Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

Taxpayers across the country are about to pump an extra $3.1 million into the pay packets of their local politicians.

The Remuneration Authority, which sets the pay for city, district and regional councils, has increased the national pay pool by 8.9 per cent, meaning some councillors will pocket rises of up to $16,000 after this year’s elections.

By comparison, average workers’ pay packets are creeping up about 1.8 per cent a year.

Under the changes, published this week, Wellington City councillors are among the big winners, with their base salaries increasing nearly $11,000 to $76,600.

But other roles would take pay cuts of as much as $17,000. These would include Greater Wellington Regional Council chairwoman Fran Wilde and Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, if they are re-elected.

Local Government New Zealand chairman Lawrence Yule welcomed the new pay system, as elected officials were finding it increasingly difficult to hold down other employment, he said.

“If they’re to give up other career options, or significant family life, or significant other things they’re doing, then they do have to be properly remunerated.”

I think the most regrettable change in local body politics is that Councillors have become a near full-time role. They shouldn’t be. It should be a part-time governance role that people do on top of their normal jobs.

What this has led to is far too many Councillors who are full-time politicians. That is their sole job. So obviously their focus goes purely on politics.

Mayors should be well paid, and some are under-paid.

But being a Councillor should be around a 15 hour a week job. They should be focusing on governance and major policy decisions. Not sitting all day on endless council committees. The sole exception might be Auckland due to its size.

Brian Rudman writes:

Tomorrow, Auckland councillors decide whether candidates’ names in this year’s ballot papers should be listed in alphabetical order.

But plenty of research around the world suggests those at the top of the list have an advantage even without the compulsion.

Researchers from City University in London examined the relationship between vote ranking and the position on the 2010 local government election ballot paper of 5000 candidates in the Greater London area.

This was a first past the post election, won by the top three polling candidates in a ward. Most candidates were on party tickets and names were in alphabetical order.

The outcome was that “on average, a candidate listed first in their party was 6.3 times more likely to get the most votes in their party than a candidate listed third.”

The researchers concluded that “ballot position did indeed strongly influence the number of votes received by candidates … and that some of those who are currently representing London may have benefited from this effect, just as those who are not, suffered from it”.

The authors said there was “some evidence that the strength of this effect is sufficient to overcome voter preference for party, most likely in marginal seats …”

The Local Government Commission, in a July 2008 review, acknowledged a similar effect in the 2007 New Zealand local elections. Candidates whose names appeared early in the alphabetically listed voting papers and candidate profile booklets “were up to four per cent more likely to be elected than those whose names were later in the alphabet”.

I have no doubt the order of names assists those as the top. Not so much for elections with few well known candidates, but especially for ones like District Health Boards.

I think all local body ballots should have randomised order for its ballots. With bar code scanning, they don’t need to all be in the same order.

The Dom Post reports:

The Government might be able to help it out of the economic doldrums, but its main focus was on Auckland and Christchurch, while Wellington was perceived in the Beehive as “difficult to deal with”, staff told councillors at a committee meeting last week.

Auckland Council was “tight” with the Government, and the chief executives of government departments, because it had one mayor who spoke for a council with a united vision, strategy and community engagement group general manager Jane Davis said.

“We just don’t have those relationships here in Wellington,” she said. “The Government understands Auckland. It doesn’t understand Wellington.”

Some councillors bristled, believing Ms Davis and her colleagues meant an Auckland-style super-city was the only way forward for Wellington.

When councillor Daran Ponter asked Ms Davis if that was the case, she said it was not.

“No, there are other ways. But we’re failing to nominate a [regional] leader. We’re not pushing any political barrows here. This report is based on evidence.”

She pointed to discussions between Wellington’s nine city and district councils over who would represent the region in talks with the Government over Callaghan Innovation, the recently formed Crown entity for science, innovation and technology.

The councils could not decide who would lobby to have it based in Wellington and, in the end, leaders from all nine took part in the talks. “They said nine voices are stronger than one . . . well, that doesn’t work,” Ms Davis said.

Callaghan Innovation ended up with offices in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, though it is based mainly in Auckland.

Councillor Peter Glensor agreed the Callaghan discussions were “deeply embarrassing” for Wellington.

I think that is a very good example of the weaknesses of the current structure.

The way I see amalgamation is that you actually retain pretty much the same Councils, but they are all part of the entity. The regional council has undisputed authority to talk on behalf of the region, and the local councils or boards deal with all issues in their areas except regional issues.

