Nonsense from Masterton
July 30th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarRNZ report:
The Government wants to amend the purpose of local government as stated in the current Local Government Act.
It proposes to do this by replacing the words “promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future” with the words “meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses”. …
The mayor of Masterton, Garry Daniell, says the “four well-beings” are a fundamental part of what councils have been doing for communities for generations, and taking them away puts into question the importance of local government.
With respect, Mr Daniell is wrong. The four well-beings were only inserted into the law in 2001, when Labour gave local authorities the power of general competence. Hence they have not been a fundamental part of what councils have done for generations. Unless we are talking on dog years, or something.
Related posts:
- Cities vs Communities
- Wellington Region Local Government Review Panel meetings
- Reining in local government
- Dom Post on Wellington Councils
July 30th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
With respect, Mr Farrar is wrong. The four well-beings were only inserted into the law in 2001, but they are a fundamental part of what councils have done for generations.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
As one who has to help pay for the spendthrift ways of Mr Daniell & his merry band of wastrels I say bring it on & the sooner the better.
Masterton District ratepayers should be protected from the power of general incompetence shown to date.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
MikeG
The law enacted in 2001 made the shenanigans of these fools legal….even worse it encouraged them!
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Agree DPF.
Vote:Gary Daniell listens to the wrong people. He has an idiot CEO and an idiot planner who conspired (legally, of course) to produce a 9%+ rates hike for urban ratepayers this year..
July 30th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Turf that bloody namy-pamby do-gooder out in the next election.
Vote:Councils should concentrate on core functions, not on trying to be everything to everybody.
July 30th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Councils are about to lose some of their power to spend other peoples money and it scares them.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
I’d love to have a look at their accounting processes. They seem to accrue for everything under the sun and if you look back at their spending records they don’t spend that money in the attributable categories, (say replacing drains) then they’ll turn around and strike the rates based on the need for that same need for replacement ten years later.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
THe drift into debt by NZ local government is quite scary. The massive spend up pre-amalgamation of Rodney and Waitemata being a good case in point, but more generally the old sinking funds have been decimated and borrowing has increased materially since 2001. Coincidence, I dont think so.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Huge Donations to Iwi, un-elected Iwi representatives permitted to vote on motions, Rate rebates from ratepayer funds to subsidise those the Council Welfare Department deem worthy of receiving patronage are just a few of the divergences that our council has embraced since the 2001 reforms. Council debt continues to rocket as they take no notice of the Government directions to repay debt and practise some austerity.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
And the whole thing around iwi and councils is out of control.
Our council had a staff member resign and shifted to christchurch to work for christchurch city council.
Our local council sent a delegation of 11 staff and local ‘iwi’ to accompany the staff member to christchurch and perform a welcoming ceremony for him at his new job at christchurch city council. Funny thing is, they only got caught out because they were seen on TV during the earthquake. Otherwise people would have been none the wiser.
I know it’s an amazing story, but, if you don’t believe…here….
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/13602-bay-delegation-caught-quake.html#vid
This is just one of thousands of stories of councils around the country disrespecting their ratepayers.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
manolo – care to define what those core functions are, IYHO?
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
The well beings have been instrumental in allowing councillors to argue for expenditure on almost anything as they can fit a myriad of ideas into those options.
They can be traced back to the United Nations along with other ideas going back to Agenda 21.
More of these UN inspired wordings need to be addressed.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Local Government NZ is broken. These turkeys are totally out of control.
They spend money like it’s water and constantly seek to swell their numbers and list of functions.
You could fire half of them and see no loss of service.
They are like a tumour suckling on the hard work of everyday NZers and something needs to be done.
Come on National, repeal the piece of rubbish that is the Local Government Act 2002.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Well, seeing manolo has gone – anyone, come on, what should local bodies, local government do, and not do? Anyone?
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Well parks are public goods so I’m ok with that. Probably urban roads too.
Not sure there is much else.
