Cr Bill Faulkner Faulkners Corner www.sunlive.co.nz

Elected members attended a briefing on 'implementing Treaty settlements” this week. Termed a value added session it was conducted by new council legal advisors DLA Phillips Fox from Wellington.

Wellington lawyers have a different persona from Auckland lawyers was my take on this presentation. More relaxed and human.
As expected, the news is not heartening for ratepayers. Our council has only been informed on generalisations by the office of Treaty Settlements. Likewise Central Government has chosen not to include us in the loop. Put simply, we only hear the detail through the grapevine. More importantly, the general populace has not been included; and this lack of foresight and inclusion has the capacity to rebound once the details of these Treaty settlements emerge. Council's role in all of this has been decided by Central Government – with no consultation – and as usual – no funding (so far).

New committee funds
The Bay of Plenty Regional Council got $570,000 to help fund a new committee to be called Tauranga Moana Governance Group. Its purpose and function is not clear, at least to me, but it will consist of elected members from council and appointees from local Iwi. We were told that it would govern joint management/governance requirements when they were announced.
Once again not much detail was provided, although it seems the Kaituna River catchment area has been singled out for attention. Another $200,000 has been allocated for this to the regional council by the Government to help pay for governance costs in that regard. You can bet your bottom dollar that these cost allocations will be the tip of the ratepayers' iceberg when it comes to central government offloading more responsibilities onto local government. Sometime after the event you will then read in the media a statement from political leaders on how irresponsible councils are in their expenditure controls – and how putting rates up is terrible. Yeah right! Another cause for concern is that the makeup of these co-governance groups has the possibility of lack of continuity. Council-elected members will be there for three years, but with Iwi appointments there is the capacity for regular turnover of members which can mean confusion and lack of retention of background information. In the initial stages continuity will be paramount.

Walking away
My take on all of this is that the Government's plan, once the settlements are signed and sealed, is to walk away and leave it for local councils to take the heat from the community and ratepayers to pay for all the administration. The statement was made 'it's only staff time” but who do they think pays for staff time and it will probably mean more staff too!
The regional council is featuring in all of this, notably as banker or custodian of government funds allocated for governance, as outlined. It will be interesting to see how much actually filters down to local councils for real work on the ground.
By the way, councils get no choice in all of this. As a creature of government statute, councils are required by those laws to do exactly what they are told. Rumour mill has it that the Treaty settlements locally are about $500 million. They are supposed to be 'full and final” but the local iwi have told me that these settlements are 1 per cent of what was taken from them.
Deliberations were held this week on the Smartgrowth review hearings of a couple of weeks ago. I'm not on the Smartgrowth committee so I won't comment on details other than to say, in my opinion, its impetus and effect is waning.

Good and bad
There have been benefits – some were unintended – and some negatives. Like the '15 lot per hectare target” for urban subdivision. All well and good while things were booming from 2004-2007, but not so flash in the downturn.
The target became interpreted as a goal, and the discussions that followed, hindered development in the city which was the major council affected but under Smartgrowth agreements we had to 'give effect” to the plan.
Hoist by your own petard!
It's taken too long to work through all of this. The regional council is unrelenting in its pursuit of removal of Westminster land rights.
They have a regular concerted effort at land grabs, and land rights grabs. All in the region's best interests of course! The latest is the draft Regional Council Coastal Environment plan.
They draw lines over land that would mean owners losing rights on their land – all with no compensation.
These drafts mean that owners have to employ consultants at huge costs to fight the regional council – and Government wonders why land costs so much!

Defending amenity
I'm associated with a local organisation, long-established, and we have had to bring in consultants to defend our existing amenity. It's unrelenting and if you don't keep up they will eventually get you.
Tauranga City Council land at Te Tumu might be affected too, so there goes more ratepayer money to preserve the asset.
Great strategy too – putting it out in draft and seeking 'feedback”. A real cheap peer review; and an indicator of what the regional council might get away with.
At Elders Forum this week, I raised the issue of the sustainability of the many social services organisations in the current economic climate, and the Government cutting back or withdrawing from funding.
Increasing reliance on the like of gambling charities may not be the best way for long term survival.
The matter I raised with the Elders Forum, which has a broad overview and representation from some of these organisations, was an amalgamation of administration and fund raising functions, leaving the various groups to get on with the good work they do.

Helpful suggestion
Its doubtless such a move won't be well received by some, but the option of financial obliteration won't sit well either. This is just a helpful suggestion at this stage, and no-one moved anything to take it further.

This week's mindbender from DR Samuel Johnston 1709 – 1784:
'Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.”