Katie Chapman at Dom Post reports:

Wellington finally has a mayoral race.

Businessman Jack Yan has announced he will stand for this year’s local body election, challenging incumbent Celia Wade-Brown.

He is the first to throw his hat into the ring in what has been a slow buildup to October’s election – by this time in 2010 there were already four declared mayoral candidates.

Mr Yan finished third then, with 7426 votes (12 per cent) against Ms Wade-Brown’s 24,881.

Six months out from this year’s election, councillor Jo Coughlan and concert promoter Phil Sprey have also indicated they may stand.

Mr Sprey said yesterday that he would make a call mid-next week, but he was “leaning probably more towards yes than no”. Ms Coughlan said she was still “considering her options”, including standing for mayor, but she would not indicate a time frame for making a decision.

I think there will be a number of candidates.

Both Upper Hutt’s Wayne Guppy and Lower Hutt’s Ray Wallace are standing again, and no-one has stepped forward to challenge either.

Meanwhile, in Porirua Nick Leggett will be challenged by Brian Collins who placed seventh out of nine last election, with 489 votes.

I don’t think Nick has much to worry about.

Kapiti Mayor Jenny Rowan is being challenged by Gavin Welsh, a farrier who was once in the Household Cavalry.

Interesting qualifications!

Further afield, Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule is standing for the position for a fifth term and will be challenged for the third time by councillor Simon Nixon.

I doubt the result will be different to the last two times.

In Palmerston North, incumbent Jono Naylor is being challenged by Lew Findlay.

That could be an interesting contest.

Daniel Adams at the Waikato Times reports:

Hamilton’s mayor is being accused of using mayoral forums to electioneer ahead of this year’s election – a claim she rejects.

Mayor Julie Hardaker also rejected the claim that ratepayers are helping fund her re-election after a complaint was made to electoral officials.

Councillor Dave Macpherson has asked for a ruling from the city returning officer on a series of branded forums organised by staff for Ms Hardaker.

He claims the mayor’s forums are electioneering in disguise and should stop.

Or it is a Mayor doing their job and making themselves available to ratepayers to discuss any issues they have. Macpherson is being silly and petty.

The best quote on Mr Macpherson comes from his former leader Jim Anderton:

But Anderton was dismissive of the remarks.

“Dave Macpherson is one member of the Alliance, he is on the Hamilton City Council… last thing I knew he was the deputy chairman of the subcommittee of the dog control appeal authority.”

Attacking a Mayor for actually getting out there and meeting ratepayers is just silly.

Lois Cairns at The Press reported:

Simmering tensions between some Christchurch City councillors and senior staff are hindering the city’s ability to make progress on key issues, insiders say. …

Cr Barry Corbett, who is not seeking re-election in October, said some councillors engaged in political point scoring which was destroying relationships within the council and hindering progress on key issues.

“Some councillors, when they wake up in the morning, all they think about is how they can stick it to the council, how can they embarrass Bob [Parker], and how they can make sure that National doesn’t get elected next year,” Corbett said.

If they had issues with staff, they tended to raise them in a public forum rather than approach them directly.

Naturally, that created tension because staff felt they were being “hung out to dry”.

Asked if he felt the tensions between staff and councillors hampered the council’s ability to make progress on key issues, Corbett responded: “Heck, yeah.”

This is one of the weaknesses of the Council model. It works pretty well in smaller areas where there are not party politics. But party politics has infested the larger city councils and you get Councillors who are more interested in bad publicity for others than making the Council work well.

We solve this issue at national level by having the Government separate to and accountable to Parliament. Not all MPs are Ministers. We have an Opposition who don’t actually have to work with Government staff until they are in Government themselves. Their job is to oppose and scrutinise and propose alternatives – but not to govern.

At the Council level, all Councillors are Governors. They all sit on committees that make decisions and all have an equal vote at the Council. There is no Cabinet or Ministers. So when some Councillors have an agenda of trying to screw over others, of course you get dysfunctional.

As I said, I think the Council model works well for smaller authorities. It works less well when you have party politics. So one solution there may be to recognise the reality and move Councils to more of a parliamentary model. This means more executive powers to the Mayor and Councillors picked by the Mayor to chair committees. The other Councillors can then focus on scrutinising the executive Councillors, holding them to account, approving bylaws and budgets. And at electon time they can campaign as a team for a change to their team.

