The local government conference in Wellington this week might have been uneventful, had Prime Minister Christopher Luxon not arrived to give councils a swift kick.
Luxon criticised elected officials as fantasists who had burdened council balance sheets with a “laundry list of distractions and experiments” instead of focusing on basic services like maintaining water infrastructure and waste collection.
Councillors needed to stop wasteful spending, return to delivering the basics well, and shouldn’t expect any Central Government funding to help them do so.
“Go line by line, stop the wasteful spending, remove the bureaucracy, focus on better customer service, and end the projects that aren’t delivering value for money,” he said.
This message was poorly received by some councillors and mayors who had already cut budgets and sold assets to fund significant investments in neglected infrastructure.
Other mayors, including former National Party MP Nick Smith, supported the Prime Minister’s call for councils to concentrate their limited resources on essential services.
Ironically, Luxon’s strident speech was undermined the next day by an announcement that his Government would co-fund a $1.5 million street dance competition with Auckland Council.
In his own speech to the conference, Labour leader Chris Hipkins accused the Prime Minister of playing politics and shifting the blame for significant rate increases.
After years of central government pressure to keep rates low, local governments were now dealing with a growing backlog of infrastructure investments, which had led to higher rates bills.
“Lambasting today’s local government leaders, who by and large are working really hard to grapple with challenges they themselves have inherited, is cheap and petty politics,” Hipkins said.
No cap
Sam Broughton, the president of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), said it was valuable to hear the Prime Minister’s views but councils were ultimately accountable to their communities, not the central Government.
He was not supportive of Luxon’s plan to consider imposing revenue caps on councils’ non-core spending, as it could hamper much-needed investments or services.
“To artificially hold rates low, or to put caps on just because you want to have a particular number, that could lead to some perverse outcomes," Broughton warned.
Core services have previously been defined as: network infrastructure, public transport, waste disposal, natural hazard mitigation, and recreational facilities such as libraries and parks.
Experimental statistics published in 2019 showed NZ councils’ five largest spending categories were roads, recreation and sport, wastewater, transportation, and town planning.
Luxon proposed creating performance benchmarks for local councils which would use this kind of data to show residents whether their representatives were doing a good job.
He also promised to remove a legal requirement for councils to support the social, economic, environmental, and cultural health of their communities.
Except for the threat of rate caps, the proposed changes were mostly minor tweaks meant to signal to local governments rather than reform them.
A cynic might view Luxon’s speech as an attempt to preempt the political fallout from rising rates. Despite adjustments to income tax brackets, many households will likely face a higher overall tax burden by the end of his term.
Regional deals
Putting politics aside, the more significant policy announcement came from Local Government Minister Simeon Brown, who on Thursday unveiled a framework for regional and city deals.
These are intended to align various regional authorities and central governments around a single plan to boost growth by building infrastructure and making investments in an area.
Councils currently gained little from regional economic growth, Brown said, as most tax revenue went to the central government, leaving ratepayers to bear the costs.
Regional deals could help by allowing councils to deploy user charges, targeted rates, road tolls, and even take a share of GST revenue earned on housing developments.
They would focus on funding tools, regulatory relief, better use of existing resources, and more coordination between local and central governments.
Broughton welcomed the framework as an opportunity to fund long-term plans with something other than just property rates.
The first deal will be chosen in 2025 from a shortlist of five regions, each of which will be invited to pitch their proposal.
However, these deals will not include any cash investment from the Crown. Luxon said there was “no magic money tree” and taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidising ratepayers.
Councillors may want to have money to spend without having to raise rates but “if any of you think those will be the terms of a regional deal, it’s time to come back to reality,” he said.
67 Comments
No. He means something like this unecessary & unwanted by the community $55M including the 5 raised crossings in less than 2kms @ budgeted $150k each (+ typically overspent 100%, when did the last council project come in under budget?)
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=162508
https://www.change.org/p/halt-thorndon-quay-roadworks-until-an-independ…
Great to see Nelson's mayor backing the PM, but in actual fact Nelson is spending big time on unnecessary expenditure--which is why my rates have increased 12 times the increase in the CPI since 2008. And the latest Nelson venture is a $90 million new administration/library building, when the current facilities would be more than adequate with $5 million in repairs and upgrade to the current Civic House. This latest expenditure was approved without meeting the consultation requirements of the LGA.
