MEDIA BACKGROUNDER
Thursday 20 August, 2009

Local Government Commission process clarified

The following information seeks to clarify the Local Government Commission process following the Tasman District Council (TDC) CEO’s recent misrepresentation of the petition process, which seeks a review of local governance options. As an elected member of the Nelson City Council I believe I have a duty to try to carry out the requests of those who voted for me, and that is what I am doing by launching this petition. Conversely, I’d like to point out that it is not typically up to Council employees, such as TDC CEO Paul Wylie, to seek to influence processes such as this petition. There is a Council responsibility to ensure that matters are considered impartially on the facts, and it appears Mr Wylie has overstepped the mark in this regard.

This petition process is a fantastic opportunity for the entire region, to see once and for all options recommended by an independent specialist, and it seems incredible to me that the TDC seems unwilling to allow its residents the chance to have a look at the detail of a reorganisation scheme for our region.

*Potential Costs of Local Government Commission process*

We understand from the Local Government Commission that the Commission itself would meet costs associated with any investigations it initiated.

There are of course likely to be some staff time involved in gathering information for the Commission, however costs Paul Wylie is mooting in the public arena are grossly exaggerated, as most of the information will already be held in the Long-term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) and other records, which are easily accessible.

We also understand that if any external consultant costs are incurred, these will be minimal compared to the TDC’s estimates, and it is possible that the Commission will cover these costs too, as it did in the Hurunui District and Kaikoura District Council case.

Meanwhile, we’d have to ask what the opportunity costs are for ratepayers through current suboptimal joint-Council processes and the likely cost duplication in the current two-Council model. International studies show that Councils which have gone through successful amalgamation have delivered cost savings. For example, in Queensland an average 8% cost saving was achieved. Having now had experience operating in the current two-Council system I would envisage some sort of reorganisation model would certainly deliver cost savings for the region.

TDC are choosing to ignore these facts. Afterall, Golden Bay Community Board has stated publicly that they submitted in the TDC LTCCP a request for a review to look at other options, but the TDC did not include this in their LTCCP. Also, Nelson City Council approached TDC and wanted them to put $25 000 into their LTCCP for a joint study into amalgamation, but again the TDC declined. If this action, and Paul Wylie’s current report, are examples of how the TDC wish to operate, the costs will be spent on the Council trying to defeat the proposal. I am sure one could easily spend $200 000 trying to obstruct or oppose a reorganisation proposal. Conversely, if Council co-operates with the Commission, costs are likely to be minimal.

In recessionary times Council should be looking at ways to improve efficiencies and reduce waste so they can better deliver value for money for rate payers. It is incredible that TDC are not welcoming, but rather discouraging residents from having their say.

*Scope of Local Government Commission*

It should be noted that if the requisite number of signatures is gained, the Local Government Commission will not be obliged to proceed solely on the basis of a union. Part 1, Schedule 3 (LGA 2002), states that:

Clause 39 Decisions on proposals:

After the Commission has complied with clause 37(1) (consultation) and conducted any inquiries and consultations it considers appropriate under clause 37(4), it must –

a) prepare a draft reorganisation scheme based on the proposal or on some modification or variation of the proposal resulting from the consideration of submissions, consultations, or inquiries, and the consideration of matters under clause 40; or

b) decide not to proceed with the proposal and give public notice accordingly.

Clause 40 Commission may consider wider issues:

1) In considering a reorganization proposal, the Commission may consider how that proposal affects the system of local government of any district or region affected by the reorganization proposal.

2) In particular, the Commission may consider under sub clause (1) –

a) Which system of local government in the district or region best meets the criteria set out in subpart (2)

b) Whether or not good local government be promoted by the inclusion of any part of the district or region in the district or region of another local authority (whether by the constitution of a new district or region or by the alteration of boundaries).

NB: This clause provides the opportunity to consider alternatives such as a Motueka – Golden Bay District Council or a separate Nelson / Tasman Regional Council.

c) Whether or not the system of representation in the district or region best meets the criteria in clause 5.

d) Whether or not good local government of the district or region would be best promoted by –/

(i) the system of communities (if any) and the responsibilities, duties and powers of the community boards in the district or region; or

(ii) an alternative system of communities; or

(iii) a change in the responsibilities, duties and powers of the community boards in the district or region.

e) any other matters the Commission considers appropriate.

Meanwhile, the Commission may consider a reorganisation proposal together, or in conjunction with any other reorganisation proposal or proposals. Other proposals will undoubtedly be put forward during the submission process by those in the region interested in having their say through the proposed democratic Local Government Commission investigation and consultation process.

ENDS

© Scoop Media