I prefer the model where there is no party politics, and Councillors focus more of the wellbeing of the Council, not their political interests. But the bigger you get the more inevitable it is you get the “necessary evil” of party politics. And party politics allows voters a clear choice. But if you have party politics then you need an executive and an opposition as we have in Parliament.

Andrea O’Neil at Stuff reports:

Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown has been a dysfunctional embarrassment during super-city talks, and her council is selfishly crippling the rest of the region, claims Porirua City councillor Ken Douglas. …

Ms Wade-Brown all but derailed this summer’s super-city working party, Mr Douglas said at a Porirua City Council meeting on Wednesday.

”The mayor is dysfunctional. I tell you she’s something to be marvelled at. It is a total embarrassment to me to work in a party where she continually changes her mind and throws up other options.”

Since January Mr Douglas has been chairman of an amalgamation working party comprising mayors and councillors from Wellington, Porirua, Kapiti and Greater Wellington councils.

Wellington City Council at first refused to engage in the working party, but since joining, Ms Wade-Brown has done little but frustrate the group’s progress, Mr Douglas said.

”As soon as she sat down she threw sand and sawdust all over the process.”

The mayor further enraged working party members by criticising its findings the day they were released, on March 8.

This is not a right vs left thing. Ken Douglas is the former head of the NZ Council of Trade Unions.

What will be interesting to see this year is who stands against Celia. Will Labour put up a candidate??

The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has reported back the Local Electoral Amendment Bill. The Bill basically updates the local body election laws to much the same level as the national electoral laws, so that there is greater transparency around donations. Both John Banks and Len Brown didn’t disclose numerous donations last election through (legal) use of anonymous donations (Banks) and laundering them through trusts (Brown).

Beyond the changes in the original bill, they have recommended some further changes:

• require that candidate profile statements include whether or not the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the local government area in question
• allow electoral officers to publish all election returns
• allow prosecutions for up to three years after an offence was committed

It will be good to see the bill pass into law.

Stuff reports:

Wellington would have the biggest council in New Zealand if either one of a working party’s super-city options for the region goes ahead.

A local government reform working party is proposing two options: one with a mayor and 29 councillors, the other with 22 elected members including a mayor, plus community boards.

Is there a third option?

Councils need to be manageable sizes. 29 and 22 is not.

You need fewer Councillors and more decisions done at local board level.

THE OPTIONS

TWO TIERS

One unitary authority for the Greater Wellington region.

One mayor for the region, and 21 councillors elected by wards.

The wards would be Lower Hutt (4 councillors), Kapiti (2), Porirua (3), Upper Hutt (2), Wairarapa (2), North-Central Wellington (5), South Wellington (3).

Eight local community boards based on the seven wards, but with North-Central Wellington split into two.

ONE TIER

One unitary authority.

One mayor for the region, and 29 councillors elected by wards.

The wards would be the same as the two-tier model, but with more representatives.

My preference is the first option but with fewer Councillors.

Larry Mitchell has just published the 4th edition of his NZ Local Government financial sustainability and community affordability League Table.

The LGLT scores-ranks each of the 67 NZ territorial local authorities in order according to the strength of each Council’s financial sustainability as well as the affordability of Council rates and charges to their local communities.

The top ranked Councils are the Clutha and Southland District Councils. The bottom ranked ones in order are Kaipara, Horowhenua, Kawerau, Buller and Whangarei.

A video of Larry talking about the league table is above, and the full league table is below.

2013 Lglt Final-7feb13 by

Local Government Mag has some further details also.

The Dom Post editorial:

The New Zealand Transport Agency has wisely set two non-negotiable criteria for any project to ease congestion around the Basin Reserve. It must separate north and southbound traffic from that heading west out of the Mt Victoria Tunnel and it must be affordable.

If the eight Wellington city councillors who last month voted to spend $50,000 investigating alternatives to NZTA’s planned flyover have a better option that meets those criteria, now is the time to share it with ratepayers. It would be astounding if they find one.

The councillors who voted to renege on previous support for the flyover apparently know better than the roading experts who spent several years examining the best solution to unclog the Basin bottleneck. They carried the day by eight votes to seven at an extraordinary meeting called in December to decide whether the council should explore further options, despite it backing the flyover in 2011.

The proposal the Council are looking at doesn’t separate North-South traffic from that heading from the Eastern suburbs. So the likely congestion improvement is minimal.

Thank goodness we have local body elections this year.

The Herald reports:

A rates rebellion in a small coastal town is growing as more than 500 Mangawhai residents refuse to pay an estimated $1 million or more to the debt-ridden Kaipara District Council.

