Some of the reforms being proposed for local government by Minister of Local Government Dr Nick Smith are to be welcomed.
For one, I think it’s great to see a review of Development Contributions. No doubt the review will find that they need to be increased so that essential services such as social housing can be part-funded when a flash new subdivision is built. New Zealand is one of the few countries that doesn’t require such a provision.
However, many of the reforms aren’t so welcome.
I raised the issue of being proactive about the pending reforms at last week’s Community Development Committee meeting and was told by council colleagues that the Minister was simply “flying a kite” and was unlikely to make any radical changes.
But some of the changes certainly seem radical to me, particularly the gutting of local government to be nothing more than an engineering department and administrative office for fast-tracking resource consents.
I encourage Gisborne residents to provide feedback through the 10-year plan consultation process on what services they want to see their council provide.
For example, does council have a role in monitoring how central government spends locally? And should we be concerned about local social and economic development issues?
If central government was so good at it, we wouldn’t have any homeless, any youth unemployed, any hungry kids, any crime.
The reality is central government does a terrible job of addressing social issues, education and health care because there is so little accountability and lack of responsiveness to local priorities. Ruatoria is not Wellington and Elgin is not Dunedin . . . one size doesn’t fit all and centralised government is the problem not the solution.
For a party that espouses the virtues of personal responsibility and local autonomy — and loved to bleat about the “nanny state” — these reforms seem more consistent with a totalitarian, centralised system of government that will increasingly dictate to communities what is best for us, and will remove local checks on central government decisions while expropriating resources from our communities.
Council spending across the country on so called “non-core services” (such as culture, recreation and sport) declined by $185 million between 2008 and 2010 to just 13.2 percent of authority spending.
From 2007-2010 rates were a stable portion of household expenditure, holding steady at 2.25 percent.
The recent Productivity Commission’s draft report on housing affordability notes that rates have been declining in relation to property values, indicating that in terms of household wealth, rates are becoming less significant.
While the government is borrowing heavily to fund it’s seven gold-plated highway projects, it’s hypocritical to be telling councils to stop wasting money.
Dr Smith has manufactured a crisis to drive through changes based on ideology, not evidence.