Subscribe to RSSHide: Supercouncil Could Sack Transport Chiefs
Local Government Minister Rodney Hide says the first Auckland supercouncil can sack “one or all” members of the new Auckland Transport body if they wish “from day one.”
He said this tonight in an interview on TVONE’s Close Up.
He told Mark Sainsbury he didn’t expect this to happen because Cabinet would be making “damn good choices” in whom they appoint to the contentious CCOs.
Saying that Auckland “hasn’t worked for years,” the minister said Aucklanders were fed up with “the failure of Auckland and transport not working.
“We have nine transport agencies accountable to eight councils. We will now have one transport agency accountable to one council.”
Hide defended the government appointment of the new key agency staff saying that it wouldn’t be feasible for the new mayor and supercouncil to be elected on November 1 and then go about appointing people - but if they don’t like the Cabinet appointees, “they can sack them.”
Sadly, there was no discussion about the most contentious of the new set -up , the fact the CCOs will be making decisions in secret, without public meetings or publicly-distributed agendas. A limp interview and a wasted opportunity there, Mark. Why didn’t you ask about the issue we’re all talking about and has even been splashed across your morning paper’s front page today?
It’s obvious that, for now, the government has no public view to make dramatic revamps to the proposed structure, despite mounting pressure to do so in endless submissions to the parliamentary select committee. But don’t be surprised if there are minor changes announced in the next day or two to give the appearance the government is listening to the noise.
But it’s hard to see how the committee can not recommend major changes, especially as their own friendly mates like the Auckland Chamber of Commerce have said they’re uncomfortable with the detail of the structure.
10 Comments
Yeah certainly a pity that Mark Sainsbury didn’t ask about the secrecy issue as that would have wiped that annoying smile of Mr Hide’s face.
Link to the video is here by the way: http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/behind-super-city-mayoral-campaigns-3398716/video
So is he saying that the council can sack the directors without explanation or legal justification? Just because they don’t like the look of them? Is that really the case?
Was good to hear that any subsequent directors would be council appointed, and reporting to the council following the election.
Would have been pretty interesting to hear an answer on why the agendas and meetings would be kept secret.
“We have nine transport agencies accountable to eight councils. We will now have one transport agency accountable to one council.”
yeah right! we will now have one transport agency reporting to one Stephen Joyce.
“So is he saying that the council can sack the directors without explanation or legal justification? Just because they don’t like the look of them? Is that really the case?”
Government (actually governments world-wide) does that all the time for positions in government departments and Crown institutes - and it’s fair enough, really, as long as you don’t just do it to give your mates cushy jobs after you won the election. It only becomes a legal issue if the contract of the previous appointee studpidly gave him some right to keep the job or retain a similar-level/payment position.
Also, don’t get too worried about their livelihoods. These aren’t minimum-wage workers turned out onto the streets. People on six-figure salaries don’t need to be protected from dismissal more than your average casual. If they are career bureaucrats, the situation might be different, but then those people usually get shifted sideways or demoted slightly in such a scenario, rather than sacked outright.
I didn’t elect Hide or Joyce as my local government representative to appoint anyone to my local body controlled organisations… I wouldn’t trust anyone he appointed as far as I could throw them… This is taxation without representation…
The real issue here is almost not so much the problems with the set-up. It is the fact that they are cast into stone with the law.
So the new Auckland Council cannot change them without going to Wellington. So much for the “local” in local government.
If what hide is saying is true then this could work out alright, to oftern in Auckland does a good project get turned down because of a minority, they might actually be able to get transport projects running, and faster than normal, by Auckland Council able to sack from day one, this could open up the door for us to vote based on transport policies, and be answerable to the decisions, otherwise face the sack.
So even if the CCO’s want to keep decisions on the down-low, if it doesn’t work don’t expect to be there after the next election. Although some may argue it’s not the ideal, it may turn out alright, we just need to keep in mind what hide has said, so we can throw it back in his face if it doesn’t pan-out that way.
“If what hide is saying is true”
What HAS he been saying. Nothing is new. He has not responded to the ciricism at all.
“then this could work out alright, to oftern in Auckland does a good project get turned down because of a minority,”
If politicians turn a project down because of a minority, then either they have no spine OR the minority had a good case. Both are perfectly normal in a democracy, in fact that is exactly the way things should be.
Taking the decisions away from people and putting them into technocrats hands only shows that people have forgotten what Winston Churchill mean when he said that democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the other ones that have been tried.
I don’t buy any of Hide’s comments, and mistrust all his actions. He campaigned on a privatisation, corporatised, lets sell the assets platform.
He didn’t get the mandate to do privatisation outright (his party got only a very small amount of votes, and National had to promised not to privatise anything this term for fear voters might hate the idea) so he / they are trying to prepare for it by stealth.
” don’t buy any of Hide’s comments, and mistrust all his actions. He campaigned on a privatisation, corporatised, lets sell the assets platform.
He didn’t get the mandate to do privatisation outright (his party got only a very small amount of votes, and National had to promised not to privatise anything this term for fear voters might hate the idea) so he / they are trying to prepare for it by stealth.
” - “If politicians turn a project down because of a minority, then either they have no spine OR the minority had a good case. Both are perfectly normal in a democracy, in fact that is exactly the way things should be.” - Small votes = Minority? - Then maybe he has a good cause, which is a matter of opinion, of the minority maybe?
Either Way what you are saying is it’s ok that have a minority to get it’s wish on one hand when it suits - but not on the other when it suits. A bit of a double standard there isn’t it?
My view is the majority should be the judgement, and the majority don’t have time to go and complain or support what they want so the easiest way is to rate the performance and say yay or nay. Come election time they can vote for the Mayor whom values line up, then the mayor can put the people they want in charge. It’s not stealth as you will see the results and judge them on that.