NZ Centre for Political Research

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*Generally no. It should be based on population numbers. To take Auckland as an example, 7 councils was ridiculous, 3 would have been ideal but 1 council, headed by a socialist, racist spend-freak is a complete disaster. Bruce

*What ever it takes to minimise these unproductive p----ks and let them concentrate on parks, reserves and rubbish collection. Clark

*Bigger is not better. Bigger councils are more bureaucrratic, more arrogant, and more costly. Councils should be small and local. Michael

*It does not save money. It just creates more officials with less personal service. Frank

*After observing the Brown Auckland Council shenanigans, they might as well have kept the original maori seats instead of the costly maori statutory board; there needed to be a referendum about that. I like 1,2,3,4,5 objectives. Monica

*Smaller rural ratepayers will be lumbered whith costs of incompetent greedy city councils like the H.C.C V8 mess or the Eden Park rip off. Keith

*We were forced to go from a Borough Council into Manukau City Council. The result was increased rates which were used in other areas. Now we are in Auckland City Council and the result is increased rates which it appears are to be spent recklessly on projects that most rate payers oppose. So far spending on printed matter and advertising has increased considerably. In some cases this is tantamount to electioneering by the Mayor at the rate payers expense. Peter

*I live in the Tasman area and recently we had a vote on amalgamation with Nelson. The result was a resounding NO from the Tasman area and Nelson was also defeated. Say No to amalgamation! Margaret

*Too big means too mush POWER for too few people! Look at the cost escalations occuring in Auckland. Len has gone completely mad and is going to put Auckland on a path to becoming bankrupt. Costs WILL drive people from Auckland. Do you want this to happen to your city? Politicians seem to thing that because they are elected to POWER that this is a licence to do whatever they please with money they don't have. All the lies about how the super city would be so great! Yeah right!!! Neil

*The 2002 Act has given local body unrestricted authority to implement their own wish lists without real consideration to maintaining the core local authority infrastructure. Art Gallery upgrades in lieu of potable water supply needs! Bad public transport facilities plans needing considerable supplimentary expense to correct major faults in the original 'as built' plan. Mike

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*We have far to many bureaucrats as it is incompetent useless lot all wonting to get in the road of progress, politicians are a fine example. John Key is a fine example, he had to attend the Queens jubilee to find out about the world economy and that the budget is impossible, what the hell has he been up to the last 3 years? certainly not running a country or even acting as a PM? Bill

*It is well known that bureaucracies increase in size without any prompting - it is like an inherited disease. We should not be feeding the disease. Paul

*One of the (un)intended side affects of local body amalgamation has been the increase in non-core activity thus the gains of amalgamation have not been what they could be. In some respects one should see the greed that has caused the European melt down as very much alive in NZs local body scene. Ian

*Councils now see ratepayers as a cash cow to be milked at every available oportunity. Previously they were the servant of the ratepayers, now they seem to believe they are our masters and that our concerns over their profligate spending are not worthy of their notice. John

*As long as it removes bureaucrats and not front line staff. Christopher

*Because AUCKLAND has led the way into an even BIGGER bucket of DEBT, an even BIGGER administration, even HIGHER rates, even MORE councilors, even MORE board members...and, worst of all, there is no stopping their oxygen-stealing, spendthrift and wastrel ways. Mark

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*When ever hass bigger meant better. Just another pee it down the creek fiasco. Sam

*With zero consultation we were dragged into Auckland city Council! My rates have rocketed! They tell me they will continue to rocket! Not only do we now get to pay more ... we get less! Oh and wait for this .. while building a railway on our rates that we can't even access they talk about retolling our bridge!!!!!! F#*@K off!!!!! Andy

*Adds to the costs to ratepayers. Vivian

*I support efficiency, and it stands to reason that one large organisation, effecitvely managed, should be more efficient that 6 smaller units doing the same thing. The key however is stick to the knitting. The core council business must be defined, and the objectives clear and unambiguous. Chris

*Tiring of the on going, one sided view of Napier. Ian

*It would be creating expensive empires for the chosen few. Ian

*Only because I haven't seen any efficiencies coming from the Auckland amalgamation. In fact, there seem to be more layers than ever and costs certainly haven't fallen. Fiona

*Amalgamation of councils is not in its self a bad thing. Its problems are two fold. 1/Local interests tend to be ignored.