I have just got back from Europe. Having visited wonderful cities like Helsinki, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Berlin and Warsaw. It is local not central government in these cities which built the infrastructure.
In comparison, New Zealand is backwards and fast heading towards third world status because we favour the central over the local in all things. Luxon is continuing the long trend of Wellington governments ensuring that locals are burdened with infrastructure costs yet lack the funding tools and institutional structures to adequately provide what is needed, whilst Wellington takes any of revenue gains that what little infrastructure they do provide enables.
People quickly forget how bad NZs infrastructure really is. How for instance Queenstown our premier tourist town had a no boil notice for months. That our capital city has had raw sewerage flow down its streets. That Christchurch is the largest city in Australia without a transit system. That even our relatively small cities have congestion problems like Tauranga because its road network frequently reaches its capacity limits. That many towns and suburbs are refusing to consent housing because their water systems are also at capacity.
Telling local government to go through their spending line by line to determine how they will resolve these issues is not a vision for a better future. It is just punching down.
People quickly forget how bad NZs infrastructure really is
It's relative to our size, population (including densities), and wealth.
Public transport is great in Europe (although amazingly German trains aren't as precise as I'd have thought), but:
- many of their cities were laid out pre-automobile
- many of the cities got to get a clean slate rebuild in the late 40s/50s
- they have the populations and finances to better justify them.
Japan's public transport's even better, but they have single train stations that have daily passenger numbers almost as high as our entire population.
Sometimes it's hard to compare two places and determine whether the deficits in one are down to decision making or just basic fundamentals.
Have been to none of the following but note that the population of Finland, Denmark and Norway are all in the 5-6 million range and Stockholm has a population of 2.4 million, not that much greater than Auckland.
It may also be worth noting the tax to GDP rates of in excess of 42% for all those in comparison to NZs 31%
I would push back for a couple of reasons. NZs towns and cities are actually older than many European ones in the sense that we urbanised early. We had a 50% urbanisation rate by 1920 whereas in Finland for example it is 1970. Finland and other European cities chose their transport models rather than having this decision imposed by historic circumstance.
Secondly our towns and cities are not small. Christchurch and Wellington are larger than Canberra, Newcastle and Tampere which all have a transit systems. Christchurch would be the 6th largest city in Scandinavia.
Sure our smaller regions might struggle to provide 3-waters for size/economy of scale reasons. But these places do not need as much transport spending as cities which need multiple different types of networks. So there are swings and roundabouts with this issue.
I would push back for a couple of reasons. NZs towns and cities are actually older than many European ones in the sense that we urbanised early. We had a 50% urbanisation rate by 1920 whereas in Finland for example it is 1970. Finland and other European cities chose their transport models rather than having this decision imposed by historic circumstance.
Pretty safe to say most of Europe's cities have foundations older than a country that's not even 200 years old. Driving and parking cars in them is a massive liability.
Our population has increased about 4 fold since 1950 and the dynamics of the time (rising individual affluence, birthing boom) meant we ended up adopting car ownership and suburban sprawl as our primary city planning model.
It's very difficult to have a comprehensive public transport system coexist with those dynamics.
The point is that the cities in Europe also expanded at a similar rate and similar time to NZ. The vast majority of town and city land in Europe was urbanised at a similar time as happened in NZ. Also, Australia shows that transit can work perfectly well in an Australasia setting and besides that doesn't explain why NZ is poor at providing other local infrastructure.
The point is that the cities in Europe also expanded at a similar rate and similar time to NZ. The vast majority of town and city land in Europe was urbanised at a similar time as happened in NZ.
Look at your foundation though. Most of them have multi story dense residential featuring fairly heavily in the centers, and spreading out from there. In NZ our CBDs were built to be more commerce centric, and didn't get the same critical mass of residents to support public transport.
Also, Australia shows that transit can work perfectly well in an Australasia setting and besides that doesn't explain why NZ is poor at providing other local infrastructure.
