The Government’s been making it increasingly clear over time that it doesn’t really give two-hoots about local democracy.

But, in the last 24 hours, it’s gone next level.

First up, we’ve got housing minister Chris Bishop, who announced yesterday that he’s going to be given special powers to ride roughshod over council plans if he doesn’t like them.

Essentially, if he thinks a council has a district plan that doesn’t support economic growth and development, or won't do anything to create jobs, then he can come in over the top and say “nah nah nah, you’re not doing that.”

In fact, from what I’ve been reading, it seems any government minister is going to be able to modify or remove aspects of council plans that they don’t agree with.

Talk about big brother.

But that’s not all.

Chris Bishop also got himself involved in a spat with the Christchurch City Council, saying that the council’s failed attempt to push back on the Government’s housing intensification rules was “nuts”.

He’s saying: “It is an inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable, fact that local government has been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand."

Going on to say: “Christchurch City Council just outright defied its legal obligations.”Signing off with the accusation that the council was “nuts” if it thought it could get away with not doing what the Government wanted it to do.

Now, even though I didn't have a problem with Chris Bishop declining the council’s request for Christchurch to be treated as a special case and not have to go along with the Government’s housing intensification policy, I think he needs to rein it in a bit.

But this attack on local democracy doesn’t stop with Chris Bishop.

Shane Jones is at it, as well. Saying in a speech to local government leaders that regional councils have had their day and he wants to get rid of them.

“What is the point of regional government?” That's what he said when he stood up at the lectern in Wellington last night.

He seems to think that, with all the changes the Government is making to the Resource Management Act, we won't need regional councils anymore.

Saying: “There is less and less of a justifiable purpose for maintaining regional government.”

Which I do kind of get. Because I know a few people in local government and I have asked them recently where they see the likes of Environment Canterbury going if the Government is going to give the resource management act the heave-ho.

Because that’s what regional councils were set up to do in the first place. To implement the Resource Management Act. There have been a few add ons since then - like running bus services.

And I’ve long been a fan of local government amalgamation. But for a government minister like Shane Jones to stand up and give a speech to local government people and tell them that he wants to ditrch regional councils - that is arrogant.

Just like this plan to let ministers interfere in council plans if they don't like what they see. That’s arrogant too.

But it’s more than just arrogance. It’s an attack on local democracy.

Which, apparently, is something the government values.

When it suits, it would seem. Because, when he was announcing these new powers - which are going to be in force until all the changes to the Resource Management Act have gone through - he admitted it was a significant step.

"But the RMA’s devolution of ultimate power to local authorities just has not worked.”

Which is code for saying: "Even though we say we’re all into local decision-making, we’re only into it when it suits Wellington".

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch’s Mayor is back with John MacDonald to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.

The Government is giving the Housing Minister the power to overrule local councils, and Phil Mauger has some strong opinions on the topic.

Housing intensification is still on the docket, but he’s made it clear they’ll be pushing back against it all the way.

And why are there so many leafblowers out and about? Is that a good use of taxpayer money?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How weird is it that there are different rules or expectations regarding life jackets, depending on where you are in the country?

I’m not the only one who thinks it’s weird. A coroner who has looked into the drownings of a 10-year-old boy and his mother thinks it’s weird too, and is calling for change.

And instead of local councils being responsible for setting lifejacket rules, she wants there to be a single rule for the whole country making life jackets mandatory on all small boats. Everywhere.

And I totally agree. I know there’ll be no shortage of people thinking that it’s pointless making life jackets mandatory because, even where you have local councils now saying they have to be worn, there are still people who don’t.

But this is why a single, blanket rule for the whole country is needed.

This follows the deaths of 10-year-old Ryder Ferregel and his mum Gemma Ferregel, in November 2022. They were on Auckland’s Manukau Harbour and they were out on a 4.8 metre boat doing some scalloping.

There were three other people on board the boat and what happened is it was hit by two waves in pretty close succession, and because of that, it capsized.

At the time, no one on board was wearing a lifejacket. What makes this more tragic —aside from the fact that a woman and her son lost their lives— is that before the boat capsized, Ryder had been wearing a lifejacket but his mum said he could take it off because it didn't fit him properly and was riding up on him.

So, by the time the boat capsized, there was no one wearing a life jacket.

And coroner Erin Woolley is saying today that if they had been, Ryder and Gemma would have had a much greater chance of survival.

And that’s why she wants to see life jackets to be made mandatory on small boats, everywhere. She thinks we need a single rule for the whole country – not just rules set in different areas by different local authorities.

It would also be clear to people who aren’t boaties what the rule was, giving them licence to call people out for not wearing life jackets.

For example: you’re at the boat ramp and you see some muppets about to head out with no life jackets – even people in the car park there just watching the boats, they would know what the rule was and they’d be much more likely to say something, wouldn't they?

What’s more, if there was a single rule for the whole country, it wouldn't be left to local authorities to have local rules that only they can enforce.

If there was a single life jacket rule for the whole country, the Coastguard —for example— could fine people for not wearing a jacket.

It's crazy, isn't it, that they can come up to you when you're out fishing and fine you if the fish in your bucket are undersized, but they can’t fine you for not taking the appropriate safety precautions.

That’s because lifejacket rules are set by local by-laws and it’s the job of the councils to enforce them. Which coroner Erin Woolley wants to see changed. And so do I.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.