Bill Dalton

It was interesting to pick up the Dominion Post this morning (Monday 28/11/11) and read what the political editor was saying about John Key. She said that John Key will push ahead as far as he can while carrying the people with him.

I wonder if Lawrence Yule and Chris Tremain have taken that message on board.

In 2009 Lawrence came out with a strong call for all the local authorities to amalgamate and Chris Tremain supported him. Since then they have both softened their approach to one of “we only want a study done” but we all know what their real agenda is.

If Lawrence had used his brains and carried the people with him, we could have avoided the horrible Napier versus Hastings situation that his actions have fueled. He could have identified all those things that will have to be done in Hawkes Bay if amalgamation takes place and should be done if it doesn’t. He should have set out a clear path with a timeline attached to align contract dates and to merge all regulations and rules. In modern language, to ensure all councils are singing from the same songbook. Lawrence would have got unanimous support across Hawkes Bay for that project and his dream of amalgamation would be well under way.

Instead Lawrence has decided not to take the John Key approach. Not to carry the people with him. He has chosen to take the “I know what’s good for you” approach and that has set Hawkes Bay back 12 years. It is a bloody shame and totally unnecessary . Lawrence has undone much of the good work many of us have been doing over recent years to ensure a truly unified Hawkes Bay.

Surely Chris Tremain has got the message from Saturday’s election result. In an election where the National Party blitzed all other parties, where Napier people gave National a very strong mandate, Chis’ majority dropped by over 60%. No message could be clearer and the result will not have gone unnoticed in Wellington.

Everyone knows that the Better Hawkes Bay line of “we just want a study done” is a smokescreen for those who want to amalgamate. And the people of Chris Tremain’s electorate have told him loudly and clearly they are not going to be bullied into such action.

Lawrence and Chris would be well advised to take a leaf out of John Key’s book. They should steer a sensible path for Hawkes Bay that has the support of all the people. Only when that journey is completed should we look at what the next sensible step may be.

It’s early Sunday morning and I’ve had a shocking nights sleep. I tossed and turned all night not quite believing what we had done to ourselves.

Firstly we voted to retain MMP and then saw results that proved what an appalling system it is. Too late now folks! Frankly we should have had the results of last nights election debacle and then have asked the question – do you want to retain MMP or not. I am sure the result of the referendum would have been quite different than last nights one.

If ever there was a clear demonstration that MMP is an absurd system it was last night. Apart from the rag tag bunch of one man parties, how the hell can we justify Winston Peters returning to parliament – and worse, he drags 7 of his lightweight mates in with him.

Winston Peters is arguably the most untrustworthy politician ever to sit in our house of representatives. In the first MMP election he campaigned on getting rid of National. He encouraged us to vote for him so he could get rid of the terrible National Government. When it became obvious that this ridiculous system had delivered him the balance of power, Peters, after holding the country to ransom for weeks, did a deal with National which kept them in power. National even created the new role of Treasurer for him which suited Peters perfectly. It was just a posers role and Bill Birch did all the work as Minister of Finance. Eventually National saw through him and Peters was sacked.

Peters subsequently campaigned saying he was “not interested in the baubles of office”. This time he went with Labour who gave him a first class air ticket and told him to stay out of the country as much as possible. They too eventually saw through him and gave him the shove.

Winston Peters could not be trusted then and he can not be trusted now. He is the poster boy for all that is wrong with the MMP system.

Look at the graphic of the House of Representatives in this mornings paper. Does it occur to anyone else that one side of the house looks solid and the other side a shambles? All these little parties with one MP are just nonsense. And like Jim Anderton did for years, they will all be putting their hands out for the party leaders funding which is significant. Leaders of what? In the good old days these people would have been leaders of ginger groups within the main parties.

Being an optimist I need to look for something positive that came out of last night. And it’s easy to find isn’t it. At least Hone didn’t get John Minto and Sue Bradford into Parliament!

So that’s got that off my chest – I can now go and enjoy a magnificent day in the Bay. At one stage last night I was seriously considering moving to Australia – I kid you not!

The 2011 general election is a strange beast – mainly because of the Rugby World Cup which has required a short, sharp campaign. Because the campaign is so short and intense, TV has played a greater part than usual and that means more emphasis has been placed on the leaders. And that’s a worry.

Naturally the leader is important but the leader is just that – a leader. The leader of a team we expect will run the country well and for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The team is every bit as important as the leader and yet we have hardly seen anyone bar the leaders.

When you are considering your party vote, I suggest you undertake this exercise. Write down the top 12/15/20 – how ever many you want – names in order for each party and then decide which team you would prefer to run the country. It will certainly make your decision making easier I’m sure.

Your electorate vote is much easier. Vote for the person you believe will work the hardest for your electorate and has similar views to yours on the future of the electorate.

The electoral system vote is the one that is going to have the most influence on the future of New Zealand and yet it is the vote that is being debated the least. That is disappointing.

MMP has been a disaster for New Zealand and it has the potential to create even greater problems in the future.

Supporters of MMP tell us that it has given us a parliament that is far more representative of New Zealand Society and that may well be true. But New Zealand is not just made up of the clever, the caring, the able, the honest and the honourable. It is also made up of the thick, the uncaring, the unable, the dishonest and the dishonourable – do we want them represented in our parliament?

We don’t need a cross section of society in parliament, we need the team of people who are best qualified to run the country for all New Zealanders.

If ever there was a time in economic history when stability was required it is right now. And yet the media are trying to convince us that MMP may deliver Winston Peters back to parliament. Winston Peters who has proven to be totally untrustworthy and has created instability in his previous stint in parliament, might just sneak back in and might even hold a position of huge influence.

Tell me how that disaster for New Zealand shows MMP in a good light.

Over the past 40 years I’ve been involved in a large number of community activities here in the Bay. From sports clubs, service clubs, cultural groups, to business and political organisations, I have been involved in all aspects of our community. And never before have I been involved in any project or campaign where there has been so much dishonesty as there is in the Better Hawkes Bay campaign.

Those running the Better HB campaign simply have no conscience. They promote erroneous figures and when proven to be wrong, refuse to retract them or to issue an apology. They promote half-truths and untruths with reckless abandon. And now Regional Councillor Neil Kirton has joined the fray, publishing material he knows is wrong in fact.

Let me quote from Kirton’s article published in a HB Regional Council publication and subsequently in the Napier Mail.

“The Regional Council has agreed to contribute $40,000 for an independent study into the role of local government in the region. The study will include looking at the way our councils are structured with the possibility of amalgamating councils. There has been stout resistance and opposition from various councils, most notably from Mayor Barbara Arnott and her council”.

The clear message Kirton is trying to convey is that Mayor Arnott and her councillors, oppose the undertaking of an economic study as proposed by the Regional Council.

Kirton knows that is not the case. He is being intentionally misleading and mischievous.

The facts are clear and well known to Kirton.

Lawrence Yule approached the Napier City Council and asked for support for a feasibility study to be done on amalgamation. The Napier City Council refused.

The Hawkes Bay Regional council subsequently proposed that an independent study, including looking at how governance will effect our economic future, be done. Mayor Arnott immediately sent a letter of support to the Chair of the Regional Council offering the Napier City Council’s support and also funding.

These are the facts. Neil Kirton knows them and yet he choses to present a different picture.

Bloody disappointing from an elected representative.

Recently I have been taken to task by several people who for some reason believe I am against an economic study being undertaken in Hawkes Bay. So I’ve gone out of my way to make it clear I support an economic study being done.

Then just this morning, some fellow rang me up and started abusing me because we were about to, in his words, squander ratepayers money on such a study. You just can’t win!

The one sensible thing this fellow said to me was that the study is going to be expensive. And of course it may well be that the study is just the start of ratepayer expenditure on a process that hopefully will bring some closure to the divisive amalgamation debate – for the time being at least. Following the study it is quite likely we will have to undertake an electoral petition and following that it is probable that we will go to a referendum. The all-up cost will be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The first and very important step will be to set the terms of reference for the study. There are some in our community who have declared themselves “Key Stakeholders” and believe they should have a big say in setting the terms of reference. Well the truth is, when hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayers money is being spent, that every ratepayer is a key stakeholder. None more key that the next. And all stakeholders can’t be invited to set the terms of reference. We all know that in that situation it would be impossible to reach consensus.

So how should we handle such a task? The answer is found when we look at the very basics of the democratic system.

In a democracy we elect people to act in our best interests. Those people take an oath that they will act in the best interests of the community from which they were elected. If the are found not to be serving their community in an appropriate manner, then they will be tossed out of office at the next election. Simple democracy.

When we look at these people who now believe they are “Key Stakeholders”, somehow more important then other ratepayers, we find that they have never stood before the ratepayers and offered to serve. There was an election just one year ago. I didn’t see their names on the candidate list.

So we elect representatives to act on our behalf in a democracy. We don’t appoint ourselves to a position above others.