Wellington has okish public transport, and some of that's down to the fact you have few corridors to the city. Auckland and Christchurch suck and will always suck for public transport because they're more dispersed.
The closed Ross bridge on the west Coast cycle trail is a microcosm example of how we miss economic opportunities because of how poor our local government institutional setup is.
The John Key government converted various old railways into cycle trails including on the WestCoast. This has been a huge success for the Coast, generating an extra $50m for the local economy from 15,000 users. The problem is the responsibility for maintaining the cycleways was given to the local council yet all the tax revenue the cycleway generates goes to Wellington. Not only does the Council collect none of the GST or PAYE that this activity generates it was forbidden to charge access fees or toll charges. The model was central government would make the tax revenue gains while the local government would bear the ongoing maintenance costs, which is how we like to organise these sorts of things in NZ. So now some years later the old totara rail bridge is unsafe and cannot be used. It will cost $4m to replace which will increase the rates bill by 4%. And there are 10 other bridges which will need some work sooner or later.
So, despite the clear evidence that done right infrastructure provision can generate lasting economic gains for the community yet for the local council this gain cannot be realised so the sensible approach is to oppose anything new. Do nothing is the vision for the future.
Mayor calls for Cycle Trail tolls after dangerous bridge closed | Stuff
I think it's hard to strike a balance between centralisation and localisation. In your model of abolishing the central government and creating four states, would we still have a single entity handling foreign policy, passports, licensing, etc., or would it effectively be four separate countries with different representatives? Given that our country's size is smaller than many cities around the world, would we end up with a bunch of duplicate entities performing the same functions with little gain for those consuming these services?
It seems many of our issues stem from being a small country, yet we struggle with over-centralisation as well as over-localisation. A model similar to the Swiss cantons might be worth considering, where entities larger than councils but smaller than the central government have more autonomy. These "states" could then be represented by a single entity handling matters not well-suited to localisation. But again that balance is painfully difficult to define and people have different opinions on what the role of that central entity should be. How do we avoid ending up in a situation where we replace one wasteful and inefficient entity with four separate, wasteful and inefficient entities? For example, would four parallel education systems deliver us better results? Would four parallel police entities make for more effective policing?
Whilst I am the “big picture” guy I don’t see a problem with any of the issues you raise. The answer to the last 2 questions is “yes, definitely”. The foreign policy, passports, licensing stuff is all easy, I can take care of all of that. In fact it would kind of work in with my other proposal involving the entire planet where I am the Global Supreme Leader. The Swiss cantons thing sounds good and is pretty much what I’m getting at. The balance would not be painfully difficult at all. There won’t be any different opinions aired on the role of the central entity, I’ll take care of that, don’t worry about it. I know it sounds a bit full on, but I guarantee you will absolutely love it. The whole world will.
There is nothing efficient about having a centralised bureaucracy, especially when it is located hundreds of kilometres away from the bulk of the population.What the OP describes above in terms of bike tracks is pure mis-governance, and it plays out worst in Auckland where the local population is bled for gst and tax, and starved for investment into transport, amenities. The ability of local government to organised it's own land use, raise tax and build things is central to a working democracy. Look at the well organised, and growing big cities in Australia - they are all the capitals of their respective states. By contrast our capital is small, dysfunctional and shrinking economically. I'm increasingly convinced that Auckland - and perhaps other regions - need independence from Wellington in order to build and grow, and actually have representative democracy. And yes, it probably needs an independent police force - like the metropolitan in the UK as a seperate entity.
He really needs to look at facts/history. Every 'glory project' (think sports stadiums; convention centres, sport/recreation complexes) that have crippled local government balance sheets, have been part-subsidized by central government.
Even his own coalition agreement has repeated the mistakes of the past in giving NZ First a billion dollar+ fund to subsidise more councils into further debt. Typically, the council gets a 50/50 cost sharing "deal" to undertake projects that would never have got off-the-ground without central government kicking in a share;
- NZ First has secured a $1.2 billion regional infrastructure fund, a throwback to Shane Jones’ controversial Provincial Growth Fund in the 2017 Labour-NZ First government.
