Local Government Reforms
March 19th, 2012 at 4:30 pm by David FarrarThe Government has announced some fairly significant local government reforms. They are not yet online so have embedded them above. The summary of them is:
- Refocus the purpose of local government - to change from the ‘social, economic,environmental and cultural well-being of communities’ to ‘providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business.’
- Introduce fiscal responsibility requirements – will allow Government to set fiscal limits for Councils such as debt, income and expenditure levels. Flexibility in case of disasters though.
- Strengthen council governance provisions – will allow Councils to set a cap on staff numbers and set a remuneration policy. Also salaries to be disclosed in bands like for central Govt.
Also powers of Auckland Mayor to be extended to all Mayors – to appoint Deputy Mayor, Committee Chairs and propose the budget. - Streamline council reorganisation procedures
- Establish a local government efficiency taskforce
- Develop a framework for central/local government regulatory roles
- Investigate the efficiency of local government infrastructure provision
- Review the use of development contributions
I think giving Mayors some modest powers is a good thing. At present they have no power beyond a Councillor except through the force of their leadership. Having the Mayor propose the budget and Council above to approve a staffing cap and remuneration policy dilutes the powers of chief executives.
The new purpose statement looks much better focused to me, and also approve of fiscal responsibility requirements. However the key thing will be what they actually are, rather than just having them.
Related posts:
- Why we need local government reform
- Reining in local government
- Nothing to do with local government
- Rodney on right track for local government
March 19th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
About bloody time too. I was hoping he would introduce some form of personal liability for councillors if they operate outside of the core areas.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
At first glance, it all looks pretty anti-democratic. Surely, the highest priority for local authority Councillors should be to do what voters have elected them to do. If candidates successfully stand on the basis of providing the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, surely they should not be constrained by legislation enacted by central government from doing so. This seems to me to be the Nats (yet again) attempting to queer the pitch to favour of short-term development over long-term sustainability.
I would be a bit more comfortable with giving limited executive powers to Mayors if they were all elected under STV. Under the FPP system operated by most local authorities, it is not democratic for Mayors who may have been elected with as little as 30% of voter support to have the powers proposed.
[DPF: If you have local government and central government having exactly the same roles, then you get duplication and also a lack of accountability as one can point the finger at the other.]
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
The proposal to change from the ‘social, economic,environmental and cultural well-being of communities’ to ‘providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business’ is very significant; if enacted will certainly spike the ambitions of the Maori Advisory committee in Auckland who have very big ideas for spending ratepayers money. The Maori party will likely be prodded to oppose this.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Toad (interesting name – one meaning is: an offensive term for somebody considered loathsome or disgusting……)
Here in Hamilton we have a massive debt due to the stupid council deciding that we needed more social and well being activities. To wit: the V8′s (40million that we know about – there will be more hidden), Claudelands events centre (60 million that we know about and utterly impossible to achieve income expectations) – thats just the biggest two of the messes that the council decided to get into. They are currently wanting to put millions into a velodrome, the rugby union owes them hundreds of thousands (because the council gave the union exclusive rights to the stadium – utter imcompetance), etc, etc
You see, they law change in 2002 was to give councils the power of general competance. But they werent competant at this sort of stuff – even if they had of told the truth – they arent competant….
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Perhaps Toad should reflect on why Local Authorities were created; to oversee the creation and maintenance of services to property owners. The extension of their responsibilities was purely the creation of people intent on spending other peoples money on pet ideas. Ratepayers are being expected to fund all sorts of nonsense, much of it proposed by Councillors who have no mandate at all to act in this way. (V8 race or rugby stadium anybody?) And then there are the distortions – ratepayers in tourist areas are expected to fund infrastructure for visitors who make no contribution. Time for a pull back to core responsibilities.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I have little confidence Nick Smith will be able to sell this without a huge political dust-up. I hope he has developed a political strategy beyond treating local authorities like small children who need to be told what is good for them. Otherwise these worthwhile proposals will be lost, just like mining was lost through a poor political strategy.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
The ‘well beings’ are all connections with the desires of the UN.
Vote:Good to be rid of them.What is of concern is the meaning of ‘streamlining reorganisation procedures’. Ratepayers need to have the ability to have referendums as they do now.
I hope the changes mean the queue to council doors for funding everything and anything, will cease.
March 19th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Seems that Nick Smith wants local government not to listen to the needs and wants of local communities.