On the definate “no” list would be: sister cities, their entire communications infrastructure, sponsoring cultural and entertainment events, public libraries, owning ports, owning refuse collection and recycling infrastructure, I could go on.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Water and wastes?
Urban roads – cool – and local highways? Bridges? Kerbing?
Dog control? Noise control?
Compliance with central government requirements – which grows year by year?
I know a little about it, I consult to.
And yes, there is waste, as there is in any organisation, be it public or private sector. And some of the things that councils do, I agree, they should not. But the dog whistle shit that is being thrown about really is stupid (not directed at you KG).
Whats stopping us from asking the same question of central government?
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Tasman and Nelson Councils put 400k a year each into a company call Nelson Tasman Tourism. It’s funded in Tasman by a general target rate of $23.50 for every ratepayer. A good chunk of the ratepayers in the area work in growing and exporting food products. Why the fuck should they be funding the tourism businesses. And why is it the councils job to make sure the tourism industries are marketed?
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
hmmokrightitis
Your question is a little vague so answered in categories;
A. They should own these facilities:
Footpaths & roads
Sewage
Water
Public parks & sports grounds
Basic swimming baths
B. They should be responsible for providing at the best price (via contractors):
Footpaths & roads
Sewage
Water
Building permits
Rubbish collection
Recycling & waste
Upkeep of parks & grounds
BUT they should have nothing to do with:
Libraries
Civic promotions
Halls
Promotion of tourism
Housing
Theatres
Ports
Airports
Subsidising cultural crap
That will do for starters.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Hmmm, vague, but you seem to contradict yourself.
Yes to pools, but no to libraries and halls.
And why contract out? And who maintains those contracts? And makes sure there is delivery to the standards in those contarcts? And accounts for them?
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Pools I included only because they are similar to sports grounds. Point is that they are usually already in place but there is no way councils should manage them.
Ensuring that the services are provided should be what councils are for…..ergo letting contracts & ensuring that they are fulfilled is a core reason for their existence.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Hmmo you make good points around regulatory enforcement as I guess “somebody” has to do it. It probably needs to be wound back a bit (eg building).
I can’t see the merit in council swimming pools, it’s not a public good and I can’t see why the private sector wouldn’t provide them. I can’t see why councils need to own water and waste (any more than power or telcos or other “essentials”.
All a bit moot as we keep electing the current crop of half wits.
What I’m seeing in Auckland Is all the costs of the super city plus a grab by the 21 local boards which could well see us with the worst of both worlds.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
nasska, halls are amongst the most widely used of public recreation facilities provided by councils, closely following pools and sports grounds / parks.
And why does it matter if they are already in place – sell them. And if they aren’t bought by the private sector, and no competition springs up, the question is simple – public good? If the answer is no, stop.
And enforcement around building codes? With central government giving local bodies shit codes that saw us have leaky homes (yeah, nothing to see here eh SheBeast?) there is still a local enforcement requirement.
Again, yes, there is some stuff that councils do that they shouldn’t, Im the first to agree. But again, a lot of people dont actually know the full extent of what they do that is considered core services.
And good luck getting the private sector to provide decent water and waste services for what most councils do in terms of cost and service level. The infrastructure costs are huge – and we all want complete assurance that what comes out of the tap isnt going to kill us, right? That costs a metric shit-ton of money to provide.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
hmmokrightitis
My original “A” list is made up largely of land based assets which most councils have, probably in about the right proportions to the community they serve. They don’t, or shouldn’t, place extra demand on capital expenditure. Councils are in a unique position in that they don’t have to provide for a return from these assets but should they be sold to private enterprise I would expect that their value would see them developed for other purposes. Few want the local memorial park become the site of the next Pak & Save.
I concede that sewage, water & roading infrastructure must be owned by councils but it doesn’t have to be serviced by them…this should be the preserve of contractors with council oversight.
