Government's heart of darkness
BY NICK SMITHMany of the initiatives emanating out of Wellington lately carry a distinctly undemocratic whiff.
The present furore over the control of key elements of Auckland's infrastructure is emblematic of this disturbing trend.
The first problem with the proposal for government, not Auckland's new super council, to appoint directors of so-called council-controlled organisations (CCOs) is that this is the first we've heard of it.
CCOs are supposed to provide efficiency and transparency in delivering services to Aucklanders, particularly businesses.
Yet it took business advocate Michael Barnett to blow the whistle about the undemocratic nature of local-government reforms.
There is a lack of transparency right there and it surely represents an attempt to pull the wool over Auckland eyes.
The second problem, and it seems inconsistent with any measure of democratic governance, is Wellington's insistence that it will dictate who serves on Auckland CCOs.
Directors of these organisations will make important decisions about Auckland's transport network and the development of the inner-city waterfront, for instance, yet Aucklanders will have next to no input over who makes these calls.
The initial members will be appointed, presumably by local government tsar Rodney Hide, for a two-year term.
Later, the poorly named super-city council will be allowed to nominate two out of 10 or 12 CCO members to represent New Zealand's most important city.
As Auckland City mayor John Banks says, this is an intolerable situation and is unnecessarily alarming a populace already uneasy about local government reform.
It is also, in my opinion, the antithesis of democratic governance. In the area of transport, for instance, Aucklanders pay about 45 per cent of the total bill ($750 million via rates) for roading, yet despite that investment, don't get to vote on who gets to sit on the CCO transport board.
Hide is a champion of private-sector rectitude and wants councils and government organisations to perform more like the private sector.
I can't see shareholders in a listed company putting up with such usurpation of their rights as Aucklanders are being asked to do.
Whenever I think of Hide, I am reminded of the Tom Waits song about urban paranoia, What's He Building (in there?).
What is Hide trying to build with the CCO structure? We don't know yet, but as Waits notes, "I tell you one thing, he's not building a playhouse for the children''.
At the heart of Hide's reforms is a fanatical belief that he and his mates know best and the populace can't be trusted to make decisions.
The best example is his Regulatory Responsibility Bill which, like local government reform, is meant to provide transparency to the law-making process by changing the way Parliament and the courts interact.
Essentially, the bill is to provide a framework of principles with which all Parliament's law must comply, including retrospective legislation.
It seeks to provide sterner judicial scrutiny over legislation by giving the judiciary the moral force to declare laws incompatible with the bill's guiding principles.
It is another form of usurpation, in this instance of Parliament's ability to govern according to the wishes of the electorate.
It's an attempt to stop the enactment of laws that enjoy popular support but don't meet the bill's principles, such as the vague requirement its benefits outweigh its costs, however that might be measured.
One of Hide's ideological fellow travellers, Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr, recently voiced similar views in a speech to the Wellington Rotary Club.
"Fiscal decisions by simple majority rule, we believe, are too exposed to the biases of special interests to reliably reflect genuine collective preferences,'' he said, going on to add that the Government's mandate to make laws was "determined by transient political majorities".
Apparently, New Zealanders are too immature to govern themselves properly and people like Hide and Kerr know better.
There is a name for this attitude, often employed by Hide when attacking Labour's paternalism: Nanny State. And just because it's from the Right and not the Left doesn't make it any better.
Banks is confident the CCO structure will not last as it stands.
It risks building political resentment in Auckland that will find its expression at the next election, he warns.
While some of the commentary around the reforms is based on "fear-mongering and rumour", there was a pressing need for reassurance from Wellington that the CCO structure was not a stalking horse for radical right-wing usurpation of Aucklanders' rights.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Do you believe the US Constitution is a Nanny State usurpation of the people's right to govern?
Or does it provide fundamental protection of individuals' rights from a "democratic" majority?
Just because the Regulatory Responsibility Bill may be defending the 12% of taxpayers who fund 76% of the Government from a "democratic" majority who may like them to fund even more hardly makes it "Nanny State".
Nick: Economic dries who revere Lee Kuan Yew as a role model conveniently overlook one of his major quotes - "If Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one."
@Alan Wilkinson
I refer you to the situation that has developed in California with bills like this adding up to governmental bankruptcy and has tied their hands so tightly that schools, national parks and other public amenities are suffering savage cuts. Or maybe you think that is value for taxpayer's money, to pay and receive less and less for it? That is what happens with bills like this, the people's right to government action is circumscribed. It is also classic divide and rule tactics with a group asking for something told to make a case for another group having their funding taken away to provide for them. I don't want to live in such a country, do you?
