Welcome to Wellington, where council leaders from around the country have met in a convention centre that the Prime Minister thinks is an example of wasteful spending and is just down the road from a burst water main that has turned a street into a paddling pool.
The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference started today in the capital. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon could not have asked for a better backdrop to deliver a sharply worded speech about council spending that did not go down well with some of Wellington’s leaders.
Luxon hit back at councils demanding more funding and support from central government while avoiding tightening their own belts.
The convention centre is a prime example of a non core activity, which is part of the reason rates are increasing 20%.
He also took advantage of the LGNZ conference location – Wellington’s $180 million Tākina convention centre. The audience of mayors from around the country was audibly disgruntled.
“It looks very nice, and it’s very nice that politicians like us have a wonderful space to make some great speeches in,” Luxon said.
“But can anyone seriously say it was the right financial decision or the highest priority for Wellington, given all of its challenges?”
Tākina has been criticised as a white elephant.
Councils can do some things very well. Wellington City has some brilliant playgrounds. The new library and cafe in Johnsonville has been a massive boon to the area. Playgrounds, libraries, parks, roads, water infrastructure etc is what we value and should be top priority.
Green Party regional councillor Thomas Nash said Luxon’s speech was “one of the most mana diminishing, paternalistic and visionless speeches to a group of people I have ever heard”.
Must have been a great speech then.
The Herald also summarises some changes announced by the Government:
- Refocusing the purpose provisions in the Local Government Act by removing four wellbeings from the Local Government Act.
- Investigating performance benchmarks for local councils.
- Investigating options to limit council expenditure on nice-to-haves through a regulator that would cap rate increases for non-core spending.
- Reviewing transparency and accountability rules to make it easier for councillors to request information from council staff, possibly by a written question system.
- Reforming the code of conduct process to balance councillors’ freedom of speech rights with spurious and politicised code of conduct investigations.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
7 comments:
My Council spends rates money putting in infrastructure for the Ironman event. Ironman is privately owned by an American billionaire. Should my rates be going towards that?
Dear PM,
Sock it to LGNZ. But.... fire an even stronger missile to the Waitangi Tribunal.
With thanks,
Madam Tax payer and Rate payer.
‘ Why not have any major project that would lead to a significant rates increase beyond inflation go to ratepayer/resident referendum?’
Why? Because it would stop the idealists from imposing their hundreds of million dollar pet projects on ratepayers like removing car parks, 30kph speed limits, convention centres, speed humps, cycle highways etc
Oh and referendums should be for ratepayers only since they pick up the tab.
This is a very serious issue in Queenstown. The QLDC have squandered a huge parcel of land , the former camping ground and facilities in the centre of Queenstown to others with nothing left for ratepayers . A legacy property gone with huge value . The roads are a diabolical nightmare and announcement they have run out of funds to complete . An idiotic QLDC shambles with only a maori laden speech as important by the mayor left.
Absolutely. As the saying goes:
"He who pays the piper calls the tune" - translated for all those who prefer a language other than English to:
"the person who provides the money for something has the right to determine how it's spent"
If that seems a bit to harsh - another catchphrase springs to mind:
"Oh dear, how sad, never mind"
re Anon @ 9.46AM.
My landlord cited rates and insurance increases as reasons why he had to increase the rent. Clearly I am paying my share of those costs and rightly so as I have equal access to Council services. Similarly, anyone who pays for goods and services is contributing to the rates paid for by the business. Suggesting that only ratepayers pay for Council charges is utter rubbish (no pun intended).
Sometimes I don't mind that Councils are spending reasonable dollars on public amenities.
However, I do have a problem with the gouging by favorites who submit crazy quotes, which are accepted by the Council numpties with no life experience .
What normal person would spend $100k on a child's swing, and yet Councils happily spend that without figuring if it's value for money.
I have no confidence in Councils to spend wisely.
Post a Comment