Paul Catchpole
I sent the following to the Taranaki Daily News. They ignored it.
“Bruce Smith, the Mayor of the Westland District Council and Chairman of the West Coast Civil Defence has produced his fourth update on three waters.
“In a wide ranging report he sets out how councils are well over 90% opposed to three waters, and presents a list of 30 mayors who are attempting to get a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the matter.
“New Plymouth District Council is not on the list.
“Mayor Smith goes on to explain that 23 councils have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that they will oppose the current three waters proposals.
“New Plymouth District Council is not on that list either.
“He then expresses his great concern that many councillors seemed oblivious of the existence of the Memorandum, suggesting in doing so that its existence had been withheld from them.
“The Local Government Act 2003 says of the powers of Mayors:
‘Role and powers of mayors
(1)
The role of a mayor is to provide leadership to—
(a)
the other members of the territorial authority; and
(b)
the people in the district of the territorial authority.‘
“Mayor Smith is doing just that, leading.
“And it’s not only Mayor Smith. The mayors of Timaru , Whangarei and Waimakariri have combined to lodge a Statement of Claim with the High Court, seeking a declaration of two fronts:
- Affirming the rights and obligations of local Councils, in regards to ownership of assets;
- And that it would be unlawful for the Government’s public education campaign to contain incorrect or misleading information in regard to each council’s rights, obligations and duties under the Local Government Act and performance, management, and provision of water services.
“Meanwhile more silence from NPDC.
“That is until Mayor Smith goes on to explain how the Department of Internal Affairs approached the Local Government Association for help in selecting a working group for the three waters proposal.
“While the Association appears to have been reluctant to specifically suggest any particular mayors it did provide a list of 20 names. From that list the DIA selected nine, all except one of which were pro the reforms or had been on an earlier advisory committee.
“Critically the terms of reference for this group are very restrictive. The mayors, in order to get on to the working-group agreed not to represent their ratepayers. Also, the mayors agreed that only tinkering with the governance on the four model reform to be mandated was allowed. They also agreed to report back by late March 2022.
“More importantly this working group does include the Mayor of New Plymouth District Council.
“Now this state of affairs is very worrying. I, along with just about everyone I know is opposed to the three-waters proposals. I have seen arguments supporting the proposals but I am entirely unswayed by them not the least because they are totally undemocratic but also by the hurried and unseemly way they are being implemented. Neither do I have any confidence in the financial details being bandied about as benefits of the proposals.
“I also find it rather strange that people from councils are being re-called to advise who are the very same people that are being blamed for the fact that we supposedly need the proposals.
“It grates that our mayor is content to sit in two diagrammatically opposed positions, especially as he has specifically signed away his representation of the NPDC ratepayers. In a personal communication he implies that all is well because he is in control. I am far from convinced and the situation is simply not acceptable.
“It should not be forgotten who was in charge of this council when we had a catastrophic water supply failure a few years ago.”
The incentive to write the above to the Taranaki Daily News came about after Mayor Smith’s update was posted on the NZCPR website. Soon after, comments appeared on Stuff’s Neighbourly website, to which Mayor Holdom (NPDC) replied. He re-iterated that all was OK because: “We had to agree not to involve the ratepayers.” He also stated that he had been appointed by the government to the position on the advisory panel.
That doesn’t agree with Mayor Smith’s explanation about how the panel was selected. That says Mayor Holdom was included on the panel by the Department of Internal Affairs, which is quite different. Government appointments are usually positions established by statute and are usually for a specific term although the term can be extended. To me that makes Mayor Holdom a consultant to the DIA.
That then brings up whether Mayor Holdom has the credentials to be such a consultant as his only qualification on any 3 Waters matter is that he showed some favour towards the proposals during the original round (such as it was) of discussions. If I recall correctly he sat on the fence and abstained when his council originally discussed 3 Waters. That is hardly leadership.
That Mayor Holdom used the term ‘we’ in reply to the Neighbourly correspondent is of concern. From it, the implication is that he is using NPDC staff to assist in his ‘consulting’ work. If that is so, how can it not involve the ratepayers? Even if he is doing whatever he has to do in his office, that involves the ratepayers. If he is involving NPDC staff, that involves the ratepayers. It also implies the cooperation of the CEO which puts him (the CEO) in an invidious position too.
Can Mayor Holdom not see that doing what he is doing is completely out of order? Most residents are unaware of what is happening as the local media are silent on the matter.
To remain as Mayor, Holdom should resign from his DIA appointment immediately. Perhaps he should resign the mayoralty too? He certainly can’t perform both functions without losing even more credibility, however much he might think he can. For the DIA to think that Holdom can operate by absolving the ratepayers is naïve as it is an impossibility, as it is his position as mayor which made him eligible in the first place.
Recently when 3 people announced they were intending to stand for the mayoralty, Mayor Holdom announced that he hadn’t decided whether to stand again but would make a decision in February. That is simply a meaningless political answer.
While a resignation of the DIA position would be sensible from the ratepayers’ perspective Mayor Holdom has made his position quite clear and it conflicts with remaining as mayor
A resignation of the mayoralty now would not entail a by-election being so close to the next scheduled election. Indeed it may hardly be noticed; the council can cope, and the next election is likely to be an interesting and exciting one.