In memory of Owen McShane - a true Kaipara Gem

Posted by WorkBoot on 11 March 2012 | 0 Comments

It was with sadness that I learned of the sudden death of Owen McShane on Tuesday. Owen was a friend, supporter and mentor to me for many years and fostered my early interest in resource management law and economics. He was an internationally acknowledged authority on development economics, was sought after as a speaker at international conferences, and engaged by central government and other Council’s around New Zealand. In Kaipara District Council of course, as is the established practice with any locals of particular talent, his expertise and willingness to genuinely help were largely ignored.

 

Owen often went in to bat for the underdog on matters of principle and common sense. He was a staunch proponent of keeping it local and not farming all the work out to external multinationals – you can read his article on this here. Owen was a critic of the flawed logic, gross expenditure excesses and unlawfulness of the Proposed District Plan process.

 

Owen was a real asset to the Kaipara community and will be greatly missed.

 

Over the last couple of weeks I have been busy trying to wrestle some level of reasonableness into the Long Term Plan (ten year budgets) debate over rate increases of unprecedented proportions. See the Advocate article here and how Kaipara's topped the national charts for indebtedness here.

 

Meanwhile “Legal Eagle” as usual in his commentary on Kaipara Concerns has hit the nail on the head again here.

 

To quote from that blog –

 

“ The proposed district plan is bleeding bucket loads of money. It is a major financial haemorrhage for Council, and therefore ratepayers, It is never going to see the light of day (because of almost certain amalgamation) and is simply pouring vast amounts of monies down the gullets of consultants and lawyers.”

 

 

I have attempted for some time to extract from the Council what has been spent on the Proposed District Plan (PDP) and what the projected ongoing costs are considered to be.

 

These attempts by lodging notices of motion here and here were unlawfully censored by the Mayor. I have attempted to have this readdressed since the “retirement” of the “muppet master”, thus far to no avail.

 

Now as the result of an official information request, and thanks to new and  more transparent CE Steve Ruru, some figures are available here.

 

A few points as I understand the history–

 

• The original quote for the review was $385,000.

 

• The rejected overbidders quote was $400,000 to $450,000 to take the process right through to notification.

 

• Once the initial contract was given to BECA, the Council was convinced to significantly increase the scope of the work from a review to a complete rewrite – but this didn’t then go back out to be retendered, BECA just got the job.

 

• With over $5 million spent to date (much of this borrowed – yet to get conclusive figures on this), that’s an almost 1300% budget blow out – easy money if you can get it!

 

• Who gets the money? – BECA and Brookfields

 

• Who provides Council with all its advice? – BECA and Brookfields

 

• What happens when I point out the blatant conflict and suggest independent advice be sought? – I get ignored and called biased and conflicted and the beneficiary advisors continue to control the process and provide the advice.

 

• How much is 1% on rates? about $120,000

 

• How many percent on rates is $5 million? oh only a cool 42%

 

• What is the preliminary proposed average rates increase for the coming year? 42%!

 

• Who pays for all of this excessive wastage? – you, the long suffering ratepayer

 

A few more points –

 

• The whole PDP process has been wrought with legal and procedural inconsistencies as expertly documented and presented to Council by Owen McShane.

 

• Like Clive Boonham on the illegality of the Ecocare rates (and who has now been proven to be right) Owen was largely ignored by Council.

 

• It appears that as with Ecocare, Council may have failed to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act to go out and re-consult with the public when it significantly increased the scope of work.

 

• Unlike Ecocare which is already in the ground, the PDP is just an incomplete (and very expensive) book, and if a direction was sought from the High Court on the basis of the gross unlawfulness it could potentially be made a nullity.

 

• With potential amalgamation in Northland looming, it is likely that the PDP will not even become operative. If amalgamation occurs a whole new plan will have to be written for the new super unitary authority.

 

• Council has been told by its beneficiary advisors that it will basically burn in hell if it withdraws the plan and that it would have to start from scratch again and this would cost at least as much again. The claim that it would cost at least as much again is of course absolute rubbish. The fact that it can be withdrawn for any reason right up until hearings on appeals commence is confirmed in statute here and by preeminent RMA barrister Paul Cavanagh QC here.

 

• The process has not yet passed the stage where it cannot be withdrawn. But once it passes that point the Council (and ratepayers) are at the mercy of the Court, and a war of attrition begins. Those with the most money (i.e. government funded Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and DOC) will win, you will unnecessarily lose even more property rights and pay for Council’s weak defence through further rates increases.

 

So the question is, why is the Council continuing down the path of pouring yet more money into a flawed and potentially unlawful process that may be made a nullity or become redundant even before it becomes operative?

 

I have met very few ratepayers who are in favour of the PDP in its current form. The whole process seems to be driven by BECA and EDS in favour of the lofty city ideals of EDS, DOC, and Forest and Bird, none of whom even pay rates in the district.

 

My humble suggestion is that all further expenditure on progressing this gross assault on ratepayers rights, funded by gross wastage of ratepayers money should be put on hold until all potential RMA and LGA procedural and legal anomalies have been fully and independently examined. Whatever the outcome, Owen would have wanted this analysis taken through to a definitive conclusion – the Council at least owes him that.

Your input is valued - contribute to the debate here.