The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.
Technically my title is incorrect: the Royal Commission has recommended that Auckland get a single council, the so-called “supercity”. Of course they did: the Commission is bound to consist of Socialists rather than people like myself. The government has gone away to think about it and I’m assuming that Aucklanders will get a single council, irrespective of whether or not they want it. I’m not aware of any public consultation on this matter apart from the Royal Commission, and I believe that something this big should be subject to a binding referendum. But the government knows best so Aucklanders will have to bend over and take their medicine.
The Royal Commission says that a single council will save $113m, but I’m extremely sceptical about that. The bigger a bureaucracy is, the more inefficient it is and the more floorboards there are for money to fall between. Basically Auckland will get 23 councillors, a mayor, and six toothless, penniless local councils for decorative purposes. Two of those 23 councillors will be voted in by Maori, and one will be appointed by Maori – more reverse racism.
Then there’s this nappy gem from the idiots in the ivory towers:
Penny Webster, Mayor of the Rodney District in the north of Auckland, was unhappy at the plan to remove Orewa and Whangaparaoa from the Rodney local council area and making it part of the Waitemata urban area.
“Most of our people from there see themselves as part of the Hibiscus Coast or Rodney,” she told NZPA. “They don’t see themselves as Aucklanders.” Source
Anybody with half a brain knows that Orewa and Whangaparoa – very much to the north of Auckland – have little in common with Waitemata, which is the western portion of Auckland.
So what’s the real agenda behind all this? Three things: power, control, and subjugation. The mayor will have a lot more power, and 24 people will control the daily lives of 1.3 million citizens. Even Mike Lee of the Auckland Regional Council, who is in favour of having a single council, describes this this as “centralisation of power” and has concerns about “democratic representation”. A single council with more power will attract councillors more like central government politicians and less like those that currently inhabit council chambers. It will be much harder for individuals to approach councillors, and councillors will have less concern about giving the finger to individuals because those individuals will be a single fish in a big ocean, rather than a single fish in a large lake as they are now. In other words, the voice of an individual will count for less when 24 rulers are chosen by 1.3 million people.
A single council will also reduce the choices available to individuals. Presently Aucklanders have the option of changing suburbs if they don’t like a council’s rules about keeping chickens or altering houses, but with a single option that choice will be removed because it will be one rule for all (shades of Communist central planning). Furthermore, as I described above, it will be harder to get those rules changed. Just look at how hard it is to get central government to alter ridiculous rules that interfere with the lives of individuals: that’s what Auckland is headed for.
But wait, there’s more: the Royal Commission also wants the new council to get involved in social issues, addressing inequalities within the region (note the Socialist/Marxist language):
“Auckland does poorly on many indicators of social wellbeing. The extent of deprivation is significant, and it equates to lost potential.”
“The inequalities within the region are significant and unacceptable,” it says. “The new governance structure must enable these inequalities to be addressed if Auckland is to become a leading Asia-Pacific city.”
It says the region’s four “critical social issues” are:
Helping all children get the best start in life.
Improving the transition of young people from school to work, further education or training.
Improving public transport, particularly to disadvantaged communities.
Improving the quality and affordability of housing.
So the council won’t just be looking after roads and rubbish, it’ll be the junior Nanny State.
I’m all for reducing bureaucracy, but a single council isn’t the way to go about it.
Democracy means “government by the people” and there’s a common myth that says we have it: a single council will only take Auckland further away from democracy and put more power in the hands of second-tier slave masters.
What do you think about the plan of having a single council for Auckland?
Click here to see Brian Rudman’s opinion.