Local Government Commission confirms amalgamation options limited
03 September 2009
The Local Government Commission has confirmed that consideration of the Aldo Miccio petition will be limited to "a union of the two districts (with or without some modification or variation), or the status quo".
In an email to the Tasman District Council, the Commission Chief Executive Mr Donald Riezebos states;
"When looking at other proposals the advice the Commission has received is that a modification or variation could not go so far as to turn the proposal into an entirely different proposal. If the Commission decided to proceed with a proposal for the union of Nelson City and Tasman District it could perhaps modify the proposal by, say, transferring a small area of the city or district to a neighbouring district. However the core element of the proposal would still have to be for the union of Nelson City and Tasman District. The options open to the Commission are therefore a union of the two districts (with or without some modification or variation) or the status quo."
Mr Riezebos also ruled out consideration of separate councils for either Golden Bay or Motueka, or a joint Golden Bay-Motueka Council stating; "To my mind this would go beyond the scope of a modification or variation."
The Commission also confirms that while it must investigate the union of the Tasman District and Nelson City, there is no automatic requirement to proceed to a poll of electors in each district.
If the petitions in each district are successful in acquiring the necessary ten percent of registered elector's signatures the Commission's first step is to carry out appropriate inquiries and consultation. After the consultation, the Commission must then either;
• prepare a draft reorganisation scheme based on the proposal or some modification of the proposal; or
• decide not to proceed with the proposal.
After the Commission has considered submissions on a draft reorganisation scheme, the Commission has a similar choice to either proceed, or not proceed to a draft reorganisation proposal.
Mr Riezebos is also critical of some information in the Tasman District Council's website guide, noting:
"The guide states that the Commission will not look into or suggest other ways that the councils could work together more productively …"This is not necessarily the case. It is possible that the Commission could decline to proceed with a proposal but make observations in its decision about how non-structural arrangements could be improved. In the course of its investigations it is quite likely to hear evidence about such things."
Mr Riezebos also points out that the Local Government Commission will be giving priority to representation for the new Auckland Council arrangements, and that the timetable set out in the Tasman District Council guide might be impacted by those tasks. He has also suggested other minor word changes to improve clarity in the guide.
Tasman Mayor Richard Kempthorne has welcomed the Commission's advice.
"At all times we have sought to provide objective advice to our residents", says Mayor Kempthorne. "The Commission has confirmed that claims made in the petition and in press releases, stating that the Commission will review a range of local governance options, are not correct. Mr Riezebos has made it quite clear that the Commission has to concentrate on just two options. Those options are the status quo, or the dissolution of both existing councils and the creation of a new single council. There is no room in the petition request for other suggested options, such as separate councils for Golden Bay and Motueka, or a new rural council based on those two wards, or a new regional council separate from the city and district councils."
"Nor does signing the petition and getting more than ten percent of signatures in each district guarantee a poll. While the Commission will investigate and consult, there may never be a poll of electors. The last two petitions to the Commission sought draft reorganisation proposals to merge Kaikoura District Council into the Hurunui District Council, and to transfer the Hauraki Gulf Islands into Thames-Coromandel District. In both cases the Commission determined that the petition requests would not provide good local governance and the Commission declined to proceed to a poll. It will be over to the Commission to decide, but recent history shows that there has to be real evidence of some very powerful reasons for a reorganisation before the Commission puts everyone to the costs and disruption of a poll."
"This ruling by the Local Government Commission confirms Tasman District Council's advice to residents", says Mayor Kempthorne. "We want to be completely open about this matter. The full text of the Commission's advice is available on Tasman District Council's website (www.tasman.govt.nz), and all the suggested modifications to the guide have been implemented. Concerned members of the public are invited to visit the website and check out both the guide and the Commission's advice."
Donald Riezebos's e-mail to Tasman District Council
31 August 2009
-----------------------------------------------
From: Donald Riezebos
Sent: Monday, 31 August 2009
Subject: Reorganisation Process
You have asked for clarification about the scope of the Local Government Commission's power to consider options in relation to a reorganisation proposal involving union of districts.
Clause 39 of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act provides that after the Commission has carried out appropriate inquiries and consultations on a proposal it must either -
• prepare a draft reorganisation scheme based on the proposal or some modification of the proposal; or
• decide not to proceed with the proposal.
After the Commission has considered submissions on a draft reorganisation scheme it has a similar set of choices (see clause 46(1)(a.
When looking at other proposals the advice the Commission has received is that a modification or variation could not go so far as to turn the proposal into an entirely different proposal. If the Commission decided to proceed with a proposal for the union of Nelson City and Tasman District it could perhaps modify the proposal by, say, transferring a small area of the city or district to a neighbouring district. However the core element of the proposal would still have to be for the union of Nelson City and Tasman District. The options open to the Commission are therefore a union of the two districts (with or without some modification or variation) or the status quo.
In your e-mail you give an example of another possible options - the constitution of a separate council for Golden Bay-Motueka. To my mind this would go beyond the scope of a modification or variation.
I understand that the Council has a guide to the 2009 Amalgamation Petition on its website. I would like to comment on some of the content of that guide.
The guide states that "the Commission will not look into or suggest other ways that the councils could work together more productively …"
This is not necessarily the case. It is possible that the Commission could decline to proceed with a proposal but make observations in its decision about how non-structural arrangements could be improved. In the course of its investigations it is quite likely to hear evidence about such things.
The guide contains a timetable. The timescale set out is a reasonable guess but has to be a bit speculative at this stage. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is likely to become an Act before the end of September 2009. From then until 1 March 2010 a priority for the Commission will be determining the boundaries of Auckland and the representation and local board arrangements for the new Auckland Council. In addition the Commission is required to deal with any appeals against representation reviews before 11 April 2010. It is possible that these tasks could impact on the Commission's process for dealing with any proposal affecting Nelson and Tasman.
The 3rd bullet point in the guide states the Commission could reject the request to investigate the union of the Tasman and Nelson councils. The Commission could only decline the proposal at this stage if the proposal is the same or substantially similar to a proposal that has been declined in the previous 3 years. Obviously there has been no similar proposal in the last 3 years.
Regards
Donald Riezebos
Chief Executive Officer
Local Government Commission
