Bigger is not always better in local government

March 5th, 2012
Ron Nuttall

I read in the "Guardian" Damien O'Connor states that, should an Amalgamation of Nelson City and the Tasman district councils take place it would not affect the electorate of West Coast Tasman. I remember in the 90s the murmurs from Wellington of suggestions that in the future central governments electorate boundaries might well be aligned to that of the local government (council) boundaries.

Many times in the past we the public have been subjected to murmurs and rumors of suggested changes that at the time never came to fulfillment but often many, many years later we have seen situations created that have brought about the previous rumored change.

Council amalgamations bring about a smaller number of Local Authorities boundaries. Therefore creating councils consisting of larger areas and with a greater population base.

Recently there has been a suggestion of a change in the number of representatives in central government which one would therefore expect to see a change in the number of central government electorates. This of course would need to be accepted through our normal democratic process.

But one must wonder if these two situations might not come together in the future.

What I do know is bigger is not always better. In fact history proves that the larger a private or government system might become, the harder they fall and with both it is we the shareholders, (the tax payers of central or local government) that carry the costs.

How much easier it would be for central government to influence the decisions of local councils as the number of these councils are reduced and with this reduction there comes the never ending number of representatives within council that are not democratically voted to council but rather appointed to council.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]