Why not let communities let their elected councils do what the community want and central government’s nose out
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
trout 4:58 pm
Oh, get real, and out of the 19th century and into the 21st.
That said, the Hamilton V8 and Dunedin rugby stadium decisions were imo bad Council decisions. But we should not allow central government to dictate what decisions local government makes. There are some pretty poor (and imo sometimes even worse – e.g. letting South Canterbury Finance into the retail deposit guarantee scheme and then renewing their guarantee when they were clearly in breach) decisions made by central government too.
And the end of the day, democracy should mean that we elect people to do what they promise to do, and if they stuff it up we boot them out next time around.
Trying to run government, be it central or local, on a corporate basis that denies voters their will is an abrogation of democratic principles.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Toad – the government givith (in 2002) and now hopefully the government will taketh away…….
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Looks good.
Vote:The sooner that councils focus on the essentials of roading, drainage, water, footpaths and rubbish collection, the better. Leave the BS stuff like V8 races to others – let them take the risk.
March 19th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
ALL THIS SOUNDS FINE.
BUT WHO HAS DONE THE WORK ON THIS?
WHO PUT THE GOVERNMENT PAPER TOGETHER?
IT SEEMS LIKE A LARGE DOLLOP OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
SADLY, THERE IS NO LONGER OWEN MCSHANE TO KEEP YOUNG NICKY AND HIS PHANTOM TEAM POINTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THE SILLY ENTREPRENURIAL ACTIVITIES OF SOME COUNCILS ARE BOUND TO END.
BUT WHO WILL ENSURE THAT A TOWN CLERK, HIS/.HER DEPUTY, PLANNERS, ENGINEERS ET AL ARE NOT PAID MORE THAN MPS, MINISTERS AND THE PRIME MINISTER?
A RESOLUTION (LAW) SIMILAR TO THAT PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS WOULD BE HELPFUL.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Councils should look after core roles being processing my excrement, collecting my rubbish and cleaning the footpaths.
Vote:Why is Len Brown in discussions with the Tongan community on what to do for the death of the Tongan queen/king?
That is un-essential business, if Tongan’s want to celebrate him do it out of your own money.
March 19th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
“If candidates successfully stand on the basis of providing the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, surely they should not be constrained by legislation enacted by central government from doing so.”
I don’t recall Toad or other spenders of others’ money protesting in similar fashion in 2002. At that time, councillors previously elected under long-standing local body constraints suddenly found themselves with the “power of general competence” that set off their inevitable spending and borrowing sprees. What an unkind imposition on them.
If the usual suspects are now going to complain loudly and vociferously about what the Government intends to do, it would be fun to conduct a national referendum on the subject. My guess is that there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of reigning in and limiting the powers and functions of local authorities. Most of us have had enough of municipal and district councils pursuing grandiose memorials to their own incompetence, all the while ramping up rates and debt servicing charges to the ultimate detriment of our communities.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Toad If this gets enacted ( and I hope it does ) the councilllors will not be able to campaign on “social, economic,environmental and cultural well-being of communities” so there will be no problem. Maybe you like paying the escalating rates bills but I sure as hell don’t. Each year I ask –where does it end.
Vote:We see Town Clerks calling themselves CEO’s and expecting massive salaries –for what. There was an excellent piece of journalism in one of the Wellington freebies recently ( The Wellingtonian –I think ) where the journalist asked Wade -Brown and McKinnon what the CEO was responsible for. The answer was he was responsible for enacting decisions made be council and the Council was accountable to the public. All well and good but I’d then say the CEO was effectively just a Project Manager and should be paid accordingly.
These Councils have to get real and back to basics. The first Coucil to do it may find they get a big increase in population!!
March 19th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
@ toad
I think this is very much a paternalistic decision by central govt based on past performance, the complexities of the 10 year plans and lack of engagement by the public and the low numbers that vote in local govt elections. I suspect they are trying to prevent relatively small groups wielding significant financial power and doing things far beyond what many voters would expect.
If there really is a serious concern amongst local voters this will be a tailor made general election issue for opponents to rally around. But I’m betting most will be glad to see rates being controlled.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
There is no analysis here on what rates are actually being spent on. Rates seem to be treated as some kind of black hole for which no one receives any benefit. For instance:
So while expenditure would be less, there would be correspondingly less roading and transport infrastructure, less development (e.g. for instance no Wynyard Quarter in Auckland), less council services and less of the things that make a city desirable.
