Are Motuekans apathetic about their town's future?

May 23th, 2011
[by David Armstrong]

It would seem that Motueka residents are an apathetic bunch when it comes to having their say about the future of key elements of the town.

Over the past few months meetings hosted by the Community Board, Tasman District Council, planning consultants and even groups like Grey Power have been so poorly attended that you would think residents are either not interested in how Motueka grows into the future, or would prefer to complain about decision making in private.

Recent public meetings that that drew small attendances include those seeking input on: - the development of West Motueka land for residential and commercial/industrial use, - protection of the town from the risk of flooding, - the 2011/2012 TDC Annual Plan, - Motueka's water supply and the possibility of reticulation.

This apparent apathy has been commented on several times this year by Community Board chairman David Ogilvie at board meetings or in written reports. Motueka Online sought opinions on whether it is a sign of apathy or something else.

Upon reflection, David said he would rather call it "an induced apathy". "I don't believe the apathy you're talking about represents a lack of interest or concern in the Community Board or District Council and the local issues raised," he said. "Certainly, board members would welcome more and wider responses to both major and minor issues, as it would make the board's role of representing Motueka interests considerably easier.

"It appears an 'induced' apathy, because local residents become disillusioned by battling Council and the bureaucracy which seems to disregard their submissions, recommendations and ideas."

He said that the comment is made frequently that 'Council has its own agenda, no point in making a submission, there are other things to do'. "As a community, generally, we tend to accept decisions and not make waves. Probably we need to be more demanding, certainly, to raise our expectations of what Council and management should and can do."

Board member Mark Chapman said his personal opinion was that this is not a unique problem to Motueka. "New Zealanders tend to lean toward the apathetic. However Motueka seems to be more represented than some other areas."

"I think that the prevailing feeling is that we are not listened to, therefore why bother having a say?" he said. "A prime example of this is the flood protection programme. At the last meeting MWH presented the 20 odd people that attended five options to protect Motueka, all no doubt at great expense.

"The most obvious solution that many people agree with is one of simple displacement. If there is 1 cubic metre of gravel in the river beaches, this is then displacing 1 cubic metre of water. Simple. Remove that metre of gravel and the flood waters have a cubic metre of space to go into.

"From all the flood meetings this was the most common theme. However this in itself was not a solution presented to people and was only talked about when I raised the issue. It was a very small part of the plan overall - in fact only in support of the five repair/rebuild options.

"This is a prime example of doing something without listening to the people that know. After that meeting I too almost joined the ranks of the apathetic. Why go and present a solution and not have it heard?"

Mark suggested that so much of the process is along the lines of a 'Claytons' consultation - "the consultation you have when you're not having a consultation".

"Everywhere one turns there is so much bureaucracy that ideas get lost, stymied or simply people throw their hands in the air and give up. There are very few people now with the time or energy that Jack Inglis or Bob Cooke, to name just two, have to doggedly pursue their goals through the mire of red tape, officials, engineers, consultants and Personal Assistants.

"So is it apathy? Or is it really just accepting reality?"

Ward Councillor and Community Board member Eileen Wilkins said the issue is not one of apathy, as she has heard from a number of residents in her time as a Councillor and Community Board member.

"For those who vote in the election, it is generally that they voted for someone to be their representative in matters of governance," she said. "In making their choice they have elected the person who they believe represents their view.

"Quite often the refrain is, 'If I do not like what you are doing I will let you know, otherwise get on with it'. What we have to recognise is that view is not universal and that we need to communicate clearly what we are doing so that people who wish to contribute can do so in an informed manner.

"I can assure readers there is no shortage of communication back and forth on controversial decisions, nor should it be any different."

Another Community Board member Cliff Satherley said the poor attendances at public meetings is not because of apathy. He said the low number of people turning up at meetings is not new - it was no different 10 or 15 years ago.

"The only reason people would get involved with the council or politics is if it has a direct bearing on themselves," he said. "You elect representatives to run the town and the deal is that the voters just want to get on with their lives and they expect the people you've elected do a decent job.

You won't see everyone in town coming to every meeting and packing Memorial Hall out, because their lives nowadays are so tough that they generally have to concentrate on their families. You have an election every three years and if you (their elected representative) are not doing a good job you'll be voted out."

One Motuekan who could never be described as apathetic is Jim Butler. Jim attends virtually every Community Board meeting (where he invariably speaks at the public forum session), regularly makes submissions to Council plans, and is a trenchant critic of many Council management and engineering operations. He also writes letters to the editors of both local papers (two in the past week).

Are we apathetic? "My estimate is that for every 100 households who receive these throw-away newspapers, five persons will read the letters, of which one will find these letters interesting," he said. "I think this answers your question."

He is sure most people are apathetic about what goes on in the local political sphere. "People tend to wake up when it's too late," he said, pointing out, for example, that over many years now our rates continue to rise much faster than the rate of inflation.

Motueka Online would dearly love to hear from other people - leaders and ordinary citizens - about whether or not we are apathetic or happy to leave leadership to our leaders. Please use the link below to send in your comments to add to the discussion.

