Last week Prime Minister Chris Luxon delivered a broadside across the bow of local authorities at the Local Government New Zealand Conference in Wellington. This was a gathering of hundreds of mayors, chairs, chief executives, councillors and senior management from councils across the country, who had paid $1,500 plus travel and accommodation to attend this annual three-day shindig.
The PM effectively told the conference that councils needed to tighten their belts and live within their means. Their focus, he said, should be on the core purpose of local government instead of wasting money on feel-good vanity projects:
“Ratepayers expect local government to do the basics and to do the basics brilliantly. Pick up the rubbish. Fix the pipes. Fill in potholes. And more generally, maintain local assets quickly, carefully, and cost effectively. What they don’t expect to pay for is the laundry-list of distractions and experiments that are plaguing council balance sheets across the country.
“Ratepayers are sick of the white elephants and non-delivery. So, my challenge to all of you is to rein in the fantasies and to get back to delivering the basics brilliantly… the party is over. There is no magic money tree in Wellington, thanks to the previous government's economic mismanagement and vandalism.”
With ratepayers around the country facing average rate rises of more than four times the rate of inflation, the call for councils to get their house in order and cut extravagant spending has been growing louder. But to date, those calls have been ignored.
The PM went on to outline a number of key changes:
“If there was any doubt about our commitment to getting local government back to basics, I have some announcements to make. First, Cabinet has agreed to streamline the purpose provisions in the Local Government Act to get councils back to basics. For Councils, that means abolishing the four wellbeing provisions in legislation and restoring focus on local services and infrastructure.”
This is a very significant move, as it can be argued that it was giving councils responsibility for the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of their community that led to local authorities going off the rails.
To understand why, we need to cast our mind back to the local government reforms introduced by Helen Clark’s Labour Government in 2002.
The PM had initiated a review of the Local Government Act 1974 on the pretext that it was no longer fit for purpose, and that change was required to enable local authorities ‘to better serve their communities’:
“The proposals outlined in the document will not amount to a revolution in local government, but they will create the platform for longer-term changes in what local government does, how it goes about these activities, and how citizens can become more involved in making the decisions that affect their everyday lives.”
Labour’s proposed “modern partnership approach to community power-sharing” contrasted sharply with the “narrow, prescriptive approach” of the existing Local Government Act. And in spite of claiming the proposals would not create a “revolution” in local government, they did.
A consultation document released at the time provided more detail of what was being planned.
To facilitate their vision, Labour proposed firstly changing the ‘purpose’ of local government: “Enable local decision-making by and on behalf of citizens in their local communities to promote their social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing in the present and for the future.”
Secondly, they planned to remove funding constraints: “So local authorities can clearly deliver on the new purpose of local government, it is proposed that the new legislation will establish clear and broadly based powers of general competence for local authorities.”
And to cap it off, since the existing legislation was ‘colourblind’ and “does not currently include any direct reference to Maori or the Treaty”, the discussion paper invited suggestions “for enhancing and encouraging Maori participation and representation in local government”.
A total of 655 submissions on the reforms were received, including 87 from Maori.
When it came to the contentious issue of whether special arrangements for Maori should be included in the new legislation, by far the majority of submissions were opposed:
“These submitters believe that the relationship between Maori and local government should be the same as between all other citizens and local government. Some of the submissions claim that giving Maori ‘preferential treatment’ is a form of ‘apartheid’ which fails to recognise New Zealand’s multicultural society.”
In spite of the majority view, Labour bowed to the wishes of a handful of Maori submitters and altered the legislation, so it not only included the four wellbeings and the power of general competence, but also, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, special rights of consultation for Maori, and “the option of establishing Maori wards”.
These changes to the Local Government Act indeed proved to be “revolutionary” - but in the wrong way.
Like bees to a honey pot, vested interest group seized the opportunity provided by the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeings – along with the power of general competence - to gain influence over local government and use ratepayers’ money to advance their agendas.
And for Maori, the legislation provided a vast array of options for securing significant influence over councils, not only through Maori seats, but through tribal advisory committees, tribal appointees onto Councils - some with full voting rights – as well as through a wide variety of “partnership” arrangements between Councils and local tribal groups.
The reality is that before Labour changed the ‘purpose’ of local government in 2002, councils pretty much stuck to their knitting: rubbish, roads, sewerage, water, and regulation were their main focus. This enabled most councils to keep their costs under control and live within their means.
But once Labour allowed local government to become all things to all people, they opened up a Pandoras Box of crazy schemes - like buying farms in Australia, building multi-million council palaces, running loss-making sporting events, or going overboard to deliver outcomes for tribal corporations.
A case in point is the Whangarei District Council, which this year increased rates by 17.2 percent, despite the opposition of 87 percent of public submissions.
Included in their list of “nice to haves” was $100,000 to belong to Local Government New Zealand; almost $600,000 to host a Warriors game; and just over $200,000 spent on appeasing local Maori over a roading upgrade: $87,000 for “Kaitiaki Monitoring - cultural input to the landscaping design and blessings of the site”, along with $120,000 on a culturally appropriate roadside artwork!
Under their ‘cultural wellbeing’ banner, over a ten-year period, the Council has paid over $1.15 million for “engagement” with Maori.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator King's Counsel Garry Judd, a former Chairman of the ASB and the Ports of Auckland, highlights the disastrous consequences of ‘Maori engagement’, when councils have become completely captured by tribal interests:
“An affected Northland farmer has sent me The draft Freshwater Plan Change: Have your say issued by the Northland Regional Council. This ‘draft blueprint for improving freshwater’ tells its readers on page 6 that:
‘Te Hurihanga Wai (the water cycle) describes how through whakapapa Maori view freshwater as a living being that derives from nga atua. The concept that freshwater should be treated as a living being with rights to be healthy and to flourish, and to be respected as an ancestor, underlies tangata whenua perspectives of water.’
“By these words and
others, the regional council is indicating that its draft freshwater plan has
been informed by ideas that freshwater is a living being deriving from the
gods, that it should be respected as an ancestor, and that the plan weaves
together those views and ‘western world views’ so that the well-being of the
water cycle is prioritised, respected and protected.
“The results of the consultation were published on or about 27 May 2024. Its executive summary includes:
‘There was strong support for the provisions relating to the spiritual and genealogical aspects of freshwater, recognising the Maori world view where waterbodies are ancestors, home to taonga species and taniwha, with familial connections and water is a living being not a resource. Most expressed a desire to continue discussing how the concept of legal personhood for all freshwater could work.’
“These absurdities are
multiplied throughout today’s New Zealand.”
The reality is that councils that impose such cultural mumbo jumbo onto their communities are simply not competent and deserve to be sacked - if not now, then at the next election.
What ratepayer representative in their right mind can possibly think it is OK to treat water as a “living being” and call on the community to respect “taniwha”!
All of this is indicative of the insanity within our local councils that is the direct result of ‘capture’.
It is obvious the Northland Regional Council has been completely captured by Maori interests - not only through issuing those ridiculous water rights, but by proposing a remit to the Local Government conference that would effectively abolish local democracy by entrenching Maori wards to make them virtually impossible to disestablish.
The Regional Council Chairman admitted the remit was the result of the influence of the Council's “partnership” with Te Taitokerau Maori, the council’s Maori working party, and the Northland Iwi Chairs Forum.
The fact that the Council could not say ‘no’ to the pressure from these outside Maori advisors and stand up for local democracy - and the people who voted them into office - is indicative of an alarming problem in local government.
The fact that death threats were issued against a New Plymouth District Councillor who did not support Maori wards - frightening his children, promising to kill his dog, and shooting at his house until he fell into line – reveals the dangerous influence that Maori radicals have had on that Council to ensure they voted the ‘right’ way.
The Gore District Council has clearly been captured by their Ngai Tahu advisors - otherwise why on earth would they ignore their pledge to represent their community at large, by designating their whole district as an area of significance to Maori?
The Otago Regional Council and Canterbury Regional Council have also been captured by Ngai Tahu - otherwise, why would they even consider a proposal from this $2-billion business development corporation to co-govern the major power-generating Waitaki River?
And who exactly is the Palmerston North City Council representing by not only voting to retain their Maori wards but to explore ways of avoiding holding a binding referendum on the issue – because it most certainly is not their community.
What’s even more sinister is that over 80 percent of councils attending the Local Government conference supported their remit that the Maori ward poll should not be compulsory. That means a majority of councils across the country have been captured by Maori vested interests - which they clearly regard as more important than the local democratic rights of their communities.
With Local Government New Zealand - the organisation that used to represent the interests of local authorities and act on their behalf - also captured, a growing number of councils, including the largest two in the country, are saving money by pulling out.
The reality is that as a result of the legislative changes made by Labour over twenty years ago, local government has become profoundly radicalised. Its finances are now spiralling out of control.
Removing the wellbeings is an important first step in putting things right. But, with Councils showing a belligerent disregard, not only for the Coalition Government but for the rights of ratepayers, it won’t be nearly enough.
To change the extremist mindset that now dominates local government and get the sector back on track, a more direct approach is likely to be needed - such as requiring rate increases to be kept below the rate of inflation, stipulating debt repayment plans, and undoing the grip of tribal interests.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Should all direct references to Maori and the Treaty be removed from local government legislation?
1 comment:
I'm not sure why Dr Newman's posts get so little feedback. Perhaps because they're so well written and there's nothing to argue about after reading them!
Post a Comment