Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Transferring wealth to Wellington

180 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    And the 'solution' will be to lower company taxes !

    On the one hand, I'm appalled at the direction this government is taking Auckland and the country. On the other, it gives the Greens and Labour some real points to make about the risks of voting in a National government.

    There never was a secret agenda, but if there was it would be this:

    Ministers: Go as feral as you please...

    John Key: Spin everything as being totally cool...

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Saw Hyde interviewed on Triangle last night. The interviewer, David Beatson, claimed that his legal advice was that, contrary to claims, the council will not be able to sack CCO directors without "due cause".

    Hyde denied this, but fudged somewhat, claiming both that such sackings were "possible" and that the issue was not worth worrying about because it would "never happen".

    I sure wish someone would clarify these Supercity issues.

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    <sticking my Elected Representative Hat on>

    Thanks Russell for bringing this to our attention.

    Here's my take.

    ONLY PAY 25% OF RATES FOR THE 2011-2012 YEAR, and subsequent years.

    From the 2011-2012 financial year forward, 75% of rates income will be handed over to these CCOs. The taxation angle confirms that indeed, they are corporate entities in all but name.

    There is no compulsion for anyone to involuntarily fork out $$ to corporations. We pay willingly for various services, but if we don't agree, we are free to not purchase those services.

    The CCO model essentially relies on the goodwill of the populace to pay their 'fees'. If you don't feel happy about this model, the solution is not to pay the 'fee'.

    From my perspective, not paying this fee is a reasonably rational response to the government's intention.

    <whipping off said hat>

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • Luke Williamson,

    On the one hand, I really don't want to pay anymore rates than necessary but, on the other hand, I see this transition cocking up so badly that it may just lead to National losing the next election - and that pleases me greatly. Throw in some mining in conservation land, some renewed commercial whaling, a bit of beneficiary bashing and it all looks good for another change of gummint. All we need now is a credible opposition to get off their arses and exploit the opportunity.

    Warkworth • Since Oct 2007 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    There is no compulsion for anyone to involuntarily fork out $$ to corporations. We pay willingly for various services, but if we don't agree, we are free to not purchase those services.

    *sigh* Could someone make Lindsay Perigo post under his own name? I'm sorry to tell you this, Mr. Dempsey, but people who don't use public transport don't get to opt out of the portion of their rates that deliver subsidies to ARTA. And please feel free to share with us how you're going to avoid "freeloading' off the sidewalks and stormwater drains. This should be enormously entertaining.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    The CCO model essentially relies on the goodwill of the populace to pay their 'fees'. If you don't feel happy about this model, the solution is not to pay the 'fee'.

    All I can see happening there is folks ending up in court for not paying their bills and spending a few weeks in a private prison run by the same company that owns the CCOs.

    All we need now is a credible opposition to get off their arses and exploit the opportunity.

    With the way this lot are going Phill Goff could break wind in the House and the whole Nation would vote for him, nothing like a good fart joke to the common man. When National get their mates to back a huge advertising campaign next election time with all the money that they will squeeze from the populace over Nationals grab bag of policies, the fart joke will sound more subtle.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Luke Williamson,

    And by the way, if significant savings wasn't the point of super sizing the city, what was?

    Warkworth • Since Oct 2007 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    at the fruitily-named Rendezvous Hotel

    Why fruitily?
    Because it suggests people meeting in pears?
    or because there's gonna be nutty professors there?

    Last time I looked people meeting freely didn't imply any suggestive sexuality ...
    Sure French is one of the romantic languages, but why put an inference on the venue of this conference?

    rendezvous noun ( pl. same) a meeting at an agreed time and place, typically between two people.
    • a place used for such a meeting.
    • a place, typically a bar or restaurant, that is used as a popular meeting place.
    • a meeting up of troops, ships, or aircraft at an agreed time and place.
    thesaurus: rendezvous noun:
    Eleanor was late for their rendezvous meeting, appointment, assignation; informal date; literary tryst.
    verb: the bar where they had agreed to rendezvous meet, come together, gather, assemble.

    fruity - adjective (fruitier, fruitiest) fruitily - adverb
    1 (esp. of food or drink) of, resembling, or containing fruit : a light and fruity Beaujolais.
    2 (of a voice or sound) mellow, deep, and rich : Jeff had a wonderfully fruity voice.
    • Brit., informal sexually suggestive in content or style.
    3 informal offensive relating to or associated with homosexuals.
    4 informal eccentric or crazy : a kind of fruity professor.

    just sayin....

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Andre Alessi,

    And by the way, if significant savings wasn't the point of super sizing the city, what was?

    /waves hands magically

    Look, a pony!

    Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    This is essentially a transfer from Auckland ratepayers to central government coffers.

    Hum... that's one way to spin it. I wonder how many Auckland ratepayers will be relishing the delish irony of the Auckland City Council bitching about being on the receiving end of a tax hike, for once. :)

    This song's for you Banksie:

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • recordari,

    This song's for Ian.
    I don't know what to do
    I need a rendezvous

    Is that fruity enough?

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • slarty,

    Just a silly point: the GST collected on rates are more or less rebated to local council - sorry I don't have time to find the reference to how it works in practice...

    And as to changing a government by tax revolt?

    I was there... a few years later an Aunt said to me "see, you didn't need to go to all that trouble, they got rid of it anyway" <g>

    And interestingly, its repeal was funded by a 2.5% increase in GST...!

