Local Body Reform
The Herald writes:
The Cabinet has signed off on Mr Hide’s request for the Department of Internal Affairs to review local government law, including the removal of the requirement for councils to deliver on “community outcomes” such as social, environmental and cultural “wellbeing” which Mr Hide said pushed councils into providing services well beyond their core roles.
In the Cabinet paper Mr Hide said there was a need for a clearer delineation of central and local government roles. He proposed making councils more financially transparent to force them to focus on core activities.
I know many think Councils should be involved in provision of social services, but I disagree. The reason is it removes accountability from the central Government to fund the public health, education and welfare systems. It leds to duplication and less transparency.
Although the Cabinet signed off on the review, yesterday Prime Minister John Key said he did not agree with Mr Hide’s definition of “core services”.
He said social policies were an important role for councils.
Mr Key said the review was “an engagement in debate” and Act’s policies did not necessarily reflect Government’s view.
My views are more with Act’s on this.
Mr Hide’s paper also suggests more use of polls and referenda as a way of getting “ratepayer authorisation” for major projects, such as building stadiums or high rates increases.
I think this is a good idea.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am
“The Cabinet has signed off on Mr Hide’s request for the Department of Internal Affairs to review local government law, including the removal of the requirement for councils to deliver on “community outcomes” such as social, environmental and cultural “wellbeing” which Mr Hide said pushed councils into providing services well beyond their core roles.”
About time.
I find it enormously annoying to be facing 5, 7, 9% rate increases each year (until last year when it was a little more sane) while my council is pushing out publications and doing high frequency radio advertising BEGGING people to submit community proposals for GRANTS. Those ads would play EVERY add break.
Unbelievable.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Here’s my take on it DPF.
Regardless of whether you think Councils should be involved in the provision of social services, it is the anti-democratic manner in which Rodney Hide proposes to streamline processes to minimise public consultation on controversial issues such as contracting out and privatisation that really sticks in my craw.
And there is a lot more than just social services that I would consider core local authority activities that are notably absenst from the list in his Cabinet paper.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Personally, I find it enormously satisfying that a man whose party got 3.6% of the vote feels he has an enormous mandate to enact his fringe policies holus bolus. The 3.6% Mussolini wil destroy this government, he is already wrecking national’s reputation in Auckland. National will be a mere footnote in history – one term wonders.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
As an elected Local Authority councillor I listened to Mr Hide’s ideas. They certainly sound populist and clearly identify with ACT.
I agree some councils have got into commercial ventures, something no local authority should ever do – the private sector does that.
What alarms me most is the suggestion that local authorities should have referenda on contentious matters.
Okay we could do that(Local Authorities) but so should the government when implementing any major decisions. If its good enough for local government then its good enough for national governments. Imagine voting on tax increases. The result is predictable. Nothing would be done.
I believe councillors are elected to govern on behalf of the ratepayers. When the council vote is taken that in essence is a mini-referendum.
Referendums would be okay if every voter was equipped with the information to make the decision. Lobby groups with money and influence could soon take advantage pushing their own case.
I think you would soon find massive indifference to these referenda, leading to results that would be unsound.Look at the European elections with voting in the UK down in the 30 percents.
A bit like having murder cases decided by public referendum !
I don’t say that elected councillors are perfect, but in my case I know I represent one section of the community while my fellow councillors will represent others. A bit like a jury.
What is needed is good information being provided in understandable form so there is public debate.
My local govt unit is a small urban-rural one where I have lived all my 66 years. When I go down town I am frequently questioned about council, asked for clarifying information and frequently debated about the issues.
Large authorities can often see their councillors hidden anonymously in the big city and only talking to like minded people.
Referendums where the vote is split 50-50 are also a waste of time. The people are speaking, their answer is worse than useless.
To John Key I say, restrain Rodney and think this suggestion through.
But if it happens, then let the public demand referenda from central government.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
toad, Hide thinks democracy is a non-core activity that interferes with his project to loot the state for his rich kleptocrat mates.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Boo hoo Tom, boo hoo.
Hide is bang on the money and you’re just a sour moaning leftie. Suck it up, there’s still two more years to run and every comment like this from the likes of you is gonna make it a very special two years for the likes of me.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Yeah, Throw your toys out of the cot Semmens you pathetic whining loser.
Nothing commies hate more than the prospect of losing power over others.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I applaud Rodney Hide’s efforts to reverse the Local Government changes that Sandra Lee instigated.
Why should I, as a ratepayer, subsidise tickets for over-priced musicals or celebrity soccer games?
June 9th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I think a more informed debate will be possible once Rodney Hide actually tells us what he means by “core services”.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I think a more informed debate will be possible once Rodney Hide actually tells us what he means by “core services”.
Easy. Core services is a phrase that includes only council duties that are necessary for the practical functioning of the community, and excludes all politically driven endeavours underpinned by the failed ideology of wealth redistribution.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
There is also the issue with a commercial arm that it’s one heck of a good place to hide “Issues” with the accounts, without even getting into conflicts of interest etc etc.
I’ll agree, until we know what the “core services” are it’s tough to argue, for instance would ‘baiter suggest that a Library is a core service, or parks, or sports grounds, or community halls, I do & I believe the vast majority of voters do also ( Paying for Beckham to play soccer, is of course not a core service, nor is running a major port ).
I do also think that the accounting rules need to be examined, for instance should not redundancy payouts be a seperate line item, so that rate payers can see if they are being used to reduce long term costs or whether they are being used to “remove” staff that the Mayor does not like.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I get the feeling that most of Rodney’s supporters on local governmenmt are from the major centres where “local” has become very much lost in political ideology and personal power games.
Local Government in provincial New Zealand is truly local, with scrutiny from media who know you,ratepayers you know and a small town where everything is public(Including your dirty washing).
In my TLA I have only struck one individual who wears their political and personal banner around the table or is power hungry. That person was sorted out by the electors !!!!
As a local government, our TLA(Territorial Local Authority) has come in with a 3.7% rate increase.
Further down the main road we have a neighbouring council having to budget an extra $500 000 for a major stadium built by the local licensing trust. No thought about operational funding. Our council is in that possible situation with a stadium being constructed by a charitable trust without any thought of on-going operational costs. In this case, council bowed out early because of funding implications for ratepayers.Now the stadium could fail because of inadequate funding for operational costs.
I see the new Auckland supercity proposal as going further away from the word “Local Government”, especially with an executive mayor.
I only ask bloggers to consider what is happening in small authorities and not just on the major urban.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“I’ll agree, until we know what the “core services” are it’s tough to argue, for instance would ‘baiter suggest that a Library is a core service, or parks, or sports grounds, or community halls, I do & I believe the vast majority of voters do also ”
This view could easily be tested by providing rate payers with cost estimates for these services, and the contribution required from each ratepayer, and an opt in opt out box on the rating form.
Why isn’t such a choice provided?
June 9th, 2009 at 10:36 am
@toad June 9th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Sorry, bum link. Was meant to be here’s my take on it.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:53 am
You’re a big fan of democracy when it suits you aye Toad, of course when the Greens are in full banning mode you don’t give a toss what the rest of us think or want.
How do you explain that Toad?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
As long as the level of consultation is the same (or better) than when Sandra Lee and the Alliance turned on the tap for non-core activities then there is no cause for complaint.
(If the Greens were really concerned about democracy they would admit that the Electoral Finance Act was a mistake, and that they have learnt their lesson from it.)
June 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Rodney is exactly right the council should stick to core businesses. I am from a smaller territorial authority.
NEIL…….is suffering under the same delusions that his long suffering ratepayers are content. They are not. Referendums run properly in conjunction with the Annual Plan need be no more expensive than the numerous consultation meetings whereby a handful of zealots push their barrow and often get promised expensive unnecessary projects with little consideration for cost to ratepayers.
Michael LAWS at Wanganui has ruled by referendum for the past five years and gets over 60% response. Where expenditure goes outside the core services the referendum states what the cost of provision will be and how much will be added to rates before anything is spent….That sounds the way it should be to me.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I actually like the theory of an opt out box, but I don’t think it works in practise, Financially justifying things like a Library / sports ground / museum / community hall / skate board park is really tough, what is your metric & if some people opt out how do you stop them using a public park for instance.
It’s just way to easy to play with the numbers in so many ways, but I guess the answer is that consistent standards are provided for reporting on council services nationally & for all council reports to reference national metrics, though there has to be someway of identifying critical differences that can influence costs ( eg. Distances between towns in Northland or Central Otago climate variation ).
Once you have some sort of reference point, you can then provide the option for how much money should be spent on services & that is where ‘baiters opt in box could be used for prioritisation along with level of money to provided for these services.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Backster, I don’t think Michael Laws us a great example in the Local Government arena.
He is another populist who seeks popularity.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Toad,
If the public need consultation on this then presumably you would have greater than only 7% of the population actually participating in the annual plan submission process that considers social and cultural community outcomes?
This entire process is an absolute PC wankfest for insignificant minority pressure groups. It drags out the TLA obligation to consult and is responsible for armies of highly paid ‘social policy analysts’ employed in local government, all courtesy of dear old deep pocket ratepayers.