There are undoubtedly areas of wasted expenditure, so this document would be far more useful if it drilled deeper and analysed what rates were being spent on. For instance how much extra are local bodies having to stump up on roading now that the Government has slashed their budgets? There is no discussion here either about whether Councils should be able to have alternative revenue streams to rates either.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Refocus the purpose of local government –
to change from the ‘social, economic,environmental and cultural well-being of communities’ to
‘providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business.’
Please somebody inform the Christchurch City Council what is coming.
Most of them still dance around Bob Parker, and his weakling disintegrated Council.
Poor Sue Wells Councillor , she studied the RMA for twenty years and was the only person who understood it, and now her life is worthless.
Vote:Please give her back social, and cultural
March 19th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
This Labour fool believes he’s going to save the world: http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/porirua-mayor-to-eradicate-child.html
Hat tip: Lindsay Mitchell
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Local government should consist of nothing but a series of neighbourhood body corporates charging a levy to households and shopping around for the best water, sewage and rubbish contracts from private providers. This idea of having a whole other level of government which can do what it wants is ridiculous and dangerous. I can’t believe the former ACT leader spent three years trying to make councils more powerful instead of less.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Good work by National and ACT. Some excellent changes proposed. I would be astonished if it translated into a rates reduction, but if it enables council to hold down rates to zero or near to it, then so much the better.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
@ Toad; at first glance your beloved MMP seems pretty undemocratic too…
But for those of us that have to pay out-of-control rates bills because we’ve had the foresight to buy our own property, these reforms from Smith and Key will be widely welcomed.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
It’s probably way to late to rein the local councils in. The whiff of power has become addictive, the core role of councils has now given away to the creation of council fiefdoms . To many agendas being pushed because there is a perceived unlimited supply of cash and worst of all these parasites are backed by the rule of law. Probably way to little way to late Nick.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
toad, I don’t see why my neighbours should get to spend my money and call it democracy. Can you please explain that?
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
@campit.
Vote:Agree that alternative revenue streams are a query as councils set up companies which if they make a profit then subsidise rates.Is this right.?
Get annoyed with those who think councils should be run like a business.They are not a business.They have a captured market for income and are not in existence to make a profit.
They need guidance about functions and responsibilities. Many councillors have no idea why they are there.
Another change that should have been signalled was no race based seats.This would have been a very positive move.
March 19th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Does this mean they’ll have to sell all the ‘council houses’ to Housing NZ? Sell all their shares in ports and airports? Cease funding Rudman’s theaters?
Bring it on, I say. Bring it on!
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Toad: there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. Just because people vote for it doesn’t mean it’s OK – things are OK only within the bounds of the powers of govt, the law, and the constitution (such as we have). If councils have limits on what they can do then that’s fine, so do central govt.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
@Alan Wilkinson 7:46 pm
Easily, Alan. You don’t “own” the money. The extent of your entitlement to it is determined by law.
Think back to societies where slavery operated, Alan. The slave-owners owned everything, and the slaves owned nothing. But the law changed, so people could not be owned and forced to work for nothing, and had to be paid for their work. So then it was no longer all the slave-owner’s money.
Different times, but same principle.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
@PaulL 8:14 pm
Actually, central government has no limit on what they can do. If a Government commands a majority in Parliament, they can do whatever they like. A Government lawfully could, using the example in my last post, even legalise slavery.
That is why I believe there should be some constitutional constraints with regard to human rights as to what Parliament can legislate to do.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Toad
“Actually, central government has no limit on what they can do.”
Dead right. That government (and its support partners) could even legislate to make smacking a criminal offence when 82% of the population were against the move.
BTW Toad, where was the mandate from the people to introduce the hated anti smacking law?
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
For a long time now I have been advocating a change in the way local rates are charged.
One of the reasons there is so much apathy when it comes to local politics is because only property owners are the ones who end up carrying the can for socialist councils.
The bludgers (usually socialists and left leaning voters) are not usually rate payers, they are renters or state house tenants.
There should be a change made asap to a poll tax style of rating, we all use the facilities provided by local government so we should all have to pay. Those who live in state houses should pay the same as those who own their own property, the same should apply to private rental properties, if you use it then you pay for it.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Refocus the purpose of local government to ‘providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business.’
Hallelujah!!!!
If Toad and his comrades want to spend money on social, economic, environmental and cultural ‘services’ than they are more than welcome to spend their own.
Vote:They can organise their ‘cultural’ festivities, environmental action groups, free swimming pools etc. etc.
Of course that isn’t what they want.