The reality is, central government likes/encourages and part-funds every unaffordable glory project I've ever come across in local government.
Just like landlords putting their hand out for accommodation subsides - has driven up the cost of housing generally as landlords chased tax free capital gains. We cut off farmers subsidies overnight in the 80s and they became more efficient business owners.
Think incentives - Dunedin council builds an OTT whiz bang (i.e., way over-spec for what was needed) new stadium because central government kicked in. You can't blame the elected officials for that - even though they happily took the money. Then compare to Wellington's cake tin - if I recall correctly, Michael Fowler spearheaded that - got sponsorship and community buy-in for the build, with the only government contribution being rail yard changes. Not insignificant, that CG contribution but the build costs were fully supported by the community..
"We cut off farmers subsidies overnight in the 80s, and they became more efficient business owners."
And that's what has to happen for suburban property farmers. Make changes, overnight. Stipulate that any holding property at 11.59 pm on Sunday 25/8/24 under present legislation are quarantined against change if you wish (and don't let on in advance!) And just as you write, the sector deals with the new regulations as they will be. In all likelihood, it too becomes more efficient and less of a drag on our net national Debt capacity (* lower prices/ lower Debt needed to transact) as those who are inefficient exit the market.
For Dunedin stadium you can blame the elected officials, the council & council management namely because even the land deal was a key example of insider trading and corruption that the community did not want. Did you forget the massive protest marches in the streets against the new stadium. Most the community did not want it from the outset and right now it is an empty money pit that would be cheaper to use for burning money in (because then the heat generated could be used for power generation as well). Frack bulldozing the site and leaving it empty would save the community millions over the years. You could put up solar panels, have carparks, have what is often the case now rubbish collection sites at the location and it would still be saving the community money over its current maintenance costs & use.
Yes let's spend up large on a dedicated facility for the Crusaders to lose in.
Every week or so I catch up with a bunch of business contacts who are the sorts of people who foam at the mouth about cycle lanes (I personally think one of the better forms of council spending outside of 'core essentials' - not to say they maybe couldn't be done for less or that there isn't any waste involved).
Needless to say, every single last one of them vehemently supported the stadium construction and all wrote submissions on how necessary it was, irrespective of cost.
Exactly correct.
Kpis for core services.
Comparison charts for project costs among our LGS that we can compare with overseas and try to find savings.
Restrictions on what can be funded.
Stadiums and galleries are nice projects and ..should be privately planned and funded by the people that want them. Rugby for example is becoming a niche sport for many ... overtaken at school for participation by other sports which also rightly have an interest in better facilities.
It is claimed that Ratepayers want more and more services hence part of the rate increases are assigned to that requirement. I am very sceptical of the claim ratepayers want more services.
See this interview where one ex-politician is interviewing and incumbent. A key question lacking was when the incumbent politician said the ratepayers want more a services. The ex-politician didn't jump on that probably because he used that as an excuse for rate increases when he was a mayor.
My experience is that ratepayers do want more services - mainly in the leisure/community category - e.g., skateparks; pump tracks; indoor swimming pools; pensioner accommodation, etc
Ratepayers just expect the water to keep flowing out their taps; the waste to go somewhere when they flush the toilet and their sections/roads not to be.flooded. They don't vote for bigger pipes; they aren't engineers; they vote for more pleasant, more enjoyable communities.
Hence, I thought it a great idea to release them (local government) from the three waters infrastructure provision. Councils ought to concern themselves with nice-to-haves, not necessities. And necessities needed to accommodate future generations, ought to be provided at the absolute lowest, long-term borrowing costs.
"pensioner accommodation" absolute no-no in my book. Central govt palming off costs onto rate payers. Neat trick. I wonder how many councils have fallen for that. NP haven't yet but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
"mainly in the leisure/community category - e.g., skateparks; pump tracks; indoor swimming pools;" There are numerous councils that already have these facilities. Why I ask did NP increase it rates 18 and 11% in the past two years? I think you'll find its additional or unnecessary embellishment of existing leisure/community facilities and some unnecessary new.
