Why does the Government want to be able to delay next year's Local Body Elections?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Why does the Government want to be able to delay next year's Local Body Elections?

Technofreak

6656 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3474

Trusted

#289844 2-Oct-2021 22:53

I see the government has under urgency passed the first reading the Covid-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. Among other things this bill proposes that the government be able to delay next year's Local Body Elections indefinitely.

I don't understand why they would need to do this as these elections are by postal ballot and shouldn't be affected by any potential lockdowns. As proof that we've just had a local body by election completed during lockdown.

What is the government up to? Is it an adjunct to the Three Waters battle that's currently going on?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2788506 3-Oct-2021 11:09

The only media coverage so far that I could find is here:

Government Wants Power To Delay Local Elections Through 2023 | Scoop News

I am not too concerned about this - it is an extension of current facility to delay local body elections for 6 weeks, to delaying them limitless times until the end of 2023. If this is accurate it applies only to the 2022 elections, and if this is done then each delay decision will be debated at the time.

I agree though that there would seem to be no reason for COVID pandemic conditions to impact local body elections - which could be conducted as normal. Even if any part of NZ is in level 4, postal voting is available (postal services are operating) and special votes could be accomodated with post boxes at supermarkets or some other similar arrangement.

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

Technofreak

6656 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3474

Trusted

#2788780 3-Oct-2021 21:42

I would have thought that if we were still battling Covid with lock downs etc in 12 months time and these actions were going to impact the running of an election then making a change under urgency then would make sense. To do it under urgency now doesn't make sense and makes me wonder that there's another motive.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2788849 4-Oct-2021 08:40

Technofreak: I would have thought that if we were still battling Covid with lock downs etc in 12 months time and these actions were going to impact the running of an election then making a change under urgency then would make sense. To do it under urgency now doesn't make sense and makes me wonder that there's another motive.

Local body elections seems to be preceded by a lot of small public campaign meetings, but very little coverage in the media of the details of candidates' proposals, probably because people don't show a lot of interest, voting turnout is low, low voter turnout isn't good for democracy, trying to run fair local body elections during a pandemic lockdown is fraught with an assortment of problems.

If by "another motive" you mean you think there's a conspiracy to undermine democracy afoot, I think you're dreaming.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2788886 4-Oct-2021 09:46

Only thing I could think of would be avoiding spillover from the Three Waters reforms but it's hard to imagine those will be done and without significant legal challenges by 2023 anyway.

Technofreak

6656 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3474

Trusted

#2789004 4-Oct-2021 11:24

Fred99:

Technofreak: I would have thought that if we were still battling Covid with lock downs etc in 12 months time and these actions were going to impact the running of an election then making a change under urgency then would make sense. To do it under urgency now doesn't make sense and makes me wonder that there's another motive.

Local body elections seems to be preceded by a lot of small public campaign meetings, but very little coverage in the media of the details of candidates' proposals, probably because people don't show a lot of interest, voting turnout is low, low voter turnout isn't good for democracy, trying to run fair local body elections during a pandemic lockdown is fraught with an assortment of problems.

If by "another motive" you mean you think there's a conspiracy to undermine democracy afoot, I think you're dreaming.

Yes, there has been a history of "meet the candidates" nights. I have been involved in running them in the past. There are ways of doing these on line in this day and age.

There is no reason why there cannot be coverage of candidate proposals in the media and this happens now.

I think you're looking for problems where they don't exist. I don't see how there's any problems running a fair election during a pandemic lockdown. Locally we just had a by election run quite successfully during this last lock down.

Whether or not there is a case for delaying an election during a pandemic lockdown why does the law need changing right now and under urgency?

I'd say there was a greater argument for delaying the general election last year. When it was suggested there was no way the government wanted to to that.

The elections are 12 months away and they are postal. Who's to say what lock down if any will be in place at that time. The government saw no need need to delay the general election last year and now without even knowing what the pandemic situation will be like in 12 months they already want the ability to delay the local body elections. The time to make a decision is much closer to the time. There is no obvious need right now to delay the local body elections so what's the rush to enable it now? As far as I can see the decision has nothing to do with Covid.

Another motive? The government is in a tussle with a lot of local bodies right now over the governments "Three Waters" proposal. From what I have read the consultation on the Three Waters has been very much a one way process and there is a fair bit of dissention. There is also a review of local bodies to be undertaken. Could it be the government has formed it's own opinion on how this will evolve and delaying the elections may be a useful tool in achieving their objectives?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#2789173 4-Oct-2021 16:21

Tricky one. Probably the existing legislation says it must 100% happen on schedule. I guess this just allows elections to be delayed if needed. Ie; may not necessarily be used.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#2789179 4-Oct-2021 16:26

Technofreak: Yes, there has been a history of "meet the candidates" nights. I have been involved in running them in the past. There are ways of doing these on line in this day and age.

You'll know that in many districts these are predominantly attended by older people who really form the backbone of local democracy. Significantly less technology penetration there and higher covid risk. I don't have a strong opinion either way, I think you'd risk excluding many of those people from their usual process.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2789219 4-Oct-2021 17:41

Technofreak:

Another motive? The government is in a tussle with a lot of local bodies right now over the governments "Three Waters" proposal. From what I have read the consultation on the Three Waters has been very much a one way process and there is a fair bit of dissention.

