Backlash building on supercity

25 comments on “Backlash building on supercity ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gareth 1

   5 May 2009 at 11:33 am

   “Only 16 percent of respondents supported the plan to create 20 to 30 local boards, as opposed to 66 percent support for the royal commission’s model of a super council with six councils under it.”

   Bugger – as I thought, the backlash against the lack of consultation is seeing people bridle against the good ideas within it.
2. jarbury 2

   5 May 2009 at 11:39 am

   I don’t know whether the 6 councils idea would have worked tremendously well, however I also don’t know whether 20-30 local boards will work well either. Seems like somewhere in the middle might be what’s necessary.

   Yes the problem with government rushing this through is that people are starting to oppose the basic concept of the super-city, which I think is a good one. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
   • lprent 2.1

     5 May 2009 at 11:57 am

     I’d agree. However I’m afraid that it is probably too late if they shunt through the enabling bill under urgency. That will be seen as simply pre-supposing the solution. That is something that Aucklanders will kick against.
   • Eddie 2.2

     5 May 2009 at 12:12 pm

     I’m not opposed to a supercity per se but I am opposed to the one National and Act are pushing and the undemocratic way they are trying to rush it through.

     I think a lot of people feel that way and it will turn them off the supercity idea (and National) altogether.

     That’s National and Act’s fault for not doing this the right way, not the fault of the people who are opposing them.
     • Tigger 2.2.1

       5 May 2009 at 12:36 pm

       Agreed Eddie. I’m yet to see one convincing argument for why this legislation should be passed under urgency.
3. SPC 3

   5 May 2009 at 12:26 pm

   The Super City does not deliver better governance. This is shown around the world.

   The idea just appeals to the vanity of some Aucklanders.

   Auckland just needed to learn from Wellington how to operate a regional council concept.

   The whole idea that local self government is improved on by amalgamation would naturally lead to New Zealand becoming a state of Australia, if it were true (the only reason for it is that they are richer than us because of their mineral wealth and it would enable a quick way to make the long sought after wage catch up with our workers receiving their award wages in Oz dollars).
4. gobsmacked 4

   5 May 2009 at 12:31 pm

   Papakura, and Franklin, and here’s the trifecta: Rodney.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/rodney-times/2384733/Rural-issues-could-be-brushed-aside

   Mayor Penny Webster is a former ACT MP. Rodney is true blue National territory. The blinkered determination of Key/Hide to make enemies out of friends is remarkable.

   It’s very reminiscent of Thatcher’s poll tax, when many Tory councils rebelled. The difference is – Thatcher had been in power for a decade, and won 3 elections.

   So much arrogance, so soon.
5. Jared 5

   5 May 2009 at 12:37 pm

   In reference to the previous post regarding instances of unviable super citys around the world, namely toronto, montreal, paris and tokyo no consideration was taken as to their size. Montreal for instance has 5 times the population of Auckland, and feasibly under the Royal Commission the recommendation that a supercity be established was reinforced in their report under the notion that costs would be reduced, and duplication of services would be mitigated. Auckland is no longer the region of many different councils, and essentially operates already as a single city, answering of course to 6 different councils, and a regional council. Essentially, the only difference between the royal commission recommendation and the proposed super city concept theorised by the National government comes down to representation, and not increased costs. The first bill to be introduced under urgency (which you notable omitted its nature) is to legitimize the super city and incorporate a transition committee. Public submissions are still being sought for the select committee and Key+ Hide have already promised to carefully consider the will of the people.
   • lprent 5.1

     5 May 2009 at 12:54 pm

     Yeah and I notice that you also failed to link or point to the relevant information

     The jackal’s press release (rodney hyde)
     Phil Twyfords press release (Labour)
     Maori party (can’t find the press release)

     Greens anyone?
     • Tane 5.1.1

       5 May 2009 at 12:59 pm

       I haven’t seen anything recent but the Greens are on record opposing the current process and supporting proper consultation followed by a referendum.

       http://www.thestandard.org.nz/greens-join-call-for-referendum/
6. The Voice of Reason 6

   5 May 2009 at 12:42 pm

   Initially I thought that the Mt Albert by-election would be a win-win for the Nats. If they got a good vote, they could say it shows the public endorse them and if it was an average vote they could say it was a seat they never expected to win anyway.