    Since Nov 2006 • 290 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    if significant savings wasn't the point of super sizing the city, what was?

    See, that's the funny thing. Most city/regions would be happy to regularly rate in the top ten places to live in the whole world.

    We've heard about problems with coordination in transport and long term planning - which were being addressed already through regional initiatives like the Auckland Sustainability Framework and the Regional Growth Strategy. Increasing ARC's power within a reasonably tight scope would have fixed most remaining issues there, quickly and cheaply. Instead we get another flavour of built-in fragmentation with CCO silos in most of the relevant functions.

    The Royal Commission identified problems with lack of civic engagement - which Hide/Key/Joyce and co addressed by replacing six strong second-tier local councils with their emasculated local boards. Uh huh.

    We know that similar amalgamations overseas have not saved any money, so that can't be it. Even Hide has stopped claiming that and as Russell says, wait until the 9 figure bills start rolling in after the election in October.

    The group of people who complained loudest about the need for a more coordinated and 'efficient' approach? Property and infrastructure developers who faced multiple district plans and interpretations of consents, poor dears. Of course they expect the ratepayers to shoulder the bill for those "improvements" in line with the usual socialising loss, privatising profit model that props up their lack of ambition and competence.

    Government has similarly dictated that Auckland will pay the bill for this change, despite deliberate removal of our standard right of a referendum about it under the Local Government Act.

    So that long awaited public pool for Otahuhu, those pothole repairs in Devonport, that after-school programme in New Lynn - all secretly pissed into the pockets of big consultants like PriceWaterhouse instead.

    The head of the Infrstructure Council has a revealing turn of phrase in yesterdays' Herald as he defended proposed CCOs:

    The reason Auckland was in the current mess, Mr Selwood said, was because local politicians had failed to deliver the results expected of them.

    Mess? Expected by whom?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    /waves hands magically
    Look, a pony!

    That's a jolly good answer

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    more importantly you're paying GST now and will be paying GST after whether the money goes to the city to do a service or is passed on to a 3rd party - GST will only increase if the amount you're paying increases - that part's a wash.

    On the other hand profits are taxed - if they charge you more than they used to and end up making a profit rather that doing the work at cost - then yes there will be tax money going to Wellington - but that's only coming out of your pocket because they're charging you more than they used to when the city did the same job

    I suspect it might be local body election year and someone has too look like he's doing something .....

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2623 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    And by the way, if significant savings wasn't the point of super sizing the city, what was?

    Local Government actually capable of acting in the interests of the whole of Auckland, ensuring that local and regional infrastructure is built toward long-term goals of enhancing action of region-wide social issues and ensuring robust economic performance in the largest metropolitan area in the country and the best chance for a prosperous New Zealand?

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I'm reading that quoted $34m in Orsman's story as just the bill for the current Auckland City Council's ratepayers, not the whole region. Agree it's way too optimistic, nonetheless. Would just be the latest guess that the Council builds into its official budget now before it's all handed over on 31 October.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    And Graeme, by what standards would you say that Auckland's Councils were failing to do all that?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I agree with Graeme: there were and are reasons to amalgamate beyond simply cutting costs. Just not like this.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I tend to agree more at the regional economic development "positioning on world stage" end where scale matters, rather than most of the locally-oriented stuff most citizens notice, which might be harder to achieve with the new structures.

    My question about standards still applies though - what's the comparison point?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher,

    Transferring wealth to Wellington

    When you use "Wellington" in this context, I assume you're using as shorthand for the government, not actually Wellington itself; the Beehive rather than the Fern Ball.

    The trouble is, it doesn't quite work to use "Wellington" as a shorthand for the government. Wellington isn't like Canberra or Washington, in being a city created as a capital city. It has its own life outside of government.

    Talk of "Wellington" interferring with Auckland City implies some sort of city feud, when Wellington city has nothing to do with the Auckland Super City situation.

    And it's even more complicated when you consider that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Local Government are both... Aucklanders.

    Since Nov 2006 • 1946 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    I have to agree with Robyn. Surely the reason to prefer "Wellington" over the "the Government" is the implied contrast with Auckland, which injects some juicy parochial conflict.

    If it were just a question of elegant metonymy, "the Beehive" would be more accurate.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    What Robyn and Stephen said.

    Just don't use the term Beltway.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Luke Williamson,

    A plus for CCOs would be seeing somebody actually make a decision about something in Auckland without running a public "competition" first. "Hey, I know, we're going to come up with a budget for Super Auckland for 2011 but let's have a competition first and see if someone out there can come up with a really good one. Come on kids, get your calculators out and we can all have ownership of the new Super budget." Then we can discuss it sensibly in the pages of the NZ Herald.

    Warkworth • Since Oct 2007 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    This song's for Ian.
    I don't know what to do
    I need a rendezvous
    Is that fruity enough?

    Computer love
    I call this number
    for a database

    I don't know ?
    is it an Apple ©?

    so Wolfgang or Ralf or whoever
    wants to meet someone...
    (remembering these are Germans not Brit)

    I'm still not seeing the fruit...
    or are you saying he's a bit of a router?

    my point was it seemed unnecessary to
    lumber the Hotel with this baggage,
    in light of the discussion about stereotyping
    over on Cracker's thread...

    but hey who am I to talk about
    people playing with language?
    ;- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.