Less of the bombast, please
Everyone has an opinion on the merits or otherwise of their local authority, particularly when the rates go up or money is spent on a controversial project.
That concern does not often enough translate into bothering to vote in local elections, but that is another issue.
The country's local government network is made up of 78 councils, the largest group being the 61 territorial local authorities with its mix of city and district councils, 11 regional councils and six unitary authorities (these combine the functions of regional and territorial councils).
There has been some tinkering with local government since the major reform of local government in 1989 and some mergers of councils but no major national reorganisation since then.
In several areas, ideas of amalgamating some councils arise from time to time, but getting support for such changes is never simple.
Recently, we have had much noise and colourful language, as is his wont, from Regional Development Minister Shane Jones about what he sees as the need to get rid of regional councils.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also says he wants to explore the possibility of scrapping New Zealand's regional councils as the government reforms the Resource Management Act.
Mr Jones, in a Facebook post promoting his plan to take a remit to the New Zealand First conference later this year on "rationalisation of local government" with a view to next year's general election campaign, describes himself as a doubting Thomas about regional government.
He goes on to say the reason for this is because Otago Regional Council is "opposed to my mining projects".
He accuses the council of destroying jobs and "conveniently" discovering a moth nobody had heard of to scuttle the expansion of gold mining.
Mr Jones says the country cannot have a system of regional government which refuses to rapidly allocate resource consents to drive growth and to effect better outcomes for employment. In the course of this he has also labelled the ORC the "Kremlin of the South Island" and accused it of being full of "KGB green zealots".
His over-the-top rhetoric is in response to the council's assessment of environmental effects from an application to expand the Macraes' gold mine.
While he portrays the council concerns as solely about a rare moth, the report recommending the application be declined in full also said the project would result in actual and potential effects on surface water quality, aquatic ecology, natural inland and ephemeral wetlands and lizard habitat.
The report said these effects would be "significantly adverse" and could not be avoided, minimised, remedied, offset or compensated for.
Mr Jones sounds more like a miffed pre-schooler after losing a tussle over a toy digger in a sandpit, than a government minister promoting a serious discussion about long-term change.
As ORC chairwoman Gretchen Robertson diplomatically put it, "name-calling" was unhelpful.
The Otago council remained focused on its responsibility to protect the environment while supporting sustainable economic development.
"That balance is not ideological — it reflects the law, and we believe it reflects the values of our region: caring for both our environment and our livelihoods."
She said the country's regional councils welcomed "meaningful dialogue" on how to best deliver the services they were intended to — flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, environmental management and public transport.
As we saw with the Three Waters reform proposals before the last election, it is easy for fervour to be whipped up over issues involving local control, debates to become narrowly focused, and often not based in fact.
Those on either side of the argument quickly moved to talking, or shouting, past each other rather than working sensibly through the issues.
Mr Jones' bombastic outbursts are setting the scene for more of that.
If there is to be reform, it should not be achieved without proper meaningful input from those it will affect.