Comment by Shirley Frater:
[Posted 23 May 2011]

As I have got older I have come to the conclusion to not bother with things you can not alter or try and change only to be left battered or wounded. A bit of defeated attitude I know. Why? Because when it is the Council they do not alter their stance. They may listen but their mind is made up and that's it.

Take the water matter; recently the community board worked hard at the direction of the public [thanks] and was then pressurised by the mayor and council to back off on taking the matters further. Bully tactics. Muzzled.

However I did attend the draft re-zoning for Motueka West development. One senior planner had all the answers when challenged why King Edward St on the northern side would be zoned light and heavy industrial, including residential. His body language indicated the decision had been made but we could go through the process because it what has to be done. I have made a submission objecting to our property and prime rural land alongside, earning export dollars, zoned to become industrial both light and heavy. I felt I had to try to make a stop, but it is with baited breath that I would see any change being allowed.

Yes, ratepayers so often feel like wee minnows in the rush and flow of the council river. It will be interesting the work that many other people beside me have put together - can we make a difference by sending in a submission?

Comment by Bruce Reid:
[Posted 27 May 2011]

My feeling is that most people in our community would like to believe their council is working hard to make sensible decisions on their behalf and have more than enough issues to deal with in their own family existence. Many feel that the TDC operates in another sphere (some call it Richmond) and Motueka is an after thought. We need greater autonomy so that we can deal with local issues that matter to us.

Too often the TDC seems to make decisions regardless of concerns expressed from our community. Free internet access at the Motueka library is a case in point. Despite some clearly expressed wishes for free access to be limited to library card holders from the High School's Community Issues class survey, the council chose to ignore this and commit to a further renewal of the contract with the Aotearoa People's foundation (whoever they are).

Surely when community views supported by 74% of the 424 people interviewed (just 26% supported renewal of the free internet contract) are ignored then it is not surprising that people feel disenfranchised and skeptical of the decision makers. Would it have been too difficult for the council to recommend that Motueka library be excluded from this contract. Apparently tourist towns such as Kaikoura, Queenstown, Wanaka have been excluded so the precedent already exists.

This is but one example of the underlying reason why our community finds it hard to get excited about participating in the consultation process.

Comment by William Cleaver:
[Posted 28 May 2011]

I refer to David Oglivie's article on the attendance of the Motueka community to items of interest from TDC and Community Meetings. This revelling fact has already been recorded in other articles on Motueka online. I refer Festival of lights and also Motropolis in the Nelson Evening Mail.

This well known fact that residents of Motueka prefer to stay indoors in colder periods and in warmer days do their own thing at the beach or the river. It would seen that any Community based identity or fund raising groups have a battle on their hands to get the Motueka public out in force to support just about anything.

We at the Grumpy Old mens suggest that at the next A & P show that local bodies ie TDC, Our Town Motuaks and the Community Board set up a large tent and tout their issues from that, at the same time dishing out free candy floss, beer and coffee. The attendance count might be a little better.

Comment by Tom Watkins:
[Posted 17 June 2011]

According to the The Press, 150 years ago Christchurch people were complaining about their city council conducting its affairs in secret and not representing the interests of its citizens. In 2011 they still complain about this, as we do here.

The origins of the problem are not usually the individual personalities of those who govern, but the structure used to organise governance: the seldom-questioned hierarchical model for arranging almost every organisation everywhere. Its inevitable dynamics include highly-controlled flows of information upwards to the governing elite, and of power downwards to the bulk of the governed population.

It's a convenient system for those of us in the wider community (at the base of the hierarchy) who are lazy, and one that appeals to those who are comfortable wheeling and dealing and pulling strings behind the scenes with other powerful interests. The common vested interest of those who occupy these powerful positions is, above all, the goal of remaining in power.

There are, of course, notable exceptions; politicians and public officials with goodwill, altruism and extraordinary commitment to serving the public good as defined by the public.

Those who are not part of that elite group are excluded or inhibited from serious decision-making and naturally enough, feel aggrieved when decisions affect them negatively. Lacking responsibility for decision-making and real ability to influence direction and means, they may behave irresponsibly by disengaging from the process. At very least they're likely to feel frustrated by it, and eventually become bored and cynical; it's a form of learned helplessness.

Although the hierarchical system as widely practised is unnecessary - (there are examples elsewhere where things are done quite differently) - that's another story. What's relevant here, is that the conventional arrangement reinforces the idea that local politics is a spectator sport.

Few of us are indifferent to or really apathetic about local body politics and the issues they deal with. Most people do care about the matters which "hit us where we live"; they simply get tired of wasting energy on trying to influence our politicians' apparent indifference to them. They see the futility of it, become alarmed by the battle-weariness they see in others who have tried, or become wary of politicians who attack the person rather than the argument.

For an interesting take on improving the ways our politicians and local bodies engage with their communities, watch Canadian Dave Meslin's "Antidote to Apathy" TED talk recorded in October 2010. With good humour and insight he discusses seven barriers that reinforce people's disengagement, even when we really care. Click here to view it. If this doesn't work for you, type www.TED.com and search for Dave Meslin.

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

[ Return ]
[ Other news articles ]