Halls & indoor sporting venues I object to on the basis that they are a never ending soak hole for ratepayers’ funds. Locally we have gold plated heated swimming baths, diamond class museum & art gallery & money for tourism promotion comes from a bottomless bucket. User pays & private ownership would save a bomb in a town far short of city status & a sprawling rural sector which gets strip mined to provide urban comforts.
Where I do have sympathy for your point of view is in the devolving of many government responsibilities to councils during Dear Leader’s reign. These need sorting & culling & soon.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
nasska
Vote:why fund pools but not libraries? Which are also already currently existing?
July 30th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
we have some great sporting facilities here in Hawkes Bay (Pettigrew Green Arena, Park Island, Hastings Sports Park, McLean Park etc, etc) that host many local and national-level competions, concerts, events. They are community assets.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
And Hastings has a debt of around $100m.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
HB
Largely because the libraries are a constant & never ending drain on ratepayers. Pools are not much better but at least there is an element of user pays. That said any group of wanks who think their dreams of heated, Olympic size pools should be provided for them should join the queue of those proposing subsidised flights to the moon.
Councils should not be the Horn of Cornucopia as they are now treated.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
wreck1080 (2,303) Says:
July 30th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
And the whole thing around iwi and councils is out of control.
Our council had a staff member resign and shifted to christchurch to work for christchurch city council.
Our local council sent a delegation of 11 staff and local ‘iwi’ to accompany the staff member to christchurch and perform a welcoming ceremony for him at his new job at christchurch city council. Funny thing is, they only got caught out because they were seen on TV during the earthquake. Otherwise people would have been none the wiser.
I know it’s an amazing story, but, if you don’t believe…here….
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/13602-bay-delegation-caught-quake.html#vid
This is just one of thousands of stories of councils around the country disrespecting their ratepayers.
Meanwhile;
Council spends $3.4m on consultants
Posted at 1:12pm Monday 30th Jul, 2012 | By Andrew Campbell andrew@thesun.co.nz
The Bay of Plenty Regional Council spent $3.4million on consultants in the last financial year – but that’s less than the previous two years.
According to figures released to SunLive under the Official Information Act the regional council spent more than $500,000 less on consultants in the last year, compared with 2010.
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/29240-council-spends-34m-on-consultants.html
Same council, same councillors. Troughers all of them. Including that dosey Sherry. Apparently necessary to wake him at meetins so he can vote. Can you believe that?
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
As an old, grizzled, ex-County Treasurer, I can actually remember the good old pre-wellbeings days.
And yer know what?
Anything the Council didn’t, couldn’t or wouldn’t do, and which they wanted, Folks Went Out and Did It Themselves.
Of course, them were the days when yer could build yer home yerself, climb an 8m ladder without a certificate, and dig a hole without a Resource Consent and a Worm Wellbeing Assessment in triplicate from a Registered Worm Whisperer.
But hey, times change, and of course any legal human activity can be fitted squarely into social or cultural or economic or environmental.
So one can understand these minions with clipboards, as they contemplate their enablement being disestablished. A certain amount of anguish is to be expected.
Ye’d have to have a heart of stone not to grin just a little bit….
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
nasska:”I concede that sewage, water & roading infrastructure must be owned by councils but it doesn’t have to be serviced by them…this should be the preserve of contractors with council oversight.”
Fine in theory, utterly impractical in practice. Think about it from a skill sets perspective. What skills would be needed in council – water & wastes, or contract management? Or both? Because you will not get senior W&W people to manage contractors – they want to manage projects and outcomes themselves – they will follow the responsibility and the money to the contractors, leaving nothing behind them.
Senior infrastructure bodies always follow the money, like most other roles.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
I would say (from experience, not in Hawkes Bay, but Tauranga) that a lot of money is wasted on services contracted out. For example, contracts not being put out for tender and awarded to the ‘favoured’ have cost ratepayers millions. There was a lot of corruption there. Small contractors pushed out by the big guys. Small contractors no longer in the game and the big guys now have no/little competition mean costs to council have gone up substantially. Plus service provided is often not as good either!
