Newman Weekly

Dr Muriel Newman

Contact Muriel:

Phone 09 4343 836
or 021 800 111.

PO Box 984, Whangarei

05 October 05
A ratepayers bill of rights?

Last week I was elected onto my local ratepayer association committee. I’m pleased that I will now have an opportunity to examine the growing problems facing local government on a first hand basis.

Since Labour changed the Local Government Act in 2002, in many districts rates are escalating, user charges for core services are becoming an everyday occurrence, council debt levels are mounting, bureaucratic inefficiency and consent delays are commonplace, and there is growing unease over the ever-increasing powers being given to Maori.

Many would argue that the key role of local government is to provide essential infrastructural services to ratepayers - road maintenance, rubbish collection, reserve upkeep, the provision of water and other utilities - as well as to process regulatory responsibilities including the issuing and monitoring of consents.

However, the 2002 law dramatically changed the purpose of local government to firstly “enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of communities”, and secondly, to “promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future”.

Labour also enshrined special rights for Maori by including in the Act: “a local authority should provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making processes”. This requires councils to single Maori out for special treatment, yet there are a myriad of other groups within a district - small business, farmers, those with disabilities, young people, pensioners - that have equal or greater needs.

The problem is that if one particular group is given special status in law, it leads to the establishment of privileges that are not available to other ratepayers. For example, many councils have now appointed Maori liaison officers, leading to an over-representation and creating a lucrative ratepayer funded gravy train as well as a powerful right of veto.

This result is extremely ironic considering that many Maori do not even pay rates! In fact in some districts more than half of the owners of Maori land – including, unbelievably, people of high standing within their community such as Councillors and Members of Parliament – refuse to pay their rates.

The reason is that councils have been excluded by law from being able to sell Maori land for compensation purposes leaving them with no power to enforce rates collection. This means that some local bodies are chronically under funded, a situation that is made much worse if their districts contain large tracts of Department of Conservation land, which is deemed to be exempt from rates demands.

I believe these situations are unacceptable – rates should be charged on all land within a district with no exemptions.

In some districts, Maori have also been given excessive powers over consent applications, exacerbating a problem that was originally caused by the National Government when they introduced Iwi consultation into the Resource Management Act. That provision has led to a corrupt system of legalised blackmail, whereby Maori – along with their so-called taniwhas and wahi tapu - are charging tens of thousands of dollars in return for agreeing to not hold up progress.

The second purpose of local government, the promotion of the four well-beings, has essentially given local authorities sweeping new powers of general competence. Their scope has been widened so far from core services that they can now embark on almost any project that the politicians or staff fancy. From the provision of Rolls Royce social services that were traditionally the responsibility of central government, to the operation of risky commercial ventures - underwritten by ratepayers and in competition with the private sector – the sky is now their limit.

This means that the checks and balances that ratepayers had on their local authorities through their traditional restricted range of activities, has now been removed. It is therefore more important than ever before that the real objectives of local body politicians are clearly understood: if sports-mad councillors want a new ratepayer funded stadium, or their conservation-minded colleagues want to recycle rubbish (even if it costs more and results in sorted rubbish ending up in a landfill), or the arts lovers want new galleries, then these pet projects are now more likely to get a green light, leaving ratepayers to shoulder the increasing rates burden.

Central government also adds significantly to that burden as they push more and more responsibilities onto local authorities: there are costly new dog control laws to be administered, prostitutes to look out for, and expensive new water quality standards in the pipeline. Further, councils are busy drafting policies for trees, for cats, for the elderly – you name it, and it’s likely to be on the drawing board!

With local government now on the brink of a bureaucratic and cost explosion, I wonder if the time is now ripe to consider a concept that has been suggested to me, a Ratepayers Bill of Rights, aimed at protecting ratepayers from exploitation by central planners and socialists!

A Ratepayers Bill of Rights would restrict the purpose of councils back to the provision of core services and regulatory responsibilities. It would introduce a rates cap based on the rate of inflation and a population growth adjustment and binding ratepayers’ referenda (send out with rates bills) for major council projects. It would also abolish special privileges for Maori or for any other group for that matter, ensuring DOC and every other landowner had to pay rates, and it would replace the RMA to ensure that private property rights are properly protected. Finally it would require an increased investment into roading by requiring that all petrol tax money and road user charges collected by central government is allocated back into roading.

If you believe a Ratepayer Bill of Rights is an idea that has merit, and if you have some suggestions, please email me on muriel@newman.co.nz with “suggestions” in the subject line.