Rates have soared this year by about 40 per cent for many residents – more than doubling for some – to help pay off the council’s $80 million debt, which was mainly caused by a $58 million cost blowout for a local sewage treatment system.

The total population is only 19,000, which will be around 7,300 households. So the Council sewage treatment system is a cost of $10,000 per household!

Former New Zealand cricketer Warren Stott, who runs the Riverside Holiday Park, was told earlier this year that his rates bill would increase by more than 1300 per cent from $6316 to $84,850. He’s still not happy with a revised 43 per cent increase to $9050 and worries about the effect on the local economy.

The local economy has challenges already, and this has been the final straw.

Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association chairman Bruce Rogan said residents were refusing to pay because the sewage system was an ever-expanding “Ponzi scheme” foisted on the community without its consent.

Meeting papers show councillors secretly agreed to expand and more than double the cost of the project in 2006 without telling the community for another four years and the council’s own legal opinion shows it has collected about $17 million of rates illegally.

Outraegous.

The council resigned in August and was replaced by commissioners. Chairman John Robertson, a former National MP and Papakura mayor, said 90 per cent of residents were paying their rates, including 75 per cent in Mangawhai.

Good the Council has done, but their decisions lived on. The challenge for any reform is how do you stop something like this happening again.

Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:

One Lord Mayor for the region is being heralded as the future of local governance for Wellington.

An independent panel headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer today revealed its proposal for how local councils should be structured.

Under the structure there would be:

* A Greater Wellington Council with 10 councillors headed by a Lord Mayor, who would be elected by the public.

* Six local area councils: Wellington, Porirua, Kapiti, Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt and Wairarapa.

* Each council would have a ‘‘mayoral figurehead’’, elected by the council, not the public.

* The current level of 107 elected mayors and councillors would reduce to 79.

* The Greater Wellington Council would be responsible for all finances, including setting a single rate for the region. It would also look after regional matters such as environmental issues and transport planning.

* The local area councils would be responsible for local service delivery, such as rubbish collection and park management, and local engagement and advocacy.

* Local area councils would have budgets negotiated with the Wellington Regional Council and would be responsible for funds allocated to them.

I think Sir Geoffrey’s proposed structure is a great improvement on the status quo.  The name Lord Mayor is silly, but having an elected Mayor for the whole Region would give Wellington a much more effective voice.

Councillors would sit for a four-year term, but would be restricted to a three-term maximum.

I am a huge fan of term limits, and think we should have them for Parliament also. A term limit means politicians focus more on what they can achieve in their limited tenure of service, rather than how to get re-elected for ever.

The proposal is here. However they have not put a suffix on it, so it comes up file type unknown. Open it as a pdf. It’s a weighty 208 pages long and the panel that unanimously recommends the structure is Sir Geoffrey, Sue Driver, Sir Wira Gardiner and Bryan Jackson.

The Herald surveyed chairs of local boards in Auckland how they think the Council is going. The story is here and the raw responses are here. I’ve collated the scores below.

So the two elements that get the highest average scores are the model itself, and the CCOs. This is worth noting as Labour fought against both. Labour wanted no local boards, but instead larger bodies around the size of the old Council. They also fought against the CCO model, and that is the aspect local board chairs say is working best.

Mayor Len Brown is a bit lower on 3.2/5. The Council’s long-term plan is 3.1 and the Council (as in the Councillors) are 3.0.

The three happiest board chairs are Whau, Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Devonport-Takapuna. The three least happy are Orakei, Howick and Albert-Eden.

The Government has announced:

Commissioners will continue to govern Environment Canterbury after the 2013 local authority elections, Local Government Minister David Carter and Environment Minister Amy Adams announced today.

“In the interests of Canterbury’s progress, and to protect the gains the Commissioners have made, the Government has decided the best option is to continue with the current governance arrangement,” Mr Carter said.

A Bill amending the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010, to extend Commissioner governance until the 2016 local authority elections, with a ministerial review in 2014, will be tabled in Parliament today.

This is the wrong decision, in my opinion. I do not believe “They are doing a good job” is adequate justification for treating Canterbury different to the rest of NZ, and carrying on with appointed Commissioners.