NZ is not a high tax country and those using that myth against government for the people should be exposed as ignorant.
Muscleguy #4, please refer me to the actual legislation you blame for California's problems.
NZ is not a high tax country if you don't contribute much to it. If you do, it is - and became much worse under the last Government.
They're 'libertarains' in disguise, labours no better coming across as socialists(we know whats right alll the time), big govt, national always cut the spending cause the budget says so, forget about humans, then go on holiday cause they can afford it, they can look after themselves while we control things, yep thats why they're there but peolpe still vote for em.
Interesting comments Nick. Act party are supposedly the champions of the free market and want to cut down govt to size. The most effective way to do this is to decentralise govt and govt agencies yet Act have come up with the supercity proposal which is a move in the opposite direction. Central leadership and central authority for the Auckland region. It almost sounds like central planning.
This is being justified as a matter of expediency because at least with a central authority they will be more efficient and will be able to get things done. Or so they hope. Will we get more value for money from a centralised planning agency? I doubt it and historical evidence is stacked up against us.
The worst aspects of this is that it is likely to leave Aucklanders with less influence over how their money gets spent. And under current arrangements if soneone doesnt like Waitakere or North Shore council policies and how they spend their money they are free to leave those districts. However if they dont like supercity policies then they will have to leave the whole Auckland region.
I have always suspected that Hide does not really understand why policies like free markets and less govt is a good thing as he seems unable to express any kind of intellectual argument to support those ideas. His approach is to try to force their ideas on people without any kind of broad support. The supercity idea just confirms this suspicion.
drew #7
"The most effective way to do this is to decentralise govt and govt agencies yet Act have come up with the supercity proposal which is a move in the opposite direction"
Wrong, the super city restructuring is a Rodney Hide/National deal, it has no philosophical or strategic link with ACT.
Democratically elected councilors pushing intolerance and bigotry versus painfully self-interested and corrupt government bureaucrats...
A plague on both your houses!
Well, Aucklanders still have a choice. South of bombay or Aussie? hmmm
Grinch likely model for welfare shakeup
Sizing up the economic scoreboard
Gift economy cafe confounds some
Painting privatisation as a dirty word
Businesses under threat during recovery
Public good, or the ultimate betrayal?
Speaking ill of a dead Polish president
Australia's luck rubs off on NZ
From TV to a tent: Family of eight evicted
Mallard sells festival tickets online at profit
Robyn Malcolm lays it all bare
Pub owners give up, open kindergarten
Adele's ex-boyfriend deserves credit
Telecom sorry for tactless calls to widow
4.1 quake rattles Christchurch
Nats to discuss Mondayising holidays
Letter: The nakedness of skateboarders
Mojo Mathers gives maiden speech
Should you take your groom's name?
Auckland, Wellington expensive for expats
Mallard sells festival tickets online at profit
NZ dollar up on strong retail spending
Should you take your groom's name?
Extended Rocks Rd work frustrates users
Man fined for selling derogatory clothing
Big love gesture wins the prize
"apparently,New Zealanders are too immature to govern themselves".It is sadly quite true.Take homosexual sex for example.The act of Gay sex is not for procreation, like wise hetro sex with contreceptives is also not for procreation.So therefor gay sex-like protected hetro sex-is just another form of entertainment-like entertaining oneself with play-doh or trainsets.Yet we hear through those associated with politics that 'Chris Carter may be our first Gay Primeminister-something akin to Jenny Shipley saying "vote for me, my vibrator is an 'orange coloured' one"-she would never ever have become Primeminister.Again, Marriage is a contract between a female and male-like a contract to by a car-you don,t get a horse for your money-But we now have parliment being encouraged to change the marriage laws to accomodate 'those' that think ONE prerequisite for marriage should be about some fixation with ONE FORM of sex entertainment.As for me I,m going to marry the Febuary edition of Penthouse mag and a model of the Beehive made of play-doh.No- Iv,e long grown out of entertaining myself with such simple minded objects-but that is my personal reasoned discision.If sex players want to have contracts between themselves-by all means have them-but they are not about wives or boats.I do agree that the Parliment,Courts,Police ect SHOULD protect those who are having homosexual sex from discrimination-manly because it is usally associated with violence.However, the Courts need to keep an eye on Parliment making laws-most, as was said, are "determained by transiant political majorities" and "exposed to the biases of special interests".NZers have never asked Parlimaent to take sex entertainment very seriously-in fact quite the opposite.But due to a 'loud' minority and 'special interests'ie rent seekers-and very immature politicans-sex entertainment has grown into something other than simply entertaining.Very odd but still very serious with regards to the making and upstanding of the Laws.