This is the difference between Toad & comrades and the rest of us. They think they have the right (Under the guise of government) to take OUR money and spend it on things THEY want.
They have.
And we have the right to oppose it.
March 19th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
The elected representatives of our local council spend money on grandiose community facilities as if they were custodians of the Horn of Cornucopia. Even so, the bleeding of the ratepayers is such that the councillors are reduced to advertising for people to take the excess largesse. From the website of the Masterton District Council:
Community Development Grants
Does your organisation have some great plans that it can’t afford to do?
A new activity? A new service? Training for your workers?
Apply to the Masterton District Council Community Development Fund.
Applications should be sent to :-
The Community Services Manager
Vote:Masterton District Council
P O Box 444
MASTERTON 5840
March 19th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Lower rates? I prefer to believe in the tooth fairy!
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
A great majority of Americans — in fact, the highest level in six years of Saint Index surveys — oppose new development in their own community. 79 percent said their hometown is fine the way it is or already over-developed. Some 86 percent of suburban Americans do not want new development in their community. Asked, “What type of new development would you most like to see in your community?” the most common answer was “none.”
http://saintindex.info/general-attitudes#nimbyattitudes
Owen McShane
During my visit to Houston there was much fuss about a high-rise apartment being build next to a very plush community of single family homes. The pro-zoning elite were using this as an argument for a comprehensive city plan complete with zoning and the usual host of regulations and controls.
However, people who buy into a neighbourhood controlled by a Homeowners’ Association know very well that the edge properties are vulnerable to such unexpected activities and hence sell at a considerable discount. Buyers pay their money and accept the risk.*
Houston – the well-planned City without a Plan
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz%2Flibrary%2F56-columns%2F186-houston-plan&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNExztqAOXDSw2CYlOhjfdQEcDN2gQ
*Empathy alert: most people struggle to buy a house
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Houston – the well-planned City without a Plan. The libertarian model.
Vote:http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/56-columns/186-houston-plan
March 19th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
80% of population growth is from outside NZ, this represents deliberate government policy choice (assuming population growth and council services are related).
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Good heavens, toad, that sets an entirely new benchmark for drivel I’ve never seen reached before. Sorry I bothered to ask.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
A point I didn’t see covered but may have missed – local government will never be efficient so long as clueless central bureaucrats in big cities are allowed to set absurd standards for such things as sewage treatment that can never be met at an affordable price for small communities.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Toad – local government is undemocratic anyway. Outside of Auckland, council candidates (and their policies) get very little exposure in the mainstream media – so people just vote for the names they recognise (if they vote at all) – or make a snap decision from a photograph and two paragraph policy statement in a brochure.
In Christchurch, we’ve had both left wing (i.e. the 20/21 types) and more conservative (Bob Parker) mayors and nothing has changed. Rates still go up at twice the rate of inflation and the council fritters away money on peoples’ hobbies like flower shows and golf tournaments. This has been true both before and after the earthquakes.
If an organisation’s costs are rising at twice the rate of inflation then something needs to change – and good on Nick Smith for making it happen.
And while I’m on the topic, what is it that the left loves so much about councils? Is it the thought of having their own little fiefdom to fall back on after they’re voted out of parliament?
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
> Easily, Alan. You don’t “own” the money. The extent of your entitlement to it is determined by law.
Only two things can explain this comment. Either it’s blatant trolling or you spent way too much time hanging out with Keith “Pol Pot” Locke prior to his parliamentary exchanges with Michael Cullen.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Toad: Easily, Alan. You don’t “own” the money. The extent of your entitlement to it is determined by law.
At last…..honesty from a socialist parasite. “You don’t own the money”…. translation: “You don’t own the limited hours of your life that you traded in productive effort to earn it.”….in other words…”you don’t own your life”…period.
This is the spirit of altruism writ large….that you exist by permission of others for the benefit of others…and what you think of as “your life” is nothing of the sort.
Gaze on the bare cankered soul of the altruist everyone…THAT’S what we are fighting if we are to remain free and true to our individual selves.
Vote:March 19th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
To echo the sentiments of the first comment, about bloody time.
For the benefit of Campit (and others) NO urban Local Authority in NZ with the exception of Auckland (and possibly ChCh – no figures) spends more than 10% of their budget on roading, none. In fact if you take out the depreciation charge probably none actually spends more than 5% on actual road works.