   Now it looks more like Mt Albert will be the only referendum on the SuperCity that Aucklanders are going to get. It’s a good thing Melissa Lee’s already got a job, eh, because she ain’t gonna get within cooee of a win now.
   • Jared 6.1

     5 May 2009 at 12:49 pm

     She never was going to get a shoe in anyway. Its an incredibly safe labour seat regardless of which labour candidate is standing.
     • Maynard J 6.1.1

       5 May 2009 at 1:06 pm

       You’d think so but you can’t say that with certainty. It was an incredibly safe seat for Helen Clark.
7. ben 7

   5 May 2009 at 12:54 pm

   An overwhelming 63%

   LOL
   • gobsmacked 7.1

     5 May 2009 at 1:12 pm

     So National’s current poll ratings are underwhelming? That’s a relief.
8. Zaphod Beeblebrox 8

   5 May 2009 at 12:55 pm

   “Essentially the only difference between the royal commission recommendation and the proposed super city concept theorised by the National government comes down to representation, and not increased costs”

   Representation or lack thereof is the core issue we are talking about.

   If you ignore the Maori seats, the social issues recommendation, the urban design proposals, the environmental and heritage protection proposals, the complete dismantling of our Territorial Authorities and the rural councils and the economic development agancy.

   The only thing left was the directly elected mayor.

   If they are so keen to listen why have the numbers of ward councillors already been specified in the second act?
9. Dan 9

   5 May 2009 at 12:57 pm

   The NACT people need to remember they got voted in on a Labour-lite policy. ACT only got its votes because Rodney said they would give backbone to the Nats. The vote was not so much for NACT as time for a change. They had a nice new face etc.
   If the policies turn out to be much more to the right or arrogant as of old, they will have disenchanted a new group of voters so completely they will not get in again for another nine years.
   Time for a rethink guys. Auckland needs some changes but not this way.
   Humble pie Rodney; it will be a lot easier in the long run! You were the one who was so concerned about a nanny state last year but you seem unaware of the contradictions in steamrolling these issues through after disregarding the report.
10. hvillvoter 10

    5 May 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Didnt Paul Hutchinson win with a 16,000 vote majority? Is there any merit to suggestions he would be voted out over a lack of consultation on this issue?
    • gobsmacked 10.1

      5 May 2009 at 1:10 pm

      Probably not, but that was said at the meeting (see link).

      National lost in 2005 and won in 2008 on the Auckland region party vote. That’s a much bigger concern than the fate of individual electorate MPs.
      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 10.1.1

        5 May 2009 at 1:13 pm

        More likely their rural voters in Rodney, Papakura, Franklin, Waitakere will become disillusioned and not bother voting. They certainly will not be voting ACT.
11. DeepRed 11

    5 May 2009 at 3:39 pm

    I think Aucklanders on the whole are generally in favour of a super-city structure. What they’re not in favour of is for it to be dominated by a plutocratic Roundtable elite and its hangers-on.

    recaptcha: $2.80 pinches
12. rod 12

    5 May 2009 at 4:41 pm

    Michael Laws wants a referendum on the letter H, because he knows he would win.
    John Key and Rodney Hide don’t want a referendum on the Super City because they know they would lose, well, that’s Tory democracy for you. Better get used to it folks, there is plenty more to come from this lot.
13. Loco Burro 13

    5 May 2009 at 6:17 pm

    When will the Maori Party finally get sick of being kicked around on everything. Ignored on Justice/Employment/Auckland/Fiji/Maori Affairs. Why are they still supporting this government, they will have to show their voters and supporters something soon. Dr. Sharples needs to come out stronger on the issue of Auckland and challenge the government.
14. jarbury 14

    5 May 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Does anyone know what council powers are going to be restricted by the bill that is going to be passed under urgency?

Links to post

1. StoptheSupercity: posted on 5 May 2009 at 5:13 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS