The statistics suggest what most know anecdotally: Northland has become a retirement destination. That’s important because an aging population places additional demand on medical and aged care facilities. Our hospital is already under severe pressure – a substantial increase in staffing and funding will be required in the future
Labour list MP Willow-Jean Prime has lost the highly regarded Education portfolio in a recent shadow portfolio reshuffle. The effect is that she is unlikely to retain her place at number nine on the Labour Party list for the 7 November general election.
Prime’s competence came under the spotlight last year when Labour claimed they had not been consulted on an important education reform, only to find that Prime had ignored and then declined multiple personal invitations from the Minister of Education for input. That left Labour with a prime serving of egg on its face, which clearly was not to the taste of Labour’s hierarchy.
Prime will stand in the Te Tai Tokerau Maori seat
but will be hoping Labour polls well enough to get
back in on the list, despite her demotion.
STV was used for the first time in last year’s local body election after the previous council voted by a narrow majority to change from FPP. They did so without consulting the public.
Cr Marie Olsen took the view that this needed to be corrected and moved a motion in two parts. The first was for FPP to be reinstated for the 2028 election. She was supported by Crs Baldwin, Martin, M Yovich, P Yovich, Reid, and Flower. Against were Mayor Couper (casting vote), and Crs McKenzie, Baker, Connop, Christie, Harding, and Ruka. The second part of the motion, to hold a referendum in 2028, was carried unanimously
In the interests of introducing some fact to their fiction, LETTERBOX asked the WDC how much it cost to hold the Maori wards referendum run at the time of the local body election last October. Here’s their reply:
“The additional poll cost amounted to $13,401 + GST for 67,004 electors @ $0.20 + GST per elector.”
Half of this was for the additional information included with the voting mailer and the share of the public notices cost. The other half was for the additional labour involved. The cost does not include postage and other costs that would have been incurred for the local body election anyway.
Is $13,000 to poll all 67,000 electors too much to pay for people to have their say? It seems like good value when compared to the $18,200 the WDC spent last year surveying 500 people about fluoride!
The guidance came in a memo from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CVTAG) to Dr Bloomfield dated 9 December 2021. It strongly recommended against vaccinating those under 18 with two doses, noting that a single dose provides effective protection. The advisory group flagged the potential myocarditis risk associated with a second dose, referencing earlier guidance that stated “Younger age groups are more at risk than older age groups of myocarditis after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine…”
To find out how the WDC compared, LETTERBOX asked the WDC for details about its open competitive process. Here’s their reply:
“I refer to your request…for statistics on procurement contracts for the 2024/2025 Financial Year….Council does not hold the information requested… I hope this information is of some assistance in responding to your request.”
It is astounding that the Council does not know how many contracts it has awarded without an open competitive process. Surely that is something they should know, and more importantly, something councillors ought to know if they are at all interested in how efficiently ratepayer money is being spent.
Mayor Couper says the public can have their say about the closure during the Annual Plan submissions. We think Ken should have thought about the public BEFORE the decision was made to close, and AFTER the council had completed the cost review. Ken and councillors may find other areas for saving with less impact on families, students, and vulnerable groups.
1% is a very low bar. Case studies suggest reviews typically achieve spending reductions of between 2% and 5%, which points to savings of between $3m and $8m for the WDC, not $1 million. The review itself is expected to cost up to $100,000 in consultancy fees, which is ridiculous when LETTERBOX is aware that some well-qualified locals would donate their time as a community service.
• A 22.6% increase in water rates,
• A general rate increase by between 5% and 10.1%, depending on which of the three options they choose, • A 2.6% increase in wastewater charges, and
• Increasing the stormwater rate (which they introduced last year) from $45 to $124 a year.
The 22.6% water rate increase is in stark contrast to a statement made in the 2025-26 Annual Plan, where it said an increase of 5.7% would provide enough funding for good management as well as increasing capacity for growth. What’s changed? Mayor Couper needs to explain. Is it because of Northland Water Done Well?