This another thing people don’t realise, the new Labour Local Government Act of 2002 put all authorities onto an accrual accounting basis with mandated depreciation rates for their huge infrastructure ownership (roads, wastewater, water supply, stormwater networks) – this was a good idea to give a true cost picture. BUT there was no prescription of how those depreciation charges were to be spent as was the former case. Thus for example Wellington Council (which included several one-off large capital spends for new roads): total road spending = $35 million (out of total spend of $392 million = 8.9%). But the $35 million road spend included a depreciation charge of $18 million, only $17 million was actually spent on physical roadworks. The $18 million depreciation cash should properly have been put into a sinking fund or dedicated trust/escrow account for use on future roading – but it wasn’t, it was ALL spent on other areas, so big surprise surprise in twenty years time when they need $400 million for large scale road replacement or major new roading they have nothing in the kitty – it’s all got to be borrowed, this is piss poor governance bordering on insanity.
And as for Toad’s: “Easily, Alan. You don’t “own” the money. The extent of your entitlement to it is determined by law” and other comments. Wow! Your inner totalitarian slipping out there dude, yes of course we must take from the evil rich prick landowning kulaks and spend it on projects for the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities (as decided by Toad and the committee of course).
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 12:20 am
I’m dubious.
My regional council just decided to put rates up 32% over 3 years. They have very good reasons for doing so as usual .
But, they always have very good reasons for increasing rates by so much.
I can’t see anything changing for a while. Other than to note, at the current level of increases (average 7% a year), the average rates demands will exceed the average salary in about 80 years time.
It’s a lifetime for sure, but this is the track the councils are on.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 5:31 am
toad says: ….it is not democratic …….. ….elected with as little as 30% of voter support to have the powers…..”
Goodness. I actually agree with toad !
And by the same principle, I find it staggering that the Gweens seem to think they have some right to impose their will on the people of NZ when their total of the electorate vote was just north of 10%.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 7:50 am
The Carterton Mayor says the government needs to stop raising their own taxes before they start looking at councils.
This is a false diversion of course.
The government actually cut income taxes. There have been a few increases in other taxes such as GST and motorbike fees, but these pale in comparison to the compounding effect of annual 7-10% council rates increases.
The compounding effect is the key.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Local government, central goivernment and criminal extortion rackets are the only organisations that can total their expences, and set their income to match.
While I think this re-focusing is a good move, it will only narrow the scope for critiquing council spending. They will continue to spend first, and organise the expanded income need later.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 9:14 am
There will continue to be a problem as long as there is a misalignment between those levied for fundraising and those who benefit from spending programmes. Someone earlier described the function of local bodies as being to levy landowners in order to supply facilities to them. Somehow this has become corrupted to the point that the landowners are the least likely to benefit while a socialist-style redistribution of wealth (as determined by land ownership) but not of cash or income please note – provides “the community’s” insatiable demands for services as diverse as car races, rugby stadia, homosexual festivals, ethnic events and organisations pandering to the grievance industry.
Solutions have been offered ranging from a reduction in Council’s involvement in non-core activities to a change in the way revenue is raised so that there is a better alignment betyween the contributors and the beneficiaries. Perhaps this would raise the involvement and commitment of the community in local body affairs.
When Auckland City is reduced to charging lifestyle block owners $106 for a permit to keep 13 chooks, you just have to know they are running out of ways to raise funds.
I suspect the answer lies somewhere between smaller councils and poll taxes, but one thing is for sure. Central Government can no longer balance its own books by passing obligations on to local government.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Hey, Ross12, at 541, you noted that “CEO’s” of councils are effectively glorified project managers, and should be paid as such. Lets follow that through shall we…
The CEO of a council, even a small one, is responsible for overseeing the assets of the council – sometimes billions of investment. And ensuring its well managed and run, kept well maintained etc. Quite a decent sized role in and of itself, most would agree.
And a PM. Lets pick a Senior PM, with around 15 years of experience. So, running large programmes of work, projects in the order of say $20M+, with a project team of 100+, which isnt that big, but is a reasonable size for NZ. Thats what I used to do. And I was on $1,500 a day, plus expenses. Say $400K per annum, all up.
Significantly more than the vast majority of LG CEO’s. More than the PM. But it comes with the territory. Risk etc.
So, thoughts on that?
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 9:59 am
A large part of the problem is that the elected Councillors have no idea what the employees are up to, and which boat (waka) are being paddled internally by faction groups intent on continuing to do what they want – bugger the Councillors they have no real idea.
Vote:They are only the mouthpiece and can be blamed every election.