I don't have any evidence but my perception is that Councils hold surveys, usually at the behest of a special interest group asking if the ratepayers want this that or the other without associating any costs in the survey with that service.
I'm of the distinct impression that the level of councillors ability/expertise in local govt are worse than equivalent MPs in central govt. Local govt election turnout leads me to this view.
These surveys might tell the cost of the individual project but they either don't or it's very hard to understand the cumulative effect of all the one off things.
We all want our thing and not the other person's thing and our thing is important but theirs isn't.
Saying no is hard. Hence the cycle of spend spend yes yes, till it all builds up to a tipping point that cant be denied then it's an abrupt and hard "no".
All councils have pensioner housing. Free rides for those over 65 is well entrenched in every level of government. Including preferential housing in premium locations with full maintenance paid for by the council. I know many investors who own other properties they rent out then went cap in hand to the council and got council housing. It enables them more overseas holidays, and trips with the casino group. Meanwhile councils deny access to community housing for families in poverty who cannot physically access most KO homes as 98% are inaccessible and cannot get the highest level of interest on the waitlists. Its all those over 65 who apparently are the most crippled and entitled because of a birthday. I went to many council housing reviews when even access to other groups was shut down while studies of the tenant demographics was very telling.
Likewise pensioners can get massive amounts of rates relief unlike most the people living in the city with less then the lowest quartile income who are still forced to pay rates through their housing costs.
You're conflating "ratepayers" with the total population of those permitted to vote in local authorities elections. Who since the 1950s? Legislation change are signficantly not only ratepayers (& no, people who rent are not defacto ratepayers because rents are determined by tenants ability to pay not landlords costs).
The key problem with universal suffrage in local politics is the gaming of elections with large numbers of agenda driven agitators without their own skin in the game.
Luxo from Te Puke is just a political 'tool' with no idea about much. Hes a bit like the last Labour PM before chippie. Ardern. Lacks substance and is a follower of the fake it until you make clan.
Lets 'hope' he hops on the fast learners curve.
PS. Remember he is a member of the 'Happy Clappy' folks at the local Evangelical Church.
Nick smith should preach what he says in front of his national party mates, he went cap in hand to labour for funds which they would not give him will he now go to Simion brown and ask for some money to help out, i think not
They're all facing the diminishing-returns of inevitable de-growth.
We held on for a while by avoiding maintenance, while spending beyond our means. We missed the point that energy and resources - both limited - backed our consumption (whatever could it have been, I wonder?) We chose less tax, less local tax, and now find that the housing ponzi was - well - a ponzi.
Clearly Clown1 has no idea what is happening; there's going to be panic before the crash, and I doubt he'll understand what hit when it hits.
The Limits to Growth, and how they are impacting all things - CG, LG, punters - would make a good article.
It's not only councils that need the hard word put on them. Take three large companies whose directors need to take a hard look at themselves and ask themselves if they are competent in their roles. The companies are the following:
1. SPARK : they need to stop toying with IT and 'stick to their knitting' to compete with likes of ONENZ who seem to be rapidly becoming NZ's top actor in digital communications. If they are incapable of thinking of a new productive add-on they should just try and make their basic services more efficient.
2. MANAWA needs to come clean on the fact they are not in control of the commercial and industrial customers that they still supply after selling their retail arm to Mercury. All shareholders were given the impression that Manawa was 'hands-on' running this side of their business. Not so apparently. We now hear that a big hunk of their supply was distributed by some one-man-band no-one has ever heard of who has (supposedly?) gone belly-up owing Manawa millions. Did the Manawa directors not realize the danger? Was there no close oversight of this 'character'?
3. FLETCHER BUILDING: with another so-called 'Black Swan' event seemingly happening every day, the latest being the Commerce Commission's legal action for anti-competitive practice with regard to their wall- board monopoly behavior, it's hard to see a clear direction ahead. I hope that they have got rid of all those ex-army types that used to fill middle management roles. It's a pity that New Zealand doesn't possess management with the ability of Albert Speer, Hitler's head of war production during WW2, without the Nazi trappings of course.
These three companies, in particular, need to revisit their direction and the contribution of their boards' and their CEOs' performance. These companies need to stick to their knitting and become more lean and mean.
