Sign In / Register
Proposals to change the Rodney Local Board boundaries to create two new rural subdivisions came close to being rejected by members last week as a result of community feedback.
During a convoluted two-hour meeting, Warkworth member Ivan Wagstaff urged the board to acknowledge the 76 per cent of respondents who said they did not support Auckland Council’s proposal – already approved by board members – to add two new rural subdivisions.
Wagstaff had lobbied aggressively on social media against the proposed changes, which would result in the same number of elected members for North Rodney, but instead of one for Wellsford and three for Warkworth, would mean two for a new North Rural subdivision and two for Warkworth.
Council’s principal governance advisor, Warwick McNaughton, said there were more than 2000 submissions, with objections coming from two areas – Kaukapakapa, which did not want to be included in North Rural, and Warkworth, which he said was to be expected, due to a perceived loss of representation.
However, he said the proposed changes were more about spreading representation fairly throughout the district.
“I picked up a sense that people feel that the more representatives they have in their subdivision, the more likely they are to get stuff done – that concerned me a little bit,” he said. “Subdivisions are to do with spreading representation out. Competition between members – that shouldn’t be there. You all make a declaration to act in the best interests of the whole of Rodney.”
He also said the main reason for the changes, as well as providing better representation for rural residents, was to correct a statutory anomaly that needed fixing. The Local Electoral Act requires that the population each board member represents must not vary from the average across the whole of Auckland by more than 10 per cent.
However, Wellsford currently has a variance of nearly 23 per cent – something the new boundaries would correct.
Wagstaff claimed the premise that rural people were currently under-represented was incorrect and the process was a waste of money, adding that the opposition feedback spoke volumes.
“We have not had a clear message from our communities of the desire to change,” he said. “It will divide communities of interest and cause unnatural splits. What right do we have to tell our communities what they need?”
He also maintained that it was unfair that a proposal put forward by “a small group of people” – Northern Action Group, Rodney Community Voices and the Landowners and Contractors Association – had been accepted by council staff and supported by the board. He said there were far more groups than just rural residents that were under-represented, such as youth and iwi.
“It’s a lack of natural justice when other community groups were not submitting – they were effectively excluded,” he said. “We didn’t give people the opportunity to put forward their views.”
However, another Warkworth member, Michelle Carmichael, voiced concerns over the message Wagstaff had put across during the consultation period.
“As members, we should be unbiased when we are putting stuff on social media and asking people to give feedback,” she said. “I’ve got a big concern over the tone that was used in some of your posts, Ivan, and I think you scared people into misunderstanding the role of the board, misunderstanding the context of this whole process.”
She added that some board members were only looking at the representation review through a subdivision lens, rather than at how it would affect the whole of Rodney.
“Some may be concerned with re-election and some may just be concerned about the people in their specific area, and I’m not very pleased to see that.”
During a sometimes heated discussion, Wagstaff’s bid to maintain the status quo was at first approved, though only with chair Brent Bailey’s casting vote. However, that result was later superseded by a further amendment from Carmichael to proceed with the proposed changes, though with some minor changes.
In the end, members voted to support a proposed amendment by council staff to boundary changes that would leave Kaukapakapa in South Rural (see map).
They also expressed their concern “at the limited range of participation in this process, and request that future consultation includes improvements to gain a wider demographic of responses”, and requested face-to-face consultation with representatives from all marae in future.
A bid by Carmichael to request that future consultation material was unbiased and members were under clear guidelines “on how to impartially promote consultation participation” was lost, however.
Members Brent Bailey, Geoff Upson and Ivan Wagstaff abstained.
The board will now make a submission outlining these latest views to council’s Joint Governance Working Party hearing on Friday, September 6. The governing body will decide on its final proposal later this month, which will then be publicly notified. Objections or appeals can be lodged in writing from October 3 to November 4. Council will pass these and its final proposal to the Local Government Commission for the final ruling.
Following the vote, Wagstaff took to social media to decry the decision. “A sad day for Warkworth and our Wellsford neighbours,” he wrote. “I proposed that we listen to your voices and the overwhelming level of feedback opposing the proposed reduction of our subdivision boundaries.”
He added that the fight was not over.