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
hmmokrightitis
Money talks. I doubt that it would take an army of engineers to define contractors’ responsibilities & ensure that they are carried out so pay what is necessary to attract them.
Part of the problem we have now is that a professional engineer or accountant will join a Local Body & see out their working life in basically the same position. Ditto for accountants & managers. What do you see wrong with people moving between hands on positions in the private sector & supervisory roles in local government?
Surely it is better than having people sitting around & stagnating while steeping themselves in the arts of arse covering & procrastination.
Vote:July 30th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Nonsense, DPF:
There have been predecessor provisions which have previously captured the idea of well-beings, albeit expressed in different ways, eg: s247B of the LGA 1974: “‘to undertake the planning, implementation, and maintenance of any work that, in the opinion of the territorial authority, is necessary or beneficial to the district, whether inside or outside the district”. Community benefit / wellbeing have been central concepts for years.
Vote:July 31st, 2012 at 7:31 am
@ hmmo “And good luck getting the private sector to provide decent water and waste services for what most councils do in terms of cost and service level. The infrastructure costs are huge – and we all want complete assurance that what comes out of the tap isnt going to kill us, right? That costs a metric shit-ton of money to provide.”
This is a common fallacy – if it costs a lot of money, it costs a lot of money. SOMEONE is paying it now, just probably not the users of water and waste services. The private sector is eminantly capable of handling high capex, long run infrastructure projects. It’s not just cardigan wearing second-rate bureaucrats whose career aspirations began and ended with a local government job who can organise this stuff.
Vote:July 31st, 2012 at 8:55 am
KG, you really tried to pack as much bollocks into that paragraph as you could, didnt you?
Did I say the private sector couldnt handle these projects? No. What I said was that it would cost more. And you just have to look at the old WaterCare model in Auckland to understand that. And as for your pathetic swipe “cardigan wearing second-rate bureaucrats whose career aspirations began and ended with a local government job who can organise this stuff.” please, if the very best you can argue is that, want to sit through some of the corporate stupidity Ive seen?
Like a large telco writing off $18M in revenue because they didnt know who to bill…
A large bank running a $250M project office, with 90 project managers, and no reporting – and having to close 20 projects because no one knew what was happening…
Another large telco paying a consulting firm $1M a day in fees – and closing the project after 3 months because no one could agree on deliverables…
Ive consulted in private and public sector, large and medium sized, globally and here in NZ. There is stupidity and waste in every organisation Ive ever encountered. And I say again, the dog whistle shit that continues about local government is misplaced and pathetic – National, JK, I expected more from you than this kind of shit. Yes, things can be done better, but partnership brings about better more effective change than conflict ever did.
KG, your last shite was a perfect representation of that. The councils Ive worked with have impressed me with their professionalism. Yes, they are conservative and risk averse – why would they be any other way – why would we want them to be any other way?
Vote:July 31st, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Farrar is wrong. Think back to the scope of Council activities under the LGA 74 and compare that to under the LGA 02. Then work out what new activities that Councils have commenced since 2002 that were not previously allowed for. Not many in my opinion. Perhaps the odd soccer game involving David Bekham, but then again perhaps not. Libraries, Swimming Pools, involvement in culture such as art galleries and museums, initiatives to support local economic development, community grants – they didn’t all just start on 25 December 2002. Looking at the proposed change to allow for councils to meet the needs of communities for local public services still allows for scope to carry on as usual.
Imagine the outrage if Councils simply stopped doing many of their existing community services. People that believe Councils should be limited to roads and sanitation are really naive. Local Government is complex and a simplistic view of the business of local government actually identifies the problem is that most people (including councillors and local government officials) don’t really understand how to cope with such diverse businesses.
I think many councils get away with shocking mismanagement and deserve a roasting for their inability to manage their own businesses within the applicable legislative framework, but the problem isn’t the framework, it’s community apathy, poor accountability and poor quality leadership. Changing the LG Act wont translate into lower rates bills.
Vote: