Bye bye Local Government 2

Written By: - Date published: 10:32 am, June 26th, 2012 - 12 comments
Categories: accountability, local government, Privatisation - Tags:

National’s Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill will do significant damage to local democracy as they seek to restrict councils to “core” services, put in fiscal constraints, put power into fewer hands and override local concerns with amalgamations.

Overall the legislation is shoddy.  The Regulatory Impact Statement on the Government’s proposals from the Department of Internal Affairs makes interesting reading.  It raises issues such as:

– Risk as to whether the proposals will work;
– Significant sector reaction likely;
– The time frame within which the proposals have been developed has restricted the ability to assess multiple options; and
– The assumptions have not or only partially been tested.

The focus on roads, rubbish, sewage and street-lighting is to remove the wider remit Labour allowed in the 2002 Bill, which allowed councils to work on environmental issues and social and economic development.

So instead of local communities getting a say on what environmental standards they want locally; what social housing they feel is needed; what business support would benefit their town – central government gets to tell them what to do.  Or more likely (under National) just bars anyone from doing anything.  Local people who have the best understanding of local issues are overruled by far-flung politicians.

New Zealand has the lowest regional gathering of funds in the OECD and our local government’s spending is only 3.88% of GDP – one of the lowest.  In Aotearoa we tend to centralise, and this law will exacerbate that, as it cuts councils’ remits and tightens fiscal contraints.

National say councils have made bad decisions – but as they embark on the economic vandalism of asset sales, they hardly set a good example that they will make better ones.  Councils – with fewer people to listen to – can be more responsive to their constituents concerns than central government – if they have the remit.

And indeed one of the first edicts from John Key – that his Cycleway will apparently be “core” council spending – hardly sets the best tone for what is allowed and what isn’t.

In fact, in recent years non-“core” council spending is hugely down.  “Sport, recreation & culture” is the category that covers almost all non-“core” spending, and that has fallen from 18% to 13% of budget (including cycleways) since 2008.  Councils don’t have the resources to fulfil these objectives as it is.  Local health and culture is probably suffering because of it, as local councils are constrained to spending on infrastructure.

So National’s push for fiscal contraints, with a soft cap, are somewhat redundant in purpose, but will be disastrous in practice.  Councils aren’t profligate, even by National’s standards.

Rate rises have been steadily falling as councils catch up on the infrastructure deficit that National created in the 90s.  From an average 10% rise the year after Labour changed the law to less than 5% now – even though many of councils’ raw costs, like bitumen, rise in price much faster than the household groceries we measure inflation against.  Rates as a proportion of household spending has stayed constant at 2.25% for a number of years.

Council spending on employees has dropped from 29% of budgets in 1993 to 23% now, with local government labour costs rising 7% since National came to power in 2008 compared to a 7.5% increase in costs for a central government cutting the public service.

So the desire to limit local government’s already very low income and expenditure is purely ideological.  The desire to keep government small enough to drown in a bathtub, combined with the desire to keep power in central hands.

It leads to severe pressure on councils’ finances, which allows National to push other ideological measures like asset sales.  This gives them cover for their own asset sales, and the pressure has been particularly intense on Christchurch after the earthquake.  Gerry Brownlee as Minister of CERA has requested a list of assets that could be sold, including the town hall, AMI stadium, and Christchurch City Council’s shares in Orion Energy and the Airport.  Key wants a “grown-up conversation” about the mix of assets for the Council (which is in stark contrast to his lack of desire for a grown-up conversation about Super…).

Having already got rid of ECAN, National’s bill also makes it a lot easier to get rid of future councils they disagree with.  The Minister will simply be able to make an Order in Council, instead of having to take it to Parliament.  Then they can appoint the people they want and bingo we have asset sales.  Delayed elections are similarly provided for in the legislation, so there is no need for a quick return to democracy.  If you feel like our system of governance is being undermined – you should.

The plans to give Supercity-style mayoral powers on each council also suits National’s autocratic ways.  Much as the Supercity revolted and elected Len Brown on a platform of public transport and not selling assets, that won’t be the case everywhere.

The mayors will get to appoint their own deputy mayor, have their own staff & budget, and make the council plan.  A lot of power for one individual.  The Supercity has the advantage of size and press scrutiny to provide some checks and balances, but that won’t hold true everywhere, where there’s likely to be a serious lack of accountability.  And even in the Supercity, who knows how many assets would be gone by now if John Banks had got in…

The last major change I’ll mention is the removal of barriers to amalgamating councils.  By barriers I mean concern for what locals think of amalgamation.

The rules will change so that there is no need for a referendum or parliamentary act for amalgamation to happen – it can proceed with a Local Government Commission say so, and locals would need to raise a petition with 10% of the community to get a referendum.  Currently referenda are mandatory.

While it makes sense for some smaller councils to merge to get the economies of scale etc, this should be through winning the community over by persuasive argument, not railroaded through.

The Local Government Bill – like so much controversial National legislation – is now being rushed through parliament; trying to get passed without sufficient scrutiny and attention, lest it have time to breed unpopularity and become another policy millstone.  If you’d like to submit on the bill, Labour have created an easy website for you to have your say:


12 comments on “Bye bye Local Government 2”

  1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1

    This isn’t governance, it’s vandalism, and looks increasingly spiteful.

  2. freedom 2

    gimme an N
    an A
    a T
    and add the S

    and we’ll show you people who are keen to give you less

    With an A
    an R
    and how about an E

    you’ll notice life is lots of fun
    just not for you and me

    an E a V an I and then we’re ending with the L
    the letter that begins the final word we need to spell

    to L you add an I an A and flourish with the R
    the final step is add the S
    for truth on who they are

    • mike e 2.1

      national are naive economic Neanderthals

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

        Nope, don’t even suggest that. National has a plan and it’s a plan to take all the wealth of the community and give it to themselves and their rich mates.

        The naive are the people who believe them when they say that they’re going to make things better for everyone.

  3. I believe that only Ratepayers, ie those so named on the rates, should vote in Local Government.
    Whilst “in theory” renters pay a part of their rates in their rent they are not the real electorate.
    Landlords should deduct the rates share which could then be paid as a Ratepayer. and then vote as to how their money is spent.

    • mike e 3.1

      Footrot unless the landlord is an idiot renters pay all of their rates in their rent

  4. freedom 4

    fortran on voting: a right reserved for the landowners

    did you hear that? , the fourteenth Century is calling

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1

      Actually, it wasn’t that far back in the 19th century when we finally got rid of that dictatorial model.

      • freedom 4.1.1

        went to an earlier period of social change purely for dramatic effect 😉
        and to emphasize how long some people are willing to keep fighting for what is right*

        * we are really talking many millennia, but you get the idea)

      • mike e 4.1.2

        Fortran is more outdated as the computer software name he has stolen.

  5. Herodotus 5

    Ben your comments are misguided for me. The rates increase has been limited due to the introduction of development contributions from the last 2002 local government reforms. In the height of the uncontrolled housing boom there were 28k permits for new dwellings, this dropped in 07 to 17k and in Auckland every new dwelling paid $8k development contributions to cover council costs, plus $7 for each water meter up from $500 in 04 that were previously covered by rates. Now that development has dropped to levels never experienced before councils have lost this revenue stream and are having to replace this thru either rates increase or debt. Debt that will require rates to be increased in the future to cover this debt servicing costs.
    Given that new developments in Snapper Rock Rd, Flat Bush, West auckland and Rodney are supplying a new rate base with minimal council outlays (mowing of reserves and power for street lighting) it displays to me that there are other areas that are consuming large amounts of council resources e.g. Devonport community, The CBD, Eden Park to name a few.
    But Ben keep on trying to change the world !! 😉

    • Tom Gould 5.1

      I agree that Key and Hide completely screwed up the ‘supercity’ and lied like lizards to get past the election. Now the chooks are home roosting, and laying nicely. How many times will Tories get away with promising ‘lower rates’ and then delivering higher rates? All part of the ‘brighter future’ I guess?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Compliance strengthened for property speculation
    Inland Revenue is to gain greater oversight of land transfer information to ensure those buying and selling properties are complying with tax rules on property speculation. Cabinet has agreed to implement recommendation 99 of the Tax Working Group’s (TWG) final ...
    1 day ago
  • Plan to expand protection for Maui and Hector’s dolphins
    The Government is taking action to expand and strengthen the protection for Māui and Hector’s dolphins with an updated plan to deal with threats to these native marine mammals. Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage and Minister of Fisheries Stuart Nash ...
    2 days ago
  • Cameras on vessels to ensure sustainable fisheries
    Commercial fishing vessels at greatest risk of encountering the rare Māui dolphin will be required to operate with on-board cameras from 1 November, as the next step to strengthen our fisheries management system. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Fisheries Minister ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Greatest number of new Police in a single year
    A new record for the number of Police officers deployed to the regions in a single year has been created with the graduation today of Recruit Wing 326. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the graduation of 78 new constables means ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax
    New Zealand is pushing on with efforts to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, with the release of proposed options for a digital services tax (DST). In February Cabinet agreed to consult the public on the problem ...
    2 weeks ago