Some replies to this opinion piece

Rates should be scrapped being based on land value. Proper charges should be charged for services rendered regardless of 1 value of land or 2 use of land or 3 ownership of land all of which are completely irrelevant to the cost of providing services. E.G. Rubbish costs a specific amount and should be charged accordingly. 2 bags costs 2 bags - no more, no less - no subsidy, no tax.

If subsidies for poor or specific sectors are needed, then those should be transparently funded and separately funded.
You can not get incentivised through subsidies.

The biggest problem we face is that political evolution has allowed the loss of transparency through subsidies. Welfare is a subsidy. I find it hard to believe that everyone accepted the removal of subsidies from farmers but do not see that subsidies to the poor are the same. Subsidies distort incentives.

A Ratepayers Bill of Rights is fine but first we need to get in power. The Socialists [I call them the half communists - lets get real] would never let their ill-gotten powers be eroded.
Under our policy, Councils should as you say be limited to core services but also be required to charge reasonable fees for those services regardless or race religion age etc etc according to the costs of providing those services.
Strictly speaking roads should be charged to those who use the roads e.g. through fuel collection but only if the fuel suppliers are paid to collect it. [Rates on] properties have nothing to do with use of roads.

Water and waste water should be charged on a capita basis for homes and businesses and schools and hospitals and government.

It should not be the job of Councils to provide for the poor.
If that is wanted at a local level then a separate local or regional authority for the poor could be established and get rid of centralised WINZ. That would be very good in the event of a disaster.

That welfare body should also subsidize access to libraries etc which should be full charge services.

If other social objectives are desirable they should be funded transparently and voters actively vote for such funding [not have it surreptiously funded because income tax is not a targeted tax.]

While I am at it, council planning should be split so the one body is not legislation, administration and judge in its own cause. Councils let developers corrupt the process. That is why we have inadequate roading. Developers want to slow traffic to see the signs. Look at any developer property advert: 'high visibility - high traffic'. That is why we have congestion. It's corrupt. I hope I have given enough for a bit of re-thought.

Bring back the local Borough Councils whereby there was more control & they were more cost efficient & personal contact with the Mayor, his Deputy, Town Clerk, Borough Engineer, Building inspector, Plumbing inspector, Town Planning, etc, etc. The local Borough Councils were much more cost efficient than the monstrosity we have now & been forced to accept & were told that the amalgamation of the local Borough Councils would be much more cost effective as the would get private enterprise to quote for jobs cheaper than keeping a staff of council tradesmen. What a con we were forced to accept.

Many tried to stop the amalgamation of the Auckland boroughs but the Government at the time forced the issue.
Ratepayers have lost all the personal contact & the personal names of the above. We are now just a name & number whereby the likes of Onehunga Borough rings up Maugakiekie ward & gets passed onto god knows how many people & no one will take responsibility any more. It is discussing the amount of Consultants that the ratepayer to get Resource Consent not to mention the years of waiting yes years not months. Ratepayers have to pay Council as well for the Council Inspectors to check over & pass the Plans & Specifications who one time knew there job & took responsibility.

Lets put it to the test with a Referendum. I am sick tired of continually discussing varius matters such as this with a vast majority of New Zealanders who agree but still the majority does not have a choice in the decisions of Goverment.
I for one would welcome Referendums for the above reason & if the majority decided then so be it I would have to shut my mouth. Bring back local Borough Councils.

I support the proposal but your crusade needs to go further and examine the whole question of local government funding. Using property values as a rating tool is a blunt instrument. It is people who use services not land and buildings. As a consequence of the dramatic increase in property values an local Government revaluations in recent times particularly those on farms and occupying larger homes ( and who may have occupied same for years) pay a disproportional amount relative to the services that they receive. The value attributed to a home is not necessarily a reflection of wealth or ability to pay. Many retired people on dwindling fixed incomes are forced to sell family homes in retirement due to escalating costs of ownership, not least increasing ratable values. I hope that you take this on board and at least bring this issue into the political arena along with rate payers rights.

The concept of a Ratepayers Bill of Rights is quite brilliant and much needed in the mire of bureaucracy and self interest which now constitutes much of local government.

One of the problems with the whole system is that the vast majority of ratepayers are conservative everyday people who really do not wish to become involved with the hurly burly crush of elbows and knees of issue debate. The special interest groups, the ambitious and the loud and greedy are more disposed to this arena and in their brutish clamour to have their way, make the prospect of involvement even less attractive to the uninitiated.

The roll of the dice in the chance of being represented on Council, by a fair minded, judicious and unbiased body of people , who are to some degree, loosely controled & regulated, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. A Ratepayers Bill of Rights, set in stone and policed astutely is an excellent move in the right direction to fairer representation of ratepayers in local body decision making and policy setting.

You have my support and if you wish, my input into a forum of ideas on the matter. Keep up the momentum Lady!