Democracy.
“The Waitākere Ranges belong to all Aucklanders [says the ACT leader] and should be managed democratically. But Auckland Council’s plan would see unelected decision-makers closing tracks and dictating land use in the surrounding rural areas."
“The ranges are governed under the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act," notes the ACT leader. And the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act calls for a "Deed of Acknowledgement" recognising and giving power to tangata whenua. If the ACT leader has a problem with the Deed of Acknowledgement and the giving of power then — since it's the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act that requires the acknowledgement and gives such power — then it's the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act that he has a problem with.
Dictating.
One can only imagine that the ACT leader then was just as outraged.
 |
| Minister for Local Government, 2008-11 |
Except ... it should be further noted that the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act was introduced by the Minister for Local Government in 2008, and brought into law in April 2008. And that ACT leader was himself Minister of Local Government for three years from 2008 to 2011, in which he had ample opportunity to amend the Act.
He didn't.
Ample opportunity to restrict the powers of local government to those in which it enjoyed a "general competence."
He didn't.
What did he do instead?
Oh, that's right. He spent his time, ego, and rapidly dwindling political capital on super-sizing Auckland's already tumescent council, all but ensuring citizens' rates bills would be equally super-swollen.
It's a bit late now to watch this ACT leader whimpering about it.
1 comment:
You seem to be arguing a 'sins of the fathers' approach, that he ACT leader of 2025 can't be arguing for something that's inconsistent with what a different ACT leader advocated in 2008. If what the ACT leader did in 2008 was wrong, why on earth would you want him to be limited in that way? What's more important, being consistent with previous leaders decades ago, or doing what's right now?
Even if they were the same people, and that person made a mistake in 2008, we still should want them to change their mind. Inconsistency would be a good thing in that context. Smart people change their mind all the time as the evidence changes.
Post a Comment