The government saying "jump", and expecting those in the regions to respond "how high?" will not work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Dunne's Weekly: When Symbolism Trumps Substance
Symbolism over substance is a well-established political art. Sometimes symbolism is a substitute for decisive action, sometimes it is a way of signalling a future policy intent that for various reasons cannot yet be achieved. On other occasions, it is a simple diversionary tactic, designed to distract attention from policy failure elsewhere. A recent good example of symbolism over substance is New Zealand First's proposed Bill to ban the display of any flag or emblem other than the New Zealand flag on government buildings. This is all part of New Zealand First's 'war on woke' and is obviously aimed at prohibiting the display of Tino Rangatiratanga and LGTBQ flags on public buildings, something its anti-woke constituency would likely approve of. But whatever one thinks of that policy, it hardly requires an Act of Parliament to achieve it. A directive to relevant chief executives would do just as well, but that would remove the drama of dealing with such a non-issue by legislation, which would in turn detract from the public attention the policy is seeking to gain. It is reminiscent of the early 1980s when the then Education Minister Merv Wellington became obsessed with every school having a flagpole and flying the New Zealand flag daily. He even went as far as promulgating Regulations setting out the dimensions and material of the flag and specific rules about its display. Rather than being seen as an assertion of national spirit and patriotism, as the Minister hoped, the policy quickly became an object of ridicule, detracting from the many more serious educational issues around at the time. Once he was no longer Minister, the policy disappeared. If history is any guide, New Zealand First's flag policy, should it even make it to legislation, will not survive either. But it will reinforce New Zealand First's credentials with the 'anti-woke' brigade it is seeking to appeal to, in just the same way its earlier, but never implemented, policy on gender-specific toilet access was designed to. But New Zealand First are not the only party playing the symbolism over substance card. Earlier this week National announced plans for an instant fines approach to dealing with shoplifters. The rhetoric was strong, but the details and the timing remain vague. Not surprisingly though, the plan has been widely welcomed by small businesses who have been adversely affected by increasing shoplifting levels in recent years. For many, the symbolic effect was enough – at last the government was recognising there was a problem to be resolved. However, it is still far from clear how the instant fines system being suggested will work (a correspondent to Wellington's Post asked how people who resorted to shoplifting because they could not afford to pay could cope with an instant fine), or what level of Police resources will be dedicated to it. And nor it is clear when the necessary legislation will be introduced and passed. Still, it all looks like strong government, even if the details are still uncertain. And so, it serves its political point, which was, after all, the primary objective. The government has put its stake in the ground, and, even better from its point of view, entrapped the Opposition into opposing it. It has won the symbolism battle on shoplifting, but it remains to be seen whether it will be as successful with the substance. The other side of this coin is when politicians refuse to acknowledge the substance of an issue and wallow instead in the symbolism surrounding it. In an extraordinary outburst this week, the normally considered Chris Hipkins told a radio host that the reason ram raids were no longer a media issue was because 'your Tory owners at NZME have just decided not to put it on the front page anymore. It's still happening, it's just NZME have decided that it's not in the Government's best interests and they do the National Party's singing for them and so they're not covering it as much anymore.' Unfortunately for Hipkins the facts tell a different story. In 2022, there were 714 ram raids reported. The following year – when Hipkins was Prime Minister – that figure dropped to 495. However so far this year it sits at just 45, a more than 90% fall on the figure of Hipkins' time. That, not media ownership prejudice, is the reason they are not getting the coverage they used to, but Hipkins will be hoping his media bashing will resonate with his die-hard supporters and so detract attention from the facts. The danger here is not so much that politicians favour symbolism over substance from time to time. That is part and parcel of the political game which every politician engages in when it suits them. The problem is when the politician is revealed to have no other modus operandi than symbolism over substance, and when that becomes their sole end. Voters quickly spot such cant and discount those politicians accordingly.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Less of the bombast, please
Comprehensive evaluation of how local government is organised and the role it plays may be necessary, but getting a rational debate on it will be difficult. Everyone has an opinion on the merits or otherwise of their local authority, particularly when the rates go up or money is spent on a controversial project. That concern does not often enough translate into bothering to vote in local elections, but that is another issue. The country's local government network is made up of 78 councils, the largest group being the 61 territorial local authorities with its mix of city and district councils, 11 regional councils and six unitary authorities (these combine the functions of regional and territorial councils). There has been some tinkering with local government since the major reform of local government in 1989 and some mergers of councils but no major national reorganisation since then. In several areas, ideas of amalgamating some councils arise from time to time, but getting support for such changes is never simple. Recently, we have had much noise and colourful language, as is his wont, from Regional Development Minister Shane Jones about what he sees as the need to get rid of regional councils. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also says he wants to explore the possibility of scrapping New Zealand's regional councils as the government reforms the Resource Management Act. Mr Jones, in a Facebook post promoting his plan to take a remit to the New Zealand First conference later this year on "rationalisation of local government" with a view to next year's general election campaign, describes himself as a doubting Thomas about regional government. He goes on to say the reason for this is because Otago Regional Council is "opposed to my mining projects". He accuses the council of destroying jobs and "conveniently" discovering a moth nobody had heard of to scuttle the expansion of gold mining. Mr Jones says the country cannot have a system of regional government which refuses to rapidly allocate resource consents to drive growth and to effect better outcomes for employment. In the course of this he has also labelled the ORC the "Kremlin of the South Island" and accused it of being full of "KGB green zealots". His over-the-top rhetoric is in response to the council's assessment of environmental effects from an application to expand the Macraes' gold mine. While he portrays the council concerns as solely about a rare moth, the report recommending the application be declined in full also said the project would result in actual and potential effects on surface water quality, aquatic ecology, natural inland and ephemeral wetlands and lizard habitat. The report said these effects would be "significantly adverse" and could not be avoided, minimised, remedied, offset or compensated for. Mr Jones sounds more like a miffed pre-schooler after losing a tussle over a toy digger in a sandpit, than a government minister promoting a serious discussion about long-term change. As ORC chairwoman Gretchen Robertson diplomatically put it, "name-calling" was unhelpful. The Otago council remained focused on its responsibility to protect the environment while supporting sustainable economic development. "That balance is not ideological — it reflects the law, and we believe it reflects the values of our region: caring for both our environment and our livelihoods." She said the country's regional councils welcomed "meaningful dialogue" on how to best deliver the services they were intended to — flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, environmental management and public transport. As we saw with the Three Waters reform proposals before the last election, it is easy for fervour to be whipped up over issues involving local control, debates to become narrowly focused, and often not based in fact. Those on either side of the argument quickly moved to talking, or shouting, past each other rather than working sensibly through the issues. Mr Jones' bombastic outbursts are setting the scene for more of that. If there is to be reform, it should not be achieved without proper meaningful input from those it will affect. The government saying "jump", and expecting those in the regions to respond "how high?" will not work.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
MP Maureen Pugh pitches one-stop-shop for mining consents
MP Maureen Pugh wants a local fast-track system to speed up consent processing times. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone West Coast Tasman MP Maureen Pugh has weighed into the campaign to improve waiting times for miners needing resource consents and other permits. Pugh has suggested a local "mini-version" of the government's fast-track system to speed up consent processing times. Resources Minister Shane Jones gave the West Coast Regional Council a strong serve last week, after it closed down a gold mine site that had waited 17-months for a consent. The council also faced criticised from Cr Brett Cummings, a gold miner himself, whose company had been left waiting six months for consent. Pugh says the Minister is justifiably frustrated at the holdups. "This has been going on for far too long. There are guys that have their mining permits and they're paying up to $20,000 a year to NZ Petroleum and Minerals for the right to mine but they can't even get onto the land because the council hasn't sorted their resource consent or DOC hasn't processed their concession." By comparison, a large-scale miner she knew was able to gain approval to mine in New South Wales in Australia within six weeks, she said. "He's got another one in New Guinea - that took twelve weeks," she said. "[He has] one application active in New Zealand and he's been waiting for two years and he still doesn't know how it's going to go. "The delays are not new but they've just got worse and worse, at a time when we desperately need to grow the economy. It's not how to do business well." In her former career as Westland mayor, Mrs Pugh said she had tried to speed up the bureaucracy by delegating district council land-use consents to the Regional Council to process. "I believe that what we need now is a local fast-track system. A mini-version of the government's one-stop-shop, with one office in the region where every agency involved in a mining application is co-located, and has a staffer. All of these permits should be happening concurrently." Pugh said she had proposed her idea to the Minister (Shane Jones) and he was interested in progressing it. "We've simply got to find a new way of doing this and we can't go on having consultants in the North Island dealing with alluvial goldmining consents down here. "They know nothing about the West Coast so of course they're risk averse about everything and their reports reflect that, and there's the constant for further information and they keep sending applications back and asking for more information, and every time their meters are ticking." The miners' continual outgoings were simply paying the wages of bureaucrats and not generating revenue, Pugh said. "It should all be happening concurrently - as it is you're paying to hold your mining license just in case you can overcome all the other. It's enough to make you tear your hair out." The Regional Council is looking at taking on more consents staff and this week began work on new resource consent templates which it says will simplify and speed up the process for alluvial gold miners. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