My views are:

• The original decision to sack the Environment Canterbury Council was absolutely justified, and necessary. The Council had proven incompetent over many years, and it is to the Govt’s credit they had the balls to step in. A very unhealthy culture had led to a dysfunctional Council with both governance and staff issues.
• The Commissioners have done a very good job. They have made more progress in a couple of years than the elected Council had in a decade. They have worked really well at balancing the interests of competing stakeholders in a fair way.
• However that is not a good enough reason to not have the elections, as originally promised in late 2013. The Commissioners work in changing the culture and the processes should allow a new elected Council to carry on their work.
• If the Government was looking at a restructure of regional and district councils, then that would be an acceptable reason not to have elections for a body which might disappear or be merged in the near future. But this has not been cited as a reason.
• The Canterbury earthquakes do absolutely mean that you have had to make some decisions more centrally. CERA and the CCDU have done overall very good jobs in restoring Christchurch. There is no way the Christchurch City Council could possibly have done it by themselves.
• However ECan was sacked because they were incompetent, not because of the earthquake. And their responsibilities do not have, as far as I can see, much bearing on the rebuilding of Christchurch.

Ultimately the decision made by Government seems to be based on “The Commissioners are doing a better job than what a new elected Council may do”. Now this may be right, but it is not a reason to not have elections. If you appointed me Commissioner of Wellington City Council, I reckon I’d do a better job than the elected Council. But that is not a reason to not have WCC elections.

If the Government wants to propose no regional council elections at all, and that all regional councils should be appointed (either by Government or territorial authorities), then that is a debate you can have. For example, I do not believe DHBs should be elected as they dilute accountability of central Government.

But I do not see any principled reason to continue with appointed Commissioners in Canterbury. The earthquake is a red herring when it comes to the regional council.

The Government did the right thing in sacking the Council and appointing Commissioners. They have done a very good job. But they made a pledge to bring back an elected Council by end of 2013, and they should honour that pledge. The case for change has not been made.

Incidentally I wonder if National has the numbers to pass their proposed bill in the House. I would not take for granted that ACT and United Future would vote for it.

If you ever need proof of the need of local government reform, have a look at the plan by the Auckland Council Maori Statutory Board.

The Government is saying that councils should focus on core responsibilities such as infrastructure and services. The local body politicians are fighting this and saying they want to keep Labour’s law which allows them to spend ratepayer money on absolutely anything at all.

Here’s a few of their 49 proposals:

• Auckland Council to advocate for, and grow community support for, compulsory te reo Māori in all Auckland Schools
• Auckland Council to support development of scholarships, residency programmes, overseas exchanges and career pathways for developing Māori Artists
• Auckland Council to advocate for the establishment of a Tāmaki Makaurau Education Forum to develop a long term education strategy for Māori in the region
• Auckland Council in partnership with Mana Whenua and Mataawaka advocate for programmes and activities that promote home ownership and financial literacy
• Auckland Council to support home insulation programmes to Māori homes

It is not the job of the Auckland Council to advocate for compulsory te reo in schools. It is not the job of the Council to create career pathways for artists. It is not the job of the Council to help develop an education strategy for the region. It not not the role of the Council to try and improve financial literacy of people. It is not the role of Council to support home insulations (unless they are the landlords).

These are pretty much all roles of the central Government. Those who advocate local Government should be able to do everything central Government does are proposing duplication, conflict and waste – all at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.

Worse of all, they undermine accountability. I want to hold central Government accountable for what they are responsible for, and local Government accountable for what they are responsible for.  You can’t do that very well when there is no clear lines of responsibility.

For Wellingtonians:

Wellington CBD public meeting
When: Wednesday, August 22 2012 from 12:00pm-1.00pm
Where: Wellington City Library, 65 Victoria Street, Wellington

 Khandallah public meeting
When: Wednesday, August 29 2012 from 6:30pm-8.30pm
Where: Khandallah Town Hall, 11 Ganges Road, Khandallah

 Newtown public meeting
When: Monday, September 3, 2012 from 5:30pm-7.30pm
Where: Newtown Community Hall, Corner Daniell &Constable Streets, Newtown, Wellington

 These meetings will be hosted by members of the independent Panel.

 The independent Panel is tasked with exploring the future of local government in the greater Wellington region by seeking public feedback on issues concerning the needs of ratepayers and residents in the region. The Panel consists of Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Chair), Sir Wira Gardiner, Sue Driver and Bryan Jackson.

 The Panel recently issued an issues paper focussing on the needs of residents and ratepayers to stimulate discussion on local government reform in the greater Wellington region.

 The public meetings are an opportunity for Wellington residents to tell the Panel what they think about how local and regional governance arrangements can best support their local and regional communities in the future.

 This might include issues such as:

How to get better community engagement in decision making

The role of local government in building and maintaining core infrastructure (e.g. flood protection, transport)

Ways that local government can manage costs and reduce rates increases

The independent Panel is keen to hear from as many people in the region as possible.

 More information is included in the attached media release, and can also be found at www.wellingtonreviewpanel.org.nz.

I think the current arrangement of ten Councils for such a small population is nuts.

RNZ 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.

The Herald editorial:

Elected members of local bodies around the country spent two days this week at a conference in Queenstown where they agreed – unanimously – that they do not need their wings clipped by a bill the Government is putting through Parliament.

How unsurprising.

Neither is inclined to leave it entirely to local voters to decide what their councils can do.

Why not? Councils in this country have a source of revenue independent of the central Government. If they exceed the wishes of their ratepayers those who receive their bill have a vote every three years. Do they need the Government to require their elected council to do more (Labour) or less (National) than they might want?

Their source of revenue is Government granted, not independent. But putting that aside, the trouble with the Herald’s argument is that rates increases are not transparent.

The central Government has to live within its means. To increase tax rates needs a special law of Parliament, and everyone sees that the Government is increasing tax rates. Generally also, any increases in taxes are flagged well before the election so voters can vote on them.

In local Government, they work out all the things they want to spend money on, and then strike the level of rates to match. And while media may report the average increase, the actual amount each property owner pays varies depending on the movement in their house value compared to the average. Plus you have the problem that a minority of voters actually pay rates. In total, there is little incentive for Councils to be fiscally restrained – hence why the average increase has been 7% annually – well beyond the ability of the economy to sustain.

What I would do is change the funding of local government from rates to taxes. Each Council can levy an income tax, which means almost all residents will pay it and hence take an interest in its level. It also means that a Council wanting to spend more money than previously, would need to openly propose that (for example) the local income tax increase from say 2.6% to 2.8%. People would be able to compare the level of local income tax between councils.

Now isn’t increasing income tax a bad thing, as the more you tax income, the less incentive people have to work. Yes. So I would balance this by reducing central income taxes significantly, and bringing in a national land tax in a fiscally neutral tax switch.

People and groups interested in local government, may find this report of interest:

• The 2012 LGLT covering all 67 New Zealand territorial local authorities ‘fits’ neatly within the Government’s recent announcements of local government reforms and validates (from its data) public concerns of some poor Council performance. No Council scores higher than 36 out of 50 for the financial and economic metricated measures of the LGLT;
• The bulk of Councils score only ‘Fair’ results (with scores of from 23 to 30 on the 50 point metric scale and are ranked in a range from 31^st to 57^th out of 67 compared to their peers;
• Auckland Council has yet to provide meaningful public information on its financial performance improvement programmes. No useful Auckland Council comparisons with the pre-amalgamation financial and economic status of its seven predecessor Councils has been provided by which the Auckland Council’s comparative post-amalgamation performance could be gauged;
• ‘At risk’ Councils – the ten poorest performers – whose ‘stats’ indicate a combination of unsustainable Council finances and/or unaffordable rates or charges include the Kaipara District (whose present difficulties are well known). Kaipara is the biggest downgrade dropping 49 places to 65^th out of 67 for its metric results – plus it receives a double red traffic light downgrade warning.
•  Hauraki and Upper Hutt have regressed, the latter has dropped 15 places to 58^th … in spite of recent announcements that the Mayor and Council have declined their increased salaries!.  Kaipara and Tararua have yet to file audited accounts.
• The ‘Southern Scots’, Clutha and Southland Districts have swapped the top two places at the head of this (parsimonious) League Table;
• The LGLT uses financial and economic assessment ratios closely allied to the measures that by law will soon be introduced for all Councils relating to their financial management performance and public reporting.
• The 2012 League Table indicates little overall performance improvement in 2011-2012;
• The metric measures have scarcely moved from an average of 30 out of 50 last year to 29 out of 50 in 2012. The consistency of these results over the three or more years of the assessments suggest a reliability and robustness  of the methodology
• Two Councils – Queenstown and Carterton are the biggest improvers both making the top 10 for the first time;

25^th May 2012 … All enquiries to Larry.N.Mitchell Finance & Policy Analyst (Local Government) Phone 09 4220598, email larry@kauriglen.co.nz or see website www.kauriglen.co.nz/larry select BASE STATS WITH TRENDZ/LEAGUE TABLE.

There’s a huge amount of data on Larry’s site. Interesting that we get better data often from an individual, that we do from the Councils or DIA itself.

Stuff reports:

A Waimate councillor is calling for cannabis decriminalisation for the good of her community.

Sandy Mulqueen has formed a lobby group and has made a submission in the council’s long term plan outlining a project to decriminalise marijuana for personal and medicinal use. …

She believes the project will benefit Waimate.

Her proposal has not impressed Mayor John Coles who says she should take the matter up with central government.

“She’s come to the wrong place; I will leave it with my council.”

The group plans to compose an information brochure to go to every Waimate resident aged over 16, with reasons for, and details of the project, and a voting form.

“Completion of this project will have a positive effect on the well being of our community and better reflect the wishes of the people in Waimate and the wider community; thus it fulfils council’s core purposes under the Local Government Act,” she says.

This is proof positive why we need to tighten the focus of local government. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Waimate District Council.

As it happens, I also support a change to our drug laws – along the lines recommended by the Law Commission. However that doesn’t mean I want local Councils getting involved and lobbying on the issue. Cr Mulqueen should focus on roads, rates and infrastructure.

Murray Gibb, the CEO of Water New Zealand, writes in the Dom Post:

So where are the opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness in the Wellington region? Water New Zealand’s interest is in water services.

Water and transport services consume half of total local government expenditure.

At present all nine local bodies are involved in supplying water services to the area from Masterton and Kapiti south to, and including, Wellington.

Masterton, Carterton, South Wairarapa and Kapiti all run their own water services. Greater Wellington regional council supplies bulk water to Upper and Lower Hutt, Wellington and Porirua. Wellington and Lower Hutt retain ownership of their water infrastructure, but own a separate company, Capacity, that manages it.

Capacity also contracts to manage water services for Upper Hutt, which retains ownership of its water infrastructure. Porirua runs its own retail supply and wastewater plant. Capacity buys waste water services from Porirua for its Wellington serviced customers from Johnsonville north.

Each has its own plan and own projects within its own boundaries, often with little or no joint planning.

There is no co-ordinated or strategic approach across the water catchments in the wider Wellington region.

For instance, two utilities are planning to augment supplies independently of each other, and the regional council is looking to make its supplies more resilient in the event of an earthquake.

A great example of what is wrong with the status quo.

Sadly  many local body politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs than having a sensible discussion on what is the best structure of local government in the region, to serve our residents.

The NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Trevor Mallard has lodged an official complaint about Act leader John Banks failing to disclose a $15,000 donation was from SkyCity during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign.

Mr Mallard lodged the complaint with the Auckland Council electoral officer this week. He also asked the electoral officer to scrutinise “anonymous” donations of radio advertising Mr Banks had included in his return.

SkyCity gave $15,000 each to Len Brown, now mayor, and Mr Banks, his rival, during that campaign.

Although Mr Brown’s donation return listed SkyCity as a donor, Mr Banks’ listed an anonymous donation of $15,000. It did not mention SkyCity.

The penalty for knowingly filing a false return is up to two years in prison or a fine of up to $10,000.

There is a lesser penalty of a $5000 fine if the candidate did not know it was false. MPs convicted of crimes with a penalty of two years or more can not remain in Parliament.

However, Mr Banks said he was not concerned about the complaint, dismissing it as Mr Mallard “up to his old timeless tricks”.

He said he had not known at the time that the donation was from SkyCity and his donations return was accurate as at the date he signed it.

“I signed the document at the said time to the best of my knowledge.” …

Asked how it was that Mayor Brown had known about the SkyCity donation yet he had not, the Act leader said his campaign accountants had dealt with the finances for his campaign and he had based his return on the information they gave him.

Asked if it was possible they had known the donation was from SkyCity, he said it was.

Auckland Council’s electoral officer, Bruce Thomas, said he would consider the complaint and decide whether to refer it to police.

It has been referred to the Police, but that in itself is not of significance. Local electoral officers are basically required to refer every complaint to the Police. The WCC referred to the Police a complaint from a Councillor that I had linked to his official profile without his permission! Yes, seriously.

Anyway let us look at what the Local Electoral Act 2001 says. You need to be aware that it is very different to the Electoral Act, which is much much tighter in terms of donation disclosure.

anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation (as defined in section 104), means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation

So the Act says it is only the candidate who needs to now know the identity. Again this is different from the Electoral Act.

electoral donation, in relation to a candidate at an election, means a donation (whether of money or the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) of a sum or value of more than $1,000 (such amount being inclusive of any goods and services tax and of a series of donations made by or on behalf of any one person that aggregate more than $1,000) made to the candidate, or to any person on the candidate’s behalf, for use by or on behalf of the candidate in the campaign for his or her election

So a donation of $15,000 definitely qualified.

S109(1) states:

Within 55 days after the day on which the successful candidates at any election are declared to be elected, every candidate at the election must transmit to the electoral officer a return setting out—

• (a)the candidate’s electoral expenses; and

• (b)the name and address of each person who made an electoral donation to the candidate and the amount of each electoral donation; and

• (c)if an electoral donation of money or of the equivalent of money is made to the candidate anonymously and the amount of that donation exceeds $1,000,—

  • (i)the amount of that donation; and

  • (ii)the fact that it has been received anonymously.

So if the candidate knows who made the donation, then they must supply a name and address, while if they do not, just the amount and the fact it was anonymous.

So the test for the Police is simply did John Banks know Sky City donated $15,000 to his campaign. Unless there is proof that he did know (a meeting, e-mails etc), then I can’t see the complaint has any chance of succeeding.

Personally I think the Local Electoral Act should be updated to have similar transparency requirements to the Electoral Act. This would mean:

• Anonymous donations to a candidate could not exceed $1,500
• a donation is anonymous where a candidate “could not, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor”

But that is not the current law for local government donations. So I see a very small possibility of the Police taking action.

The NZ Herald reports:

A bill of about $91,000 from Hamilton Mayor Julie Hardaker’s office last year has shocked some city councillors who are questioning why ratepayers should be paying for a Koru Club membership and $1257 for a new mayoral office chair.

Okay first of all if any Councillor is really suggesting a Mayor shouldn’t have Koru Club membership, they’re just being petty and stupid. The Hamilton City Council has around $3 billion of assets and turns over over $200 million a year and they think the Mayor shouldn’t have a $361/year Koru Club card? Never mind that the reason frequent travellers have them is so they can be productive and keep working while waiting for flights.

The chair criticism is more valid. You can get very nice executive chairs for $500 to $800. $1,257 is at the higher end of the range.

But other items have attracted criticism, including $994.78 on an Air New Zealand Koru Club membership, $1958 on mayoral stationery and $2000 on print ads promoting her Mayor in the Square events.

They are quibbling about stationery and a measly $2,000 of advertising?

Councillor Ewan Wilson said it was inappropriate for ratepayers to be coughing up for a membership to an airport lounge when the mayor earned enough to pay it herself.

Oh don’t be a dick. The Mayor is travelling on work business, not personal business, hence the Council pays. As Wilson should know, it allows you to keep working while travelling.

And the mayoral chair was ordered because she could “not sit properly” in the old one because it was designed for a man. She had been unaware of the cost of the new one. “I just tried some chairs and that one looked good.”

Probably a good idea in future to ask the cost. If one chair is say an A+ fit and costs $1,500 but another is an A- fit and is $400, then you go for the latter one if the difference in quality is minimal but the price difference is significant.

Hamilton Citizens and Ratepayers Association president John Easto said the costs were “quite staggering”. “It’s a bloody expensive position. I don’t think it’s justifiable, some of those costs. A Koru Club membership is fairly normal for senior managers at corporates but the other things I have real problems with – pretty flowers and things.”

Here is the problem I have reading the story. I don’t know if $91,000 is a high level of expenditure for a Mayoral office or not. With the exception of the chair, most items cited seem routine. But what would be very useful information is what has been the expenditure for the Mayoral office over say the last few years? Has it been static, increasing, or decreasing?

A reader has pointed out to me this example of why local government needs to be reined in. The Horowhenua District Council said:

The seats are in, wallpaper up, kitchen equipped and Levin’s new Focal Point cinema is on track for the opening on 4 November 2010.

The former Cinema 3 building has been completely refurbished in a joint venture between Horowhenua District Council and Focal Point Cinema of Feilding to bring movies back to Levin. Cinema 3 closed in March 2010.

So the HDC thinks it role is to subsidise a movie theatre. I understand the cost may have been as much as $500,000. Then look at this notice:

The Precautionary Boil Water Notice is still in place for Shannon and Tokomaru.

This means that the Horowhenua District Council advises boiling cooking and drinking water before use.

This is because Shannon has no treatment plant and the source water is contaminated. the HDC should be spending money on making sure its residents have safe drinkable water, rather than investing in movie theatres.

This is why the proposed new focus on infrastructure and public services is needed.