Who do bureaucrats work for?
The plight of Pokeno homeowners is appalling. Four families with their life savings tied up in their houses are being held to ransom by Waikato District Council.
Resembling Tauranga’s Bella Vista debacle, where code compliance certificates were issued without proper inspections, the council claims that the finished and fully certified houses suddenly need retrospective resource consents – and that the residents should pay for the council’s mistake.
One of the group dared to make a complaint. The council’s response has been to cease talking to him. This sounds all too familiar. After failing to bully the families into forking out, it looks like the bureaucrats are trying to wear them down by dragging it out. At the time of writing, it is nine weeks for a process that the Resource Management Act requires to be completed in 20 working days. Who are these civil servants serving?
The council would rather spend money on lawyers than fix the problem, and according to a council spokesperson, ‘‘that is standard practice’’.
Is it standard practice to screw up consents? If not, then probably Gavin Ion, Waikato District Council chief executive officer, should actually be trying to sort it out. That is his job, as made clear by the Local Government Act 2002, Section 42C: the chief executive is responsible for ‘‘ensuring that all responsibilities, duties, and powers delegated to … any person employed by the local authority … are properly performed …’’
The buck stops at the top.
If he wants to pay lawyers to do his job for him, then he should pay from his own pocket. But adding insult to injury, ratepayers – including the Pokeno families – are the ones paying.
Last year’s fraud investigation into Waikato District Council identified a need for process improvements. Councils (and any large institution) need to be regularly reminded that sometimes the outcome is more important than the process. If the outcome is bad, change the process.
Most citizens would expect our elected representatives, the councillors whom we vote for, to get involved and protect our rights. But, just like the central government in Wellington, the civil servants are sheltered by legislation written by civil servants. Our democracy is severely curtailed when it comes to council’s operational matters.
This will be a topic of a future column.
It leaves little incentive for fixing the system, and too often only co-ordinated public pressure is needed to bring about change. That is why resident and ratepayer associations are important, and why they have been around a long time in New Zealand.
Christchurch had a ratepayers’ association in 1865, and the precursor to the the
reported on Auckland’s Ratepayers’ Association protesting a Water Loan Bill in 1872.
In 1876, Wellington’s newspaper made accusations against provincial councillor ET Gillon ‘‘misleading the ratepayers to real state of the Council’s affairs’’. The issue was over the auditing of the council’s finances and reported that it was ‘‘very desirable’’ that the upcoming meeting of the local ratepayers’ association be well attended.
What made this particularly interesting is that Gillon was the editor of the at the time!
There are several resident and ratepayer associations in the Waikato, including one in Pokeno. Working together, these groups could achieve real change in next year’s local body elections. I encourage readers to get active in their communities and meet up to discuss the issues that needs addressing. Get to know your councillors and candidates, and let them know what you expect of them.
The many benefits of working as a group include shared knowledge and experience from people who have stood up for themselves and others. The first step to empowerment is understanding how the system functions. The Hamilton group is 17 years old and has had a recent surge of membership. Annual subs are cheap at $10 to cover administration costs. Advice and emotional support are free!
We are also initiating a national association which can work towards changing the Local Government Act to something that gives better protection to residents and stronger oversight from elected representatives.
After failing to bully the families into forking out, it looks like the bureaucrats are trying to wear them down by dragging it out.