Some of that dissent seems to be misinterpreted. I believe Christchurch's objection to signing up is that there was massive damage from the quakes, the insurer collapsed and anyway the cover for buried infrastructure that was available was vastly inadequate (indemnity - not replacement value), central government more interested in partial funding of Chch landmark projects. The consequence being that Chch ratepayers are paying for that buried infrastructure upgrade only to "gift" that to a new authority that's going to be expecting contribution from Christchurch ratepayers to upgrade every other city's neglected infrastructure which is no doubt just as Chch's was before Christchurch ratepayers paid to upgrade it. It would seem fair that the proposal should allow pay Chch a fair sum for that work done - and not expect Chch residents to lose what they've already paid for, then be forced to pay for everyone else's upgrade.

Anyway, Canterbury isn't a bad place to look at anti-democratic moves by central government, the sacking of elected Ecan council in 2010, and replacement with appointed commissioners, primarily because the elected council represented the ratepayers were opposed to the scale of irrigation water to be taken from rivers for intensive dairy farming was the trigger. They then twice reneged on promises to restore democratic elections.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2789519 5-Oct-2021 07:49

Fred99:

It would seem fair that the proposal should allow pay Chch a fair sum for that work done - and not expect Chch residents to lose what they've already paid for, then be forced to pay for everyone else's upgrade.

Similar deal in Auckland - we've been user-pays on water rates while other parts of the country have objected to even having their usage metered in 2021. 100 days without rain not withstanding and some crappy management of new capacity projects from Watercare aside, they're Auckland assets that Aucklanders pay to both maintain and to use.

Suddenly our ability to maintain our existing network is going to have to stretch all the way to the top of the North Island, to cover a district with a very distinct and separate climate to Auckland itself, that is frequently in drought.

Realistically centrally driven outcomes have never been that positive for Auckland, so understandably there is a high degree of skepticism, and that's before you get into the question of whether these amount to forced asset sales.

elpenguino

3576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2938

#2790816 7-Oct-2021 00:18

GV27:

that's before you get into the question of whether these amount to forced asset sales.

Any proposed move of assets is from local public ownership to central public ownership.

So you'd still own your pipes.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2790877 7-Oct-2021 09:08

Timaru and Mackenzie councils strongly opposed to Three Waters.

Timaru has withdrawn from the organization representing local councils (can't remember the name atm) because they felt the organization was too wishy washy in it's opposition to Three Waters.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#2791021 7-Oct-2021 10:26

Fred99:

Technofreak:

Another motive? The government is in a tussle with a lot of local bodies right now over the governments "Three Waters" proposal. From what I have read the consultation on the Three Waters has been very much a one way process and there is a fair bit of dissention.

Some of that dissent seems to be misinterpreted. I believe Christchurch's objection to signing up is that there was massive damage from the quakes, the insurer collapsed and anyway the cover for buried infrastructure that was available was vastly inadequate (indemnity - not replacement value), central government more interested in partial funding of Chch landmark projects. The consequence being that Chch ratepayers are paying for that buried infrastructure upgrade only to "gift" that to a new authority that's going to be expecting contribution from Christchurch ratepayers to upgrade every other city's neglected infrastructure which is no doubt just as Chch's was before Christchurch ratepayers paid to upgrade it. It would seem fair that the proposal should allow pay Chch a fair sum for that work done - and not expect Chch residents to lose what they've already paid for, then be forced to pay for everyone else's upgrade.

Anyway, Canterbury isn't a bad place to look at anti-democratic moves by central government, the sacking of elected Ecan council in 2010, and replacement with appointed commissioners, primarily because the elected council represented the ratepayers were opposed to the scale of irrigation water to be taken from rivers for intensive dairy farming was the trigger. They then twice reneged on promises to restore democratic elections.

Also, if you look at cost projections to 2050, the Government are saying that Christchurch water will cost users twice as much as in Auckland.

That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable.

Especially since Christchurch has a large reserve of (mostly) pure water right underneath us and Auckland already has water supply issues.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2792177 9-Oct-2021 13:06

JWR:

Also, if you look at cost projections to 2050, the Government are saying that Christchurch water will cost users twice as much as in Auckland.

That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable.

Especially since Christchurch has a large reserve of (mostly) pure water right underneath us and Auckland already has water supply issues.

Auckland is also taking on a hugely disproportional amount of future NZ population growth, so that doesn't seem very fair or reasonable either.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2792224 9-Oct-2021 13:21

elpenguino:

Any proposed move of assets is from local public ownership to central public ownership.

So you'd still own your pipes.

Yes, but with central government control instead of local oversight. That is key.

Given central government's ability or inclination to help Auckland with infrastructure for the population growth foisted upon it by other central government departments, I don't consider this to be a very effective proposition - doubly so when the government is also proposing to move our commercial Port, also owned by the Council.

elpenguino

3576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2938

#2792542 10-Oct-2021 00:34

GV27:

elpenguino:

Any proposed move of assets is from local public ownership to central public ownership.

So you'd still own your pipes.

Yes, but with central government control instead of local oversight. That is key.

Exactly, central oversight, coordination and policy, although we don't know how regionised 3waters will be, if at all.

Water , like electricity and transport, is a strategic asset that we need to pay more attention to if we don't want to end up in a lot of trouble. I'm encouraged that water will soon receive that status.

It would be far too easy for councils to run down their infrastructure in the name of short term savings. I don't know if such a deliberate run down is what has happened in Wellington but since the string of high profile impromptu water main fountains and attack of the creature from the brown lagoon episodes, rates have shot up.

Hopefully being spent on pipes and things.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21