2/ Elected councilors suffer an occupational hazard as a result of labour's 2002 local government legislation. It is called an Edifice Complex. Its symptoms include arrogance,lying,misrepresentation of cost and a pathological indifference to the will of ratepayers. If the 2002 act is repealed or district council areas of responsibilities returned to those prior to 2002 my viw could change. Peter

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*It is a tragedy that uncontrolable councillors and bureaucrats are controlling us today. Malcolm

*The arguments for often sound seductive but in practice it takes the "local" out of local government. This is NOT good for communities and is inevitably more expensive. Rob

*We need to get rid of local government. Local government is nothing more than a magnet for every punishment-mad control freak in town. They try to solve every problem by finding someone to punish because their greatest pleasure is punishing others. That and gawping at themselves in the mirror. We need to get rid of these egotistical blowhards and have the city run by people who are enthusiastic and competent in their particular field. The money needs to be collected centrally. Instead of parking meters and the associated enforcement and punishments we should levy everyone with a drivers’ licence ten dollars per annum which should provide all of the free parking that we will ever need and so on for every council responsibility. K

*Areas more distant or remote from the main city must have a referendum of ratepayers prior to joining the bigger city. Brian

*I don't know enough about amalgamations etc. but I agree with your firve points for improving local councils. Sheila

*The bigger these councils are, the more remote they become from their electorates and the more grandiose and profligate their agendas become. Auntie Podes

*Big is not bueatiful! Co-operation of some services can create greater efficiency. Kevin

*Just more proof - as if we needed it - of the constant meddling and imprisonment of us everyday NZers by the UN and their globalist masters, as carried out by their fawning political / racial lap-dogs. We are so over-due for a good house-cleaning round of revolution, that its beyond the joke. Peter

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*Already too big and unweildy! Marilyn

*Yes. Economy of scale. Jean

*In these cases smaller is best! Terry

*This is just another power grab by a bunch of incompetents trying to play God. JACK

*Auckland has yet to see benefit, and yet massive rates increases have occured. Murray

*Generally yes but having second thoughts after seeing where Auckland is heading, why does the looney left believe money just grows on trees, could it be that many of them have never had to really work for a living? John

*Bigger does not mean Better. Each area of a city has different requirements and people from those areas need to be living and working in them to know what is best. Mary

*But my approval is qualified in as much as constraints need to be placed on amalgamations that go beyond the rational of efficient local body working. There are examples of these and the best to date is Aucklandwhich encompases rural areas not well suited for amalgamations with an urban authority. Victor

*It takes away local democracy. There is little evidence that there are actually cost savings, as usually the bureaucracy booms, and extra spending also happens. Hugh

*In my opinion all regional councils should be disbanded under this process of amalgamation. NZ with a population of only 4m or so is totally over-governed. Jeff

*I used to be in favour of the bigger, co-ordinated approach, but now I am not so sure.

I can recall when Auckland had small councils in the local boroughs, Mt Albert, Mt Eden, One Tree Hill etc, there might have been some duplication at times, but in the main the councillors were locals, often retired, some business people who lived in the area and stood for and against local issues.

One of the main areas that I believe has led to the ever increasing costs has been the evolution of the professional local politician , this is now a career choice or the an “interest” for a wealthy individual who probably has little concept of living on a fixed income.

The everyday man or woman in the street has little chance of becoming a councillor, they are too busy working out how to pay for all of the council related costs.

These large councils have the potential to be really effective, but need to stick to their knitting and look after the basic needs of the community not the multitude of touchy feely programmes and activities. Rob

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*In principal I am against, unless the Councils concerned have reached an impasse in their present form, and are unsustainable both financially and economically. A case in point being some rural councils due to de-population.

Amalgamations are the basis of gaining Socialistic control of councils, a form of containment whereby the reduced numbers are easier for Central Government to order & control. In the case of urban verses rural, the volume of town elected Councillors will automatically control the rural area, of which in the main, they have little or no knowledge about. The reverse of course also applies, but would never happen for obvious reasons.

The larger the Council the more impersonal it becomes, whereas it is now possible to contact your councillor in local councils over a local issue; with amalgamation, it will be physically impossible for a Councillor to deal individually with all ratepayers.

Also with larger local authorities, the pyramid employment process by which Council “Managers” are able to produce hard evidence to support claims for extra staff to cope with the ever increasing bureaucracy.

Restraining Local Government to Core activities will be difficult, especially when we see the results of rates expenditure and budget blowouts on Sports stadiums and non-core activities in general.

This whole “Reform syndrome” brings up the question of whether our L.G. should be made into Companies, thereby subjecting them to the same rules and regulations as normal business with all Rate payers becoming shareholders.

To achieve this in a country whose three major parties-plus the Maori Party are so socialistically indoctrinated and inclined, would reflect at once on election day!!

“A dead duck in the shooting season”!!!

One solution we shoot the bureaucrats - in or out of season!

Brian

This week's poll asks:

Do you support the current trend towards amalgamations and bigger local body councils?

*So far in Super Auckland, I'm yet to see any efficiencies. There are now more layers to deal with, more paperwork and more cost. Fiona

*I agree that smaller councils are more responsive to their local communities. Big councils just become bureaucratic and autocratic. Jeremy

*There might be merit in unitary authorities to eliminate Regional Councils, but it is better for local councils to stay local. Jim

*Switzerland with its small cantons is a model for local democracy. Amalgamations are all about bureaucracy. Andy

*No, smaller is better - bigger councils are a recipe for excessive cost and delays. In spite of all of the fine promises about cost savings, amalgamation delivers less efficiency and more cost. Isn't that what they are finding in Auckland. Brian