Written By: - Date published: 11:58 am, November 17th, 2008 - 90 comments
Categories: national/act government, public services -
Tags: local government, roads, Rodney Hide, water
As you’ll have read, John Key has made ACT leader Rodney Hide his Minister of Local Government. So, what’s ACT’s local government policy?
Commercial activities are best performed by the private sector because they have more incentive to innovate and deliver better services. Local government should progressively shed ownership of its commercial activities.
Local government should be confined to the core activities that produce general public benefits, such as regulation, flood control and roads.
Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity, thereby eliminating the need to separate regulatory and commercial functions between local and regional councils.
Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.
Require councils to focus on their core functions.
Ensure there is much greater scrutiny of regulations that undermine property rights.
Lower the cost of complying with the Resource Management Act and other regulatory regimes.
Promote contracting out of many council services.
So, contracting out, privatisation of public assets and the commercialisation of water and roads. Is this the change people had in mind when they voted for John Key?
UPDATE: Herald journo Martin Johnston has done a good piece on ACT’s radical plans here.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
tsmithfield
Well, actually now that you mention it. There was a time not so very long ago that food indeed was free. It has been free actually for most people around the world because they grew it themselves and shared access or bartered with it.
In the whole human history starting some 2.5 million years ago food was free.
It is only in the last couple of hundred years as cities grew that there developed a need for a currency in order to barter for food. One notable exception earlier than that was the Roman empire but even then food was grown by everybody so money and coins was used to pay those (like soldiers: actually they were paid in Salt, hence the term soldiers) who could not grow their own food because they did not have the time.
Until very recently added to that people grew flax for linen and had sheep for wool.
So yes, food and clothing was and should and will be free again some day.
A few hundred years against a whopping 2.5 million years is indeed a minute amount of time.
The whole capitalist idea of monopolising resources for the profit of a few is an immoral, unsustainable and obsolete idea. The system is crashing as I write this and good riddance I say.
Wodney on Nat Radio this morning discussing compromising with the maori party:
That’s right, Wodney’s aspiration is that the sum of the parts be more than the whole.
Congratulations ACT-ups and Epsomites, you’ve elected a grade A moron. He should represent you very well.
Felix – Wodney has got more incoherent over the years, even on the the few debates he did, he rambled on contradicting himself. I think we will find Wodney is more at home in opposition than governing a bit like Winston was.
I think Mr. Hide wants to privatise water but I really don’t think National does. I hope they don’t. But my understanding is that Auckland doesn’t pay that much for water anyway and their rates seem significantly better than what we have here in Christchurch.
GC – how do you know the Nats don’t want to privatise water? Is this just a feeling you have or have you seen it written down or heard it?
So far the only statements we have are from a joint document signed by JK and ACT saying commercialisation is a part of the govt’s agenda. Is that not good enough for you?
bobo,
“Wodney has got more incoherent over the years, even on the the few debates he did, he rambled on contradicting himself. I think we will find Wodney is more at home in opposition than governing a bit like Winston was.”
Incoherent? Well, he’s not the only one is he? Heard of punctuation? Or has that been privatised already?
And where in the agreement does it say that?
And privatised food as well, obviously.
And air – billy – don’t forget air
And children – don’t forget the children
GC – please refer to this post:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/local-govt-minister-wants-to-privatise-water/
sigh.
I think Mr. Hide wants to privatise water but I really don’t think National does. I hope they don’t. But my understanding is that Auckland doesn’t pay that much for water anyway and their rates seem significantly better than what we have here in Christchurch.
But Ginger don’t you know the market is always better. Please hand in your blue ribbon and cocaine mirror you’re no longer a rightie.
I’ll take our clean water here in Christchurch over the water they have in Auckland anyday.
As long as we’re on the topic I wonder how long it is till they gerrymander local governemnt the way fed farmers want it.
“The whole capitalist idea of monopolising resources for the profit of a few is an immoral, unsustainable and obsolete idea. The system is crashing as I write this and good riddance I say.”
Dear Travellerev, if you hate the system so much, why do you live in a capitalist society? Why don’t you export yourself to one of the worker’s paradises on Earth, say Cuba?
What are you doing in the middle of capitalist New Zealand? Isn’t yours hypocrisy or what?
Nice to see you add so much to a debate Chess Player, privatizing power has added so much “value” to the consumer with such stiff competition driving power prices down from what they were under the evil government control, I guess you were in favour of Contact Energy director’s fee rise? Maybe you are on the board? Your ACT ideology is that low tax and a free market is the answer to everything is so simplistic no matter what punctuation you use.
I’m sure there are some traditional compassionate conservative Nats who are getting a bit nervous about Rodney setting the agenda so early and strongly. Every time he opens his mouth their re-election becomes more and more doubtful.
bobo,
“Your ACT ideology is that low tax and a free market is the answer to everything”
Please explain where I have said this?
Wodney’s aspiration is that the sum of the parts be more than the whole.
Does that count as Gestalt reverse-psychology?
bobo, bobo, are you there?
Gc, people in Auckland pay some of the highest rates in the country as well as the highest for water. The water bill is split into two parts: waste water and water usage. Water wastage is meant to be paid by the home owner and water usage is meant to be paid by the leaseholder/renter of the house – if there is one. Water wastage is every time a hose is turned on, or every time a toilet is flushed. Water usage is whenever a tap is turned on inside the house ie, a shower, kitchen sink. The water bill comes in twice a year normally and from my experience of living in a a four-bedroom house each bill has been anywhere between $400 – $600.
This is what the council buys with every dollar paid by rate payers.
20.5 ¢ on wastewater (inner area only)
15.4 ¢ on parks
17.7 ¢ on roads and footpaths
6.8 ¢ on leisure
7.3 ¢ on libraries
8.6 ¢ on policy development, partnerships and planning
3.5 ¢ on city development, promotion and economic development
6.5 ¢ on stormwater
2.8 ¢ on all other services
3.6 ¢ on democracy
1.6 ¢ on consents & field services
0.5 ¢ on recycling and waste minimisation
1.1 ¢ on resource management
0.9 ¢ on emergency management
0.6 ¢ on animal welfare
2.6 ¢ on Auckland War Memorial Museum and MOTAT statutory levies
Total $1.00
I wonder just how much a private company would cut from that list?
Oh and just a side note, Auckland water is quite possibly the worst water in the country.
Santi,
Actually up until the election NZ had a very moderate form of Capitalism. A bit like the Dutch system with a healthy dose of human compassion thrown into it with a social support system, public schooling and healthcare. You want pure capitalism? Why don’t you move your ass over to the States. From what I hear capitalism goes really well over there. He how strange! Capitalism is out for the rich they now all want big time socialism
Bill Brown – That is not part of the National-Act agreement. That is Act’s policy they released before the election. Do not get those mixed up. Because they are not the same thing.
Since when was being to the right meant you believed the market was always better? Sorry but that doesn’t equate.
GC,
Hide is the minister for local government.
Hide is the leader of the ACT party
ACT policy is to commercialise local government activities
One very large activity of local government is the provisioning of water…
Are you getting the gist now – do I need to use words with fewer syllables?
Actually up until the election NZ had a very moderate form of Capitalism.
And in the nine days since we have experienced “extreme capitalism”.
Ev, why have you gone quiet on depleted urarnium? In the early days (which I like to think of as your salad days), you used to go on about it about one post in five. Is it not an issue which now concerns you?
A private multinational deals with Wellington’s waste water. Why are they incapable of dealing with supply?
Other countries seem capable of dealing with private water suppliers without consumers dying, why are we so incompetant?
Personally I prefer service delivery and asset management potentially being put out to tender with assets owned separately by an asset owning company – perhaps the local authority.
bill brown your point is still irrelevant because it isn’t National’s policy.
Sorry I was working , you state that the local body water infrastructure system that we have now is pretty much the same as if it was privately owned asset? Maybe you need to get your tank water checked for lead poisoning? I guess you are not an ACT/national supporter then I stand corrected.
Billy
Why don’t you fff fade away
Don’t try and dis what Eve’s trying to say
She’s not trying to cause some big sensation
Just continuing her work exposing this conspiracy situation
All together now …..
I was particularly impressed with Toll’s ability to “innovate and deliver” with TranzRail.
well they managed to sucker labour for a couple of hundred million more than their business was worth – the former PM described it as a ‘premium’ ; it certainly was premium for Toll shareholders so they certainly delivered.
Kevin
Indeed they were almost as good as when railways was owned by the government.
insider
That’s right, privatisation inevitably leads to the taxpayer being ripped off to make profits for the shareholders of private companies.
On this we agree.
Only a careless or reckless govt would expose the taxpayer to such unnecessary expense by privatising publically owned assets.
Felix
i don;t recall anyone forcing Cullen to pay hundreds of millions more than he should have, so how did Toll inevitably rip me off as a taxpayer? In fact he did it against advice. So any blame rests on his shoulders.
I’d say there’s a pretty strong track record of taxpayers being ripped off as a result of governments picking economic winners. In fact, this country was almost bankrupted as a result.
Cullen was pretty much between a rock and a hard place. Either leave it as it was and have Toll drag out the track negotiations, and imply that services would continue to be downgraded, or, kick them to the kerb and put it back into public ownership where there would at the very least be an attempt made to revitalise and upgrade services. I believe the long term future for rail is a good one. I just needs someone with the balls to drag it into the 21st century and make the capital investment.
“So, whats actually wrong with privatising water? If people actually have to pay for it, they might conserve it.”
A very valid argument… let’s look at it a little deeper than one sentence:
Where do the significant constraints in supply of water and the ongoing management of the resource (ie clean and safe disposal) occur? If we identify that, then we identify the areas that a privitisation would address. Unless privitisation happens for privitisations sake, there are outcomes to be achieved and we should work back from the desired outcome to a program that will deliver it. So to take your outcome tsmithfield, where to do we need to conserve water?
Is it with Domestic consumption? Not that I can see. Our towns and cities generally have good supply and reasonable disposal facilities. Auckland for example has oversupply with the Waikato River pipeline, and the Watercare purification and disposal facility in Mangere is worldclass in delivery apparently pure water back into the ecosystem.
Is it in Industrial use? Yes, sometimes, a little.
Is it in Agricultural use? Absolutely yes, if we look into the near future. There have been numerous commentators both locally and internationally comment on the burst of agriculture utilising irrigation schemes which then come under strong demand pressure and need a good resource allocation model. Surely the simplest mechanism is to charge users in order to dampen demand. Agriculture is also the main polluter of water, causing the degradation of every major central North Island lake with the exception of Okataina, and increasingly the Waikato.
So a water privitisation sheme might be an outstandingly good idea – if it was targeted at the Agriculture sector.
You’ll never see it though. Here is a party that has campaigned to and been voted for by NZ famers on the basis of fighting “fart taxes” and the “Emissions Trading Scam”. Agriculture will be sacrosanct from newly applied user-pays increased cost.
Any privitisation scheme (which at this stage I personally think is speculative) would then be domestic focused, and purely privitisation for its own sake. It would I suspect result in increased costs for the consumer, but with no efficiencies to be gained.
We need to look no further than the Bradford electricity “market reforms” of last decade to see how misguided “competition” and resource management efforts can produce significant cost increases but without economic value. Even taking a market purist view of competition being good, there is little true competition in the electricity supply chain. Neither would there be in water. The core infrastructure is not replicable or able to be substituted. Which is a very good reason for it to be publicly owned.
So let’s debate the policy alternatives by all means – but we need to do so on merits against outcomes, and drop simple economic rationalist oneliners regarding competition and resource management.
the funny thing is all the tories are still whingeing!
they dont sound like winners to me!
haw haw haw
where’s dat bag of oats?
‘ eshpeshallyy for haitchapostrophesibilant’s
insider.
The rip off occurred long before Cullen bought back the railways.
The relevant question is whether they should have been privatised. The decision to do so cost us billions to make profits for toll.
(as you pointed out)
Wow,
Scrap the RMA and privatise water.
I think Ill leave the country much sooner after graduating.
But johnny friendly thought Id stay cos of his friendly tax cuts?
Sometimes, johnny, people care about things Other than money.