SNAFU, but payers will still pay – suckours.
They cannot continue to pay for the employee great lifestyles.
Tauranga’s staff numbers are still growing exponentially – they saw this change coming so continued to employ heavily 10% numerically in 12 months..
Remember Councillors have NO say over any employees – they are all employed by the CEO, who moves on every 4/5 years, leaving a very well paid job to another “reformer” who is captured by the employees – they have no option if they are to move to a better paid job with another council. ie Auckland City.
March 20th, 2012 at 10:15 am
If Dr Smith is going to change their missions away from ‘social, economic,environmental and cultural well-being of communities’ then why is he so pro actively promoting the new structure in Nelson Tasman that includes a Maori Board
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Very good question to which the answer is appeasement.
Vote:Faithful to the National Party tradition of appeasing the natives, Smith will do whatever it takes to have them on his side.
March 20th, 2012 at 11:31 am
The problem with the reforms as I see them is that Smith is throwing out the baby with with the bath water. There are some non-reg non – infrastructure that Councils do that are wanted by their communities. I suspect that the Rugby World cup would not have happened if the current reforms were in place when it was being planned and implemented.
The development contributions introduced in the 2002 act were always going to be high given the relative ease that could be implemented compared with financial contributions under the RMA.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Not sure where you get this figure from, but for starters streets and roading is the biggest area of expenditure for Chch City Council (22%).
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
In consideration perhaps only the actual ratepayers, who own the property, should be allowed to vote on how “their” money is spent. Tenants and Housing Corporation should not have a vote as to how other people’s money is spent..
Vote:This is real Democracy.
March 20th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
hmmokrightitis –Sorry if I insulted Project Managers. You are probably right , I should have said Administration Manager. At least most PMs show something concrete and productive at the end of their contracts ! ( and that is the major difference in the employment situations. As I understand it most PMs would be on specific project length contracts covering their own holiday pay, sick leave and many other entitlements etc. and with no guaranteed on going work)
Vote:I don’t buy this argument that CEO’s are responsible for are large portfolio of assets and so need to be paid heaps for it . This is a public service mentality argument and on that basis the Prime Minister should be the highest paid public servant. I would argue that many owners of small/med. businesses make more serious decisions on a daily basis than the
the CEO’s of councils ( and the heads of Govt. Departments. )
March 20th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Ross12, fair call, as an ex-PM I had to defend our collective honour
Question – the statement regarding stewardship of assets. I see it at LG level, but does our PM really have the same role? Yes, over money in and out, delegated to the MinofFin, but over assets for the whole of society?
Thats a question I dont know the answer to BTW
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Whilst govt is right in focusing councils on their core activities there is a need to ensure ratepayers have control over the cost of both core & other activities, I have 2 suggestions to achieve this. Firstly the cost of core activities must either be restrained to CPI inflation or councils will be required annually to resign and offer themselves for re election based on their explanation with evidence independently verified of the the reason for the increase and the same condition for debt increases with some allowance for major public works within core activites.Secondly for other activities councilors on initial election must set out a 3 year budget of expenditure with annual increase of 2.5% or the inflation rate if higher with expenditure beyond these limits requiring a fresh election, serious deviation – say 1% or more to be referred to the auditor general to consider surcharging councilors & staff involved. Draconian it may seem but the objective is to force those involved to keep to their budgets and be accountable if they fail. This may provide a fix in the short term but a poll tax collected through the tex system would ensure all who benefit from councils expenditure pay and should therefore be more likely to vote making it perhaps a requirement that a 75% turnout must be achieved for an election to be valid thus putting pressure on councils to involve ratepayers in decision making so they vote with better knowledge of costs.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
hmmokrightitis
The question you raise regarding stewardship of assets :
1. It goes back to my original comment about the journalists question to the mayor and deputy mayor of Wellington. They say the CEO is only carrying out decisions made by Council so I’d argue it is Council that has the stewardship.
2. I’ve heard this argument before about the organisation has X millions under it’s control so the CEO salary should reflect that , but you have to look at what the CEO can and can’t do and often it is very little compared to a private company CEO. So I just think it is a salary justification exercise and as others have said once one Council has moved they all justfiy a move by their own Council. The old Town Clerks were paid a much more reasonable salary based on what they did or could do.
Vote:March 20th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
I wonder how much this will all cost, in particular the “Establish a local government efficiency taskforce”.
Will this be another busy body department just like the home grown food and natural remedy bureaucracy that government is currently building.
Vote: