A couple of advisors at the Christchurch City Council have ripped into the Government’s plan for regional councils and have said to councillors that they reckon there’s a better way.

Or more correctly, two better potential ways. Instead of having local mayors run regional councils for two years and, during that time, work out how they’re going to get by without a regional council. At a briefing meeting yesterday, two principal policy advisors put two options on the table for councillors to think about.

Option 1: Amalgamate the Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri councils to create a new super city. Which I've been a fan of for quite some time now.

And Option 2: Keep all three councils and have the city council take over ECAN’s regional council functions.

The reason these two council advisors have put these two options up for discussion is that they think having local mayors run ECAN for two years and work out a new structure for local government is a “weak” idea, which wouldn’t do any favours for Christchurch ratepayers.

And I get what they’re saying, because as soon as you get three mayors around the table, they’re just going to be interested in what’s in it for them, aren’t they? Which is the same approach these policy advisors are taking. They’re on the city council pay roll and so they have to think about what’s best for Christchurch city.

And I like their idea of a supercity.

But every time a supercity is mentioned, some people are quick to point to Auckland as an argument against it. The Auckland supercity brought together seven city and district councils and the regional council back in 2010. But a supercity in the greater Christchurch area would be nowhere near the same scale. We’re talking here about just three councils: Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.

We’ve done amalgamation before on a much smaller scale. Back in 2006, Banks Peninsula Council amalgamated with Christchurch city.

The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn’t have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don’t have that problem – they’ve grown massively since the earthquakes. Selwyn, especially.

But half of the people living in Selwyn come into Christchurch every day for work and school, and they contribute nothing towards the cost of the running of the city. They’re using the city’s roads and so many of the other facilities that they pay nothing for.

Add to that the relatively small distance between Selwyn, Christchurch and Waimakariri, and amalgamation is a no-brainer.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might recall a poll result that came out back in September which proved that 75 percent of us are idiots.

It’s these idiots that the Government is pandering to with the council rates cap it announced yesterday. And the 75 percent of people who said in that poll that they support the Government forcing rates caps on councils will be very happy today.

Because, from mid-2029, annual increases won’t be allowed to be any higher than 4 percent. Unless a council manages to get a special dispensation.

As a ratepayer, a rates cap sounds like a great idea. But it’s not.

One description I’ve seen of the Government’s move is that it’s lazy politics. Which it is.

Because of the 75 percent of people who support it, as the poll a few months back would suggest.

I suspect the only complaint the pro-rates cap people will have is that it isn’t planned to start for another three-and-a-half years. In mid-2029.

By which time there could very well be a different government in power and, if Labour (for example) is true to its word, then the whole thing could be history.

Labour’s local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere is saying today that they’ll vote against the rates cap law when it goes through Parliament.

He says: “We've made it very clear that we won't expect local government to continue to work and take on additional responsibilities without the funding. So we don't support this rates cap.”

Nelson mayor Nick Smith has been very careful not to bag his old National Party mates. But he does admit that it’s not going to be easy.

Rates caps have been brought-in in Australia and it’s created severe financial difficulties for some councils over there.

What’s more, Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald is already talking about the council selling assets to make up for the money it won’t be getting because of the limit on rates increases.

All this is, is another placebo policy. Something that might make us feel better for a little while. But it won’t last long.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it time to have a re-think about what’s done with the residential red zone on the east side of Christchurch?

I think it’s fair to say that mayor Phil Mauger thinks so. And so do I.

Phil’s saying today that he wants to see red zone land used for housing as soon as possible. With the first cab off the rank being land on the edge of the area already zoned for it.

This includes land the city council is going to lease to a housing trust so it can provide affordable housing on the east side of town. Ten hectares is already zoned for housing and another 24 hectares is earmarked for trial housing areas.

But, with a total area of about 600-hectares all up, why stop there?

I reckon that, rather than nibble around the edges, we should have a proper technical investigation to find out whether much more of the red zone land could be used.

At a time when we have more and more housing developments chewing up more and more land, shouldn’t we be opening our minds to the possibility that some - if not all - of that red zone land could be a better option?

I think so. But it would require a serious commitment and some serious expenditure. Because it would involve some pretty intense investigative work.

But when you think about when that area was declared a red zone, that was at a time when the land was still moving with all the aftershocks and when it probably just seemed easier to move everyone out and to think about what to do with it afterwards.

The thinking was done and, at that point, it was determined that the last thing to do with that area was to put more houses on it.

Which I think most of us were willing to accept at the time.

But it does seem strange that we are supposed to be behoven forever to decisions made more than a dozen years ago.

When not only time has moved on, but so too has our technical capabilities.

I’m no expert in any of the areas that would need to be factored-in to any decision to have more housing in the red zone, so I’m not demanding that houses be built there tomorrow. But Phil Mauger’s comments have got me thinking.

If we did go ahead with what I’m talking about, there’d be no guarantee that the outcome would be any different to what it was after the quakes. But what’s wrong with opening our minds to the possibility?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It’s taken 46 years and we’ve still managed to stuff up the decision as to where to have a memorial for the 257 people who died in the Mt Erebus air disaster.

It was 46 years ago today when the Air NZ DC-10, flight TE901, ploughed into the side of Mt Erebus.

And, yes, nice job making the memorial announcement in time for the anniversary, but Cracroft Reserve in Christchurch is not where it should be. In fact, it shouldn’t be in Christchurch full-stop. It should be in Auckland.

I’m not the only one who thinks so. I’ll get to that.

But I will never forget the night of the Erebus crash – if you were around at the time, you probably won’t either. I was 11-and-a-half, and I remember being allowed to stay up late and listen to the 10 o’clock news on the radio.

I went off to bed afterwards knowing it wasn’t good. And it seemed that everyone knew someone who was either on that plane or knew someone who lost someone close to them on that plane. A mate of dad’s lost his wife.

Simone Bennett was one of those people affected directly. She lost her father. He was one of the 257 people on board who died – 237 passengers and 20 crew.

She is furious that the memorial is going to be built in Christchurch. She says she’s furious and disgusted because she lives in Auckland and she can’t believe the memorial is going to be so far away.

I get that and good on her for calling out the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, because it feels to me like they have just given up on Auckland and gone for the next best location.

You’ll probably remember the stoush when they wanted to build the memorial at Dove Meyer Robinson Park in Parnell, in Auckland. But there was major push-back on that one.

The anti-brigade claimed that it would “change the tone of the gardens”. They eventually got their way when the cyclone went through Auckland and made the site at the gardens in Parnell unsafe to build on.

After that, 50 different sites in the greater Auckland area were looked at but none were considered suitable. Hence, it ending up in Christchurch.

Not everyone is unhappy with the decision though. Andrew McKeen is president of the Airline Pilots' Association. He’s not only thrilled it’s finally going to happen, he also thinks Christchurch is a good spot for it.

He’s saying: “Christchurch serves as New Zealand's gateway to Antarctica and was the intended stopover point for TE901's return to Auckland."

Which it was. I remember someone telling me once about all the airport staff waiting for the plane to land in Christchurch 46 years ago tonight. I get the connection to Antarctica with the Antarctic programme being based in Christchurch.

But the Air New Zealand headquarters is in Auckland and that’s where the memorial should be. The majority of family members live there too.

And I’m conscious that there could be someone reading this right now who was affected by Erebus in the most direct way and who may very well think Christchurch is a good choice.

But I don’t. Simone Bennett, who I mentioned earlier, doesn’t either. But what about you?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How interested are you in the quality of your drinking water?

For example, would you like to be able to look up your address and get credible, reliable information from an official source about the nitrate levels in the water coming through your taps?

I would. Because I just don’t know whether to believe some of the alarming stuff that’s been coming out of Greenpeace this week about the nitrate situation or not.

Let’s bring in Associate Professor Tim Chambers from the University of Canterbury - who is saying today that it is a government responsibility to provide up-to-date information on nitrates in the water.

He’s been involved in a large study looking into the link between nitrates and premature births, which has compared birth records with nitrate levels in drinking water supplies where these kids have been born.

He can’t say too much about the findings because they’re still being peer-reviewed. But he is saying that we deserve to know more.

He says: “We have advocated for this for a long time. Lots of other countries do this. You can type in your address and it takes you to the supply you’re on and the latest readings.”

I think this would be a brilliant thing to do here. In fact, I think it’s an essential thing to do here with all the noise - and, potentially, exaggeration - that’s coming from Greenpeace.

Or is it an exaggeration? If it is exaggerated, then we deserve better access to information.

Here’s one example of what Greenpeace has been saying this week. It says it’s tested 110 water samples and has found that the Darfield water supply is above the levels that are considered safe for pregnant women.

“Absolutely unacceptable,” is what one of its campaigners is saying about that.

If it’s true, I’d agree. But I heard about someone who had their water tested by an independent lab and it was fine. But their neighbour had Greenpeace test theirs and the levels were through the roof, apparently.

This is why I think the Government and councils are obliged to give us free and open access to data. Because we are at risk of being unnecessarily spooked by scaremongering by the likes of Greenpeace. At the same time, we’re also at risk of being misled by councils telling us that everything’s fine and there’s nothing to see here.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know how at work you can get people leaving and, instead of hiring new people, they just dish out the work to other people.

Then it gets to the point where the other people look up and realise they’re overworked, overloaded, and burnt out.

I wonder if that’s how mayors around the country are feeling about the prospect of them not only running their own councils but taking over their local regional council, as well.

That’s what the Government is proposing, with the ultimate aim of pretty much getting rid of regional councils as we know them.

Which I think is the wrong way of going about it. I think the Government should instead be focussing on all the other councils we’ve got. We have 67 local authorities in New Zealand. So work on having less city and district councils because that’s where the genuine overlap and duplication happens.

But the Government sees this as an easier sell. I know that from hearing Local Government Minister Chris Bishop say that people have got no idea what regional councils do, so let’s get rid of them.

I think it would be very easy for me to fall into the trap of cheering the Government on on this front because —trust me— I’m in no doubt that we have too many local councils. But I’m not cheering on this proposal because, in the long run, I don’t think it’s going to mean much.

If it was me telling the Government what should happen, I’d be saying unitary authorities are the way to go, which are basically councils that are regional councils and city or district councils all rolled into one.

Because why does somewhere the size of Timaru, for example, have two councils? The district council and the regional council. It shouldn’t.

That’s why I think the Government is all a bit backside-about-face on this one and should be focussing on us having less of the smaller councils and keeping the regional councils.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Council's been selected to act as a one-stop consenting authority for large-scale supermarket developments.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis says it's the latest step in the Government plan to make New Zealand attractive for new operators.

She says developers previously had to navigate up to 66 different councils, processes and responses.

Willis says the aim is to boost competition in a sector dominated by Foodstuffs and Woolworths by letting new entrants deal with just one authority.

Business Canterbury CEO Leeann Watson told John MacDonald that the intention of having a one-stop shop regardless of the number of sites you’re operating on is sound.

She says that they’ve heard from businesses who operate across multiple sites that there’s a real inconsistency across the local authorities, which can be incredibly painful to deal with.

But, Watson says, whether or not this plan creates the right incentives is still yet to be seen.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins says he's not clear what the Government's aiming for in its plans to change local government.

It's proposing replacing the country's 11 regional councils with boards made up of local mayors.

Hipkins agrees there's an obvious need for change.

But he told John MacDonald he thinks this looks like an attempt to make councils amalgamate.

Hipkins says if that's what they wanted, they should have told councils to go away and amalgamate.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.