By Steve Forbes
Auckland Mayoral candidate John Tamihere says if he wins the battle for the Super City’s top job he’ll be hopping on a plane bound for Wellington to put pressure on the Government.
He says Aucklanders shouldn’t be expected to pick up the tab for the city’s massive infrastructure costs and he wants a mandate to ditch the Regional Fuel Tax.
Since announcing his run for office he has promised to sell the Ports of Auckland, privatise 49% of Watercare, scrap the Regional Fuel Tax, build a new harbour bridge, revise the City Rail Link, build a new tram-train system spanning the city, scrap the Government’s planned light rail project and freeze rates. He’s unashamedly made some massive promises, but can he realistically deliver on them?
“They aren’t massive promises. I’ve promised to rebuild the balance sheet of the city. To do that will require multiple tools like releasing 49% of the equity in Watercare,” Tamihere says.
Regional Fuel Tax
But when asked if his promise of scrapping the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax is realistic considering under the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Act he would need the support of both the Auckland Council and the Government, he’s more evasive.
“I don’t know the answer to that question until the 13th of October. I’m seeking the mandate of Aucklanders for that reason. Aucklanders helped rebuild Christchurch willingly, we’ve fixed Kaikoura willingly, we’ve repaired Wellington willingly and we’ve put $3 billion into the Provincial Growth Fund, which Aucklanders can’t get a hand near. Everywhere you look Auckland’s being penalised.
“The 11.5 cents a litre Goff petrol tax has been levied solely on this city and on its citizens because they are Aucklanders. Aucklanders will cop a petrol tax of that amount if every other city has it levied on them. If not, it has to go.”
However, he’s got a lot of work ahead of him if he thinks he can repeal a policy that took an act of Parliament to enact and is projected to bring in $150 million per annum in revenue until 2028 for the Auckland Council to fund transport projects. But Tamihere says that’s why he’s campaigning on it.
“Will I get the support of council for it? I’m getting the support of Aucklanders first and then I’ll go downtown with the ruling and governing body and they would be very, very hard pressed to turn that back as a council. Once council approve that that negotiation is on, Chris Fletcher and I will be on a plane to Wellington and we’ll sort a number of things out because Wellington has us in a headlock.”
Auckland's role
He says Auckland is a massive driver of New Zealand’s economic growth, but it isn’t getting its fair share. And it’s the one thing that Tamihere and incumbent Mayor Phil Goff, who is standing for re-election, seem to agree on.
The difference seems to be how they plan to achieve it. With Tamihere, at least during the campaign, he's taking a more confrontational approach. Goff appears to be trying be more diplomatic.
In July the Productivity Commission's draft report on the funding and financing of local government called for new funding options for the country’s councils to help them meet a growing range of costs. The commission said the rising cost pressures for infrastructure, climate change, tourism and the growing responsibilities placed on local authorities by central government, means councils can’t rely on rates alone to pay for them. The report also highlighted the growing demands on local authorities in areas like Auckland.
Tamihere says since the economic restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s and privatisation of the Ministry of Works, local government has been left to foot the bill for too much of the country’s infrastructure.
“We’ve mined the most out of that policy, but it no longer works, it’s broken and as Aucklanders we want our fair share of our taxes deployed now back in our city. We want to build our city and we don’t want Wellington determining the timeline and the amount of money we get back. So we have to have a grown-up conversation about changing that orthodoxy.”
Time for change?
He says Auckland should pressure central government for more.
“Unless we use Auckland’s leverage to fix a number of problems we’ve got caused by central government planning we’re in big difficulty.”
And he claims as an independent with running mate and shadow deputy mayor Christine Fletcher he can make it happen.
“I wasn’t chosen by the ruling council of the Labour Party to stand for Mayor in Auckland, I am an independent. I’m having a go with Christine Fletcher to change the whole narrative.”
Voting papers for this year's election will be sent out from September 20 and will need to be filled in and posted in time to reach the electoral office by 12pm on Saturday, October 12. For further information on standing as a candidate contact your local council go to www.vote2019.co.nz, or contact your electoral officer.
24 Comments
Well if Auckland has increased their rates to the moon then Christchurch’s have been strapped to a Rocket to Mars. For instance a $2.65mill in St Heliers, Auckland pays rates $5800 pa. And in comparison in Sumner, Christchurch a $1.36 mill pays $8,000 & $2.5 mill pays $14,300. Christchurch City Council eagerly anticipates the next valuations so it can compound a 9% increase on those as soon as physically possible. Hey how about making the mugs pay provisional rates!?
“Aucklanders helped rebuild Christchurch willingly, we’ve fixed Kaikoura willingly, we’ve repaired Wellington willingly and we’ve put $3 billion into the Provincial Growth Fund, which Aucklanders can’t get a hand near. Everywhere you look Auckland’s being penalised.
Ohhh "go jump in the lake JT"....Maybe when half of Auckland is wiped out by a natural disaster then some more money will be spent in that area.
NZTA Funding 2016/2017:
Passenger Transport
NZ = $ 359,170,204
Auck = $ 221,089,887 (61%)
Roads New & Improved Infrastructure
NZ = $ 1,369,550,235
Auck = $ 529,186,422 (38%)
Population
NZ = 4.79 million
Auck = 1.65 million (34%)
Not sure, can you provide that information because I've struggled to find it. If you think i'm cherry picking, feel free to provide some supplementary stats to support your claim. The only stat I excluded was NTZA's roading maintenance spend, Auckland takes 19% of that budget. I don't think Auckland possesses anywhere near 19% of NZTA's roads, but it's possible on a vehicle per hour basis the spend is justified. I felt this stat only served to further a "pong game" debate, so excluded it due to the ambiguity.
that weird,
he figures "Wellington has us in a Headlock", so comes up with the answer "lets sell some productive assets to Foreigner Owners".
So now he wants to add a Foreign Owner of the profits choke hold to the headlock.
I would have suggested a better option would be to try and reduce the external profiteers from the equation.
"He says Aucklanders shouldn’t be expected to pick up the tab for the city’s massive infrastructure costs and he wants a mandate to ditch the Regional Fuel Tax."
Yes, it should. Auckland has dis-economics of scale due to excessive growth. The increased costs should be born by those living in Auckland, & thus which will make other locations relatively more attractive.
The 2.4km Waterview Tunnel between Pt Chevalier and Mt Roskill opened in July 2017, and cost $1.4b to build. That is $1000 per Aucklander whether worker, child or pensioner. Just one shortish tunnel built to knock 10 mins of the daily commute of a minor fraction of Aucklnds population. I suspect most of the never ending upgrades of SH1 through Auckland are funded as roads of national importance despite 95% of the traffic being Aucklanders commuting.
If at a certain point in AKLs history we had enough infrastructure for the population at the time why is additional infrastructure requirements caused by a growing inmigrant population not just paid for by the multitude of new arrivals? Seems strange that previously "contented ??" jafas have to pay more to enjoy AKL less.
Perth bumper stickers were right when they said "P$ss off, we're full"
The main beneficiaries of economic activity in a city are the landholders. Those foreigners are paying for it through rents to their landlords, and increased population density increases land rents. The government should take a cut of the land rents through land taxes to pay for the infrastructure. It could easily be done through local government, but there's been far too much suppression of rates in Akl. It's funny how the tax that disproportionately affects the wealthy gets the most wailing.
What a classic Auckland wannabe populist politician line. If every South Island community was given back the same percentage of the total tax take as Tamihere negotiates for Auckland, the whole setup would fall apart. Exports, GST paid, Income tax paid, is way higher per head of population in the South than in Auckland. But we would actually chip in a bit to help out, if that is what it takes to keep the Aucklanders up there. Plus they can keep their 29 rain days in August!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.