No one in this district, not even the current council, it seems, has anything like enough information to make an intelligent, informed decision regarding the pros and cons of one, two or no unitary authorities, and whoever wins the mayoralty, by whatever margin, they will not be able to claim any kind of mandate for their view.
The second reason is that local government reform does not seem to be exercising a great many minds, and nor should it. That will no doubt change when the LGC announces its preferred option, but at this stage, of all the questions put to candidates at various meetings, very few have had anything to do with reform. That is for another day, when we can discuss facts as opposed to supposition, wishful thinking and fantasies.
Mr Brown and at least two of his current councillors clearly don't share that view, however. They seem to have decided that the wind is not blowing in favour of a Far North Unitary Authority, and are calling in the lawyers.
Last week the LGC issued a newsletter in which reference was made to current re-organisation proposals. It stated that last month chairman Basil Morrison and commissioner Anne Carter conducted 11 meetings in 10 centres throughout Northland, attracting almost 300 residents and ratepayers. It went on to note that the editor of the Northland Age had attended one of those meetings, and subsequently wrote:
'Everything that has been said so far suggests that the Far North, and Northland, can have faith in the LGC of 2013 to leave no stone unturned in doing its job with an open mind and a determination to reach a conclusion that its members genuinely believe to be best for the region. Whether or not Northland agrees will be up to Northland, and that's the way it should be.'
Mr Brown's response to that came two days later in the form of an email to councillors and various council staff, including chief executive Dave Edmunds. That email, which reached this newspaper via a more circuitous route, accused Northland Age editor "Jacko" of "typical brown-nosing," while "worse that (derogatory term deleted) Basil only reports stuff that is positive to his view."
It continued with an instruction to Mr Edmunds to "get legal opinion on whether they (the LGC) are allowed to consider our application under laws that did not exist at the time or the law when we lodged, and also organise a good lawyer to lodge a judicial hearing on the decision based on issues like Basil staying with Carter and the behaviour during the hearings.
"Don't stuff around, get on with it."
The writer does not understand the reference to "behaviour during the hearings," - the meeting he attended was civilised and informative, remarkable only for the fact that the council wanted it streamed to the council chambers so it could hear what was being said - but the reference to "Basil staying with Carter" dates back to earlier this year when Mr Morrison was in the Cook Islands while Mr Carter was there as the High Commissioner.
Meanwhile, at least two councillors responded to Mr Brown's clarion call. Monty Knight: "So we are going to be completely snookered! Reeks of big brother doesn't it." Colin Kitchen: "Yes Mont. Looks like they are not listening and they want to shaft us. Let's dig our toes in team."
This is outrageous. The decision regarding how local government in the Far North and Northland is structured ultimately belongs to the people who live there, not those currently elected to represent them (who might only have 18 days before forced retirement). And the LGC hasn't even announced its preferred option. How on Earth can a council justify engaging a "good" lawyer, presumably as opposed to a not so good, cheaper one, to request a judicial hearing into a decision that may not yet have been made, and certainly has not been announced? On the basis that the chairman of the LGC and a mayoral candidate are friends?
This newspaper has no idea what the Commission is thinking, but fully expects its favoured option to be one unitary authority for Northland, with local boards. That is an option that this newspaper will oppose; it will also oppose a Far North Unitary Authority. Nor is the former favoured by Mr Carter. He has made it clear numerous times during this campaign that he would fight tooth and nail (his term) against a structure that would give Whangarei dominance. If anyone can explain how that might suggest that the friendship between Messrs Carter and Morrison is tainting this process, please do so.
Mr Carter has equally frequently undertaken, should the Commission not favour the status quo, to present as much information as possible relating to the Commission's proposal and the status quo, and leave it to the voters to decide what they want.
Unless there is an agenda that this newspaper is not aware of, that does not suggest that Mr Carter and the Commission are in cahoots. What is apparent is a disturbing degree of paranoia on the part of at least some elected members of the Far North District Council, and a determination to deprive the people those councillors represent of a meaningful discussion regarding the pros and cons of the status quo and any other option, and thus their right to have a say.
A word of advice to the incumbent candidates - leave this issue until after October 12. The Commission won't be releasing any decision until after that date, and there is nothing to gain by pre-empting that decision. Stick to the issues that matter to this district, re-acquaint yourselves with the principles of democracy (if necessary), and prepare to argue for what you believe in when we know what the question is.
Accuse the editor of this newspaper of brown-nosing (not to mention conspiracy) if you will, but resist the temptation to denigrate other people, influential or otherwise. You never know where your emails will end up.