I think it was an excellent speech, and the objectives are very good. Long overdue. I was wondering how they would stop all the woke crap going on in council leading to rate increases. The list is long, you have Māori nonsense waiting time, rainbow crossings and all sorts of other stupid ideas costing money. I thought it was going to be difficult to get all this stuff cancelled without being called racist or anti trans or whatever. But the answer is simple. They are getting told that unless you are spending on taking rubbish away, sewerage, water or maintenance, then you don’t spend. Everything else is effectively banned. No more white elephant feel good nonsense. Councils will now need to be elected based on their performance in delivering basic services. Candidates won't be able to pander to minorities to get elected promising free stuff, because it wont be allowed. Brilliant. Rate payers will benefit, no pencils interest groups.
Yes. That would be a great idea. Then we would not have irrelevant stuff like ministries for Māori, women, pacific people, Māori TV, and the productivity commission. All these nonsense organisations were the result of vote buying. Should be disestablished. We are probably lucky Labour got the boot, because we would probably have a ministry for Palestine by now if they were still around.
Long overdue
More like a re-hash of what's been said (and done) before. JK's government in 2010 did the same amendment to the legislation which Luxon has proposed above. Made no difference whatsoever because that same JK government kept subsidizing the 'nice-to-haves' and offered no such subsidies for the core services.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0124/latest/DLM2922407…
Why do they keep doing this (i.e., $1.2billion to Shane Jones to dish out based on 50/50 cost sharing), because central government relies on local government to continue to fund economic development type infrastructure (and that doesn't include bigger pipes and upgraded wastewater treatment facilities).
Good point lets have more appreciation events for operating drainage and sewage facilities instead of councils ignoring them for years until shit floodwaters hits people's homes and they get written off as uninhabitable. Because the public certainly do care then. But they are poorly educated and ignorant of the importance of pipe structures & water management facilities for the most part until they realize it is past crisis point (with zero school education on basic matters of physics and chemistry for most of them, let alone the now greater amount unable to read or do basic arithmetic). Most of Wellingtons water being lost is probably one of the greatest sustainability crimes in the region because clean drinking water is vital, alongside councils that allow large amounts of slash waste to reap destruction, or those that leave contaminated areas of asbestos and PFAS etc.
You know the normal reaction councils have to key infrastructure services is to defund them and build another convention center and skate park, host a few festivals while critical services fail and lead to real consequences. No one died because they did not have another festival or new convention center & stadium Especially while the old one still existed but even if condemned the loss of one activity leads to others taking their place. Those activities that replace those the councils fund operate more often at a much better price point and management cost for the community and usually involve greater levels of community engagement and empowerment as communities self manage their own events.
What are core services exactly? Let’s say you are a business paying rates, you probably don’t give a crap about rubbish and sewerage, the main thing you want is people going out to events / rainbow crossings / cycleways / rejuvenated town centres / etc. The idea that only households pay rates is ridiculous.
Im typing this message while on a bus about to spend some money in the city. National would cancel that bus and make the destination crap, that lack of investment will not make anyone better off.
Whereas without clean water and rubbish management you could die in your 20s & 30s of heavy metal poisoning & infections. Swings and roundabouts eh a choice to be alive with drinking water & water management that does not kill people or be bored that you have to organise your own entertainment events for once like you are a completely clueless git who does not know how to go to a gig or meet family at a beach or house and need it spelled out for you with a ticket tape parade of other people's money just for you.
Yeah that would be so hard eh. Having to arrange your own entertainment and meetups. Having to book your own events. Protip ticket services are open to everyone and you can book people to work at a door, set up stalls and play music. Putting in applications for events with council for public space use for transport access is easy, there are numerous private operated venues (we have a glut that normally stand empty most the time), and you can get free advertising if anything you do actually matters to other people enough. Go on. Stop expecting others & those much poorer then you to pay for your luxury lifestyle of elitist circle jerk wank.
You are worse then the boy racers who complain they have to terrorize communities because wah no one gave them a free car rally park that they could trash every week and have someone else pay to clean and fix up for them. Because at least they arrange their own events and sometimes pay for their own equipment. You have just demonstrated you are incapable of both those things and are the peak of entitlement to getting others, more often the poorest, to pay for luxuries you do not need in any way.
It's a hard one, because the only thing councils can do to raise capital is increase rates. Especially in Auckland, where urban sprawl has impacted delivery (read: cost) of services like water, power, etc and a fierce reluctance to not build up causes not just install costs, but upkeep very expensive.
We just need to review "heritage" status in areas and consider building apartment blocks in inner city suburbs, expanding roads and realistically putting in PT so people can go about their day without the reliance on vehicles, especially if you live near the CBD.
Creating time of day road tolling, increasing parking costs on roads, fines, etc, ultimately as a way to raise revenue is a good start, but not enough. Nobody should need to pay 5k/year in rates but at the same time without other sources of revenue it's the only way. My home in Auckland has higher rates as my one in the Inner West of Sydney despite the value of the home in Auckland being 1/4 the capital value.
Auckland needs the ability to be flexible, but it really isn't working with our democracy.
Funny, I get reticulated freshwater; I flush my toilet and forget; I have streetlights and bus stops and subsidised public transport outside my gate; and I get my rubbish collected weekly - all for a lower cost per annum than I pay for electricity and telecommunications services.
As usually seems to be the case, this is a frustratingly binary conversation.
Luxon / National are partly right - there has been some super wasteful spending from councils on some ‘pet projects’. The convention centre in Wellington is a very good example of that.
At the same time, they exaggerate the issue and generalise. From what I see around the country, councils are doing pretty well to deliver core services within very limited means.
I also think there’s a real place for council-sponsored community events. It’s a pretty utilitarian view of council’s role to argue it should be just pipes and roads.
A few thoughts:
1. I see a difference between town and country councils as to rates expenditure on what. It will vary - but can they be benchmarked in two buckets and shown what ‘good’ looks like.
2. Too many separate councils that should be consolidated and overheads cut.
3. Wellington gives the impression of a disaster zone - esp their central city roading rework. Should be audited and reported on.
4. Govt should pay rates - if it’s too expensive in say Wellington city, relocate to an area that offers better value for money.
Speaking of pet projects, Greater Wellington Regional Council new offices in Masterton (runs all the way down to the red takeaway as seen in the following streetview link), when just across the road there's a 5 story "departmental building" that is just partially occupied by a few small NGO's.
For what purpose exactly does GWRC need such a presence?
https://www.google.com/maps/@-40.9481752,175.6619681,3a,75y,15.4h,83.64…
Depressing comments guys. Our towns and cities are decaying and have crap infrastructure because NZ refuses to dedicate a decent share of it's productive capacity (people, skills, materials, energy) to the things that make our collective lives better. The current Govt wants to make this worse; their whole agenda is to shrink the state and make sure that more of our resources are dedicated to making the top 1% wealthier. Don't fall for it.
The councils all work like shady corporates. Attracting new customers while crapping on their existing ones.
They spend money on "attracting" business/people to the region. The suckers come for a junket, marvel at the "lifestyle" and move over. Then it dawns on them that the shiny airport, festival, stadium, and art gallery contribute precisely zero to providing water, clearing sewerage, fixing roads, providing public transport, encouraging business, or removing the rubbish.
The CBD is run down, the traffic is abysmal, the infrastrure is old and broken, and most of the residents have no disposable income because the banks, power companies and supermarkets got to it first, thus rendering any new business obsolete.
The houses are overpriced Sh!tboxes, and all of this years funds went on another white elephant to trick the next ratepaying sucker to move in.
Both central govt and local govt need to improve their spending.
Neither is using socioeconomic cost benefit analysis on all of its spending (that is then made publicly available) to rank its spending priorities.
National is guilty of slashing its financial knife about, damn the socioeconomic consequences.
Local govt is guilty of spending on everything except critical infrastructure.
Local govt is underfunded to the extent that central govt doesn’t pay rates on all its land and it imposes processes such as the RMA without any consideration of the implementation costs.
But also many local govt areas are too small and uneconomic. NZ would be better off with fewer unitary authorities.
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.