seats? Or Niuean? After all, more Nieuans live in Auckland than live on Niue. I know that Maori have a place in our history that pre-dates anyone else, but they're not the only disenfranchised ethnicity by any stretch. If we want to break the mould of "white" governance, Maori-only seats won't do it. What it will do is encourage resentment amongst the communities of unrepresented ethnicities that are large, and growing.
-
Not to be flippant, but what about Asian seats? Or Niuean? After all, more Nieuans live in Auckland than live on Niue. I know that Maori have a place in our history that pre-dates anyone else
Oh, look, you've answered your own question.
-
Here's a question for those of you with more knowledge/time to check Wikipedia: are there any other cities *of a similar population size and geographic area* which we can compare this set-up to? Most of the comparisons I've seen have been to places like Sydney (5 million in the urban area) or London (11 million.)
That's OK Lucy... it gives me a chance to comment! This argument, in complete dismissal of the facts really annoys me!
Largest 10 councils in Australasia in order
1st - Brisbane - 989,152
2nd - Gold Coast - 497,568
3rd - Auckland City - 430,500
4th - Christchurch City - 360,400
5th - Manukau City - 339,500
6th - Blacktown - 287,634
7th - Casey - 223,424
8th - North Shore City - 215,300
9th - Sutherland Shire - 214,030
10th - Greater Geelong - 207,515Sydney City Council - 152,000
Melbourne City Council - 67,000
Perth City Council - 13,500
Adelaide City Council - 15,300Auckland is too fragmented with 4 metro councils... Melbourne seems to do just fine with 29!
-
I don't think Dr Pita should have said "they've lumped us in with the Indians and other ethnicities." Talk about an own-goal.
I thought his comments that "Maori built this city" and that it was only developed by Euro colonialists on Maori's good faith and largesse were interesting, but probably drawing a rather long bow. Which Maoris? Does that mean the Maori seats should proportionally represent each tribe that held ground on the isthmus and surrounds?
In fact, search my soul - and history - as I might, I find it hard to identify solid arguments for prioritising any ethnicity at this level. Agree that any requirements for local authority to grant representation to Maori undet the treaty and merely at Maori behest, kinda dube.
If JT could accept a sunset clause, what's the dif?
But at the same time, the whole "councillor at large thing"? That's nuts. Presumably, you'd only set that up if you had mates with the clout, cash and profile to pull off the campaign. Ugh. I'm feeling nauseous.
-
And...
STATE - # of councils - Ave pop
Queensland - 158 - 32,016
New Zealand - 73 - 56,702
New South Wales - 150 - 45,342
Victoria - 79 - 64,446
Western Australia - 142 - 14,443
South Australia - 70 - 22,750
Northern Territory - 39 - 18,925
Tasmania - 29 - 16,860 -
And...
City Councils - People per councillor
Brisbane - 36,635
Gold Coast - 33,171
Old Auckland City - 21,525
Old North Shore City - 13,456
Wellington City - 12,560
Sydney - 16,880
Darwin - 5,487
Melbourne - 7,466
Hobart - 4,067
Adelaide - 1,700
Perth - 1,493
New Auckland Council - 117,600 -
Oh, look, you've answered your own question.
Exactly.
Interestingly, the Crown had no problem whatsoever assuming sovereignty despite the fact that they would have been lucky to make 2% of the population.
Asians, Niueans and everyone else are catered for via the Crown side of Te Tiriti. i.e. the Crown is their representative, but the Crown can not represent Maori - Maori need to do that themselves, hence the requirement for appropriate levels of representation in all levels of government.
If we want to break the mould of "white" governance, Maori-only seats won't do it.
It's certainly a good start, and means that Maori will not be competing with other ethnicities in order to gain representation.
What it will do is encourage resentment amongst the communities of unrepresented ethnicities that are large, and growing.
This is why it is crucial that when people make Aotearoa their home they are educated on bi-culturalism and the role of Te Tiriti in our society.
-
8 councillors at large:
The Maori
The Chinese
The Indian
The Pacifican
The 1-in-5
The European Other with eccentric but undeniably progressive views on housing, transport and employment
The Environmentalist with the annoying habit of holding everything up while we think about the future
and Blair Strang -
No, Giovanni, I haven't answered my own question. At some point, "history" stops being an adequate answer. 170 years is a long time. I want an answer that actually explains just why we should give Maori representation when we don't give representation to ethnic groups that will, in the very foreseeable future, outnumber Maori. It's bad enough that governance is so tightly held in the paws of, largely, white men (though I was impressed at the gender split of North Shore), without attempting to put into law a particular level of representation of a particular ethnicity.
-
without attempting to put into law a particular level of representation of a particular ethnicity
Matthew, this is not about ethnicity! It is about contractually guaranteed soverenty and guardianship of their lands and treasures. A Treaty cannot be disregarded or ignored simply because it is old.
If you want to sit down and re-negotiate the Treaty I doubt that you would get the deal now that we did then!
-
No, Giovanni, I haven't answered my own question. At some point, "history" stops being an adequate answer. 170 years is a long time.
I see. So constitutional documents have an expiry date, do they? That's interesting, and should have probably been pointed out to the signatories at the time. Maybe a little asterisk, you know.
*Offer valid for six or seven generations, give or take. After that, once you've been suitably outnumbered, you're on your own. Sincerely, the Queen.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.