Mayors and councillors shocked at angry, ranting tone of Luxon's speech to big conference; Luxon tells them there's no more Govt money coming, even though he needs them to build half of infrastructure
He looked red faced and angry. What kinda outcome did the outcome PM want for this kind of speech? Wasnt how to win friends and influence people in his middle management reading list?
Does he expect councils to suddenly turn around and say
"Ooohhhh that's that we've been doing wrong this whole time! Surely it's not our decades and decades of flat rates rises [Thanks, as always, to Property Owning Class who votes in local body elections]. We're simply just not trying hard enough! Thanks for the tip Mr Luxon, we'll hop right to it!"
What do you expect from this narcissistic arrogant P***k. I find it incredibly sad that someone so nasty and incompetent has been elected to lead (sic) our beautiful country. What is even more concerning is the recent poll showing an improvement in his ratings. What happened Aotearoa? I thought we were better than this?
I agree with your sentiments. To his constituents, Luxton is probably seen as "telling it like it is"...or..."calling a spade a spade"...
Alas, the root of all of this change in attitudes amongst Kiwis is the "permission" to be more outwardly prejudice. Prejudice against minorities... or in this case, local councils...who are often already viewed in a negative light because of those very rates that homeowners & landlords pay... who in-tern (often but not always)have prejudice against lower income or renters.
Notice: the pattern of punching down!
I am of the belief that it is all interconnected, our prejudice gives government permission to create policies & treat certain groups certain ways & if it's going to get them elected/re-elected then they will keep punching down.
There seems to be a broad misunderstanding of what the dry year problem even is. It is unique to NZ. It is not the same problem as high energy prices, and ironically it becomes more of a threat to energy security as we replace thermal with rooftop solar to improve the day-to-day pricing problem. The dry year problem must not be confused with the second problem, we need solutions for both! Solar will save some water but it won't make it rain! The work has already been done for the previous government on solutions for this: the NZ Battery project.
"it [the NZ battery project] aims to address an element that neither the market, nor policy or regulatory measures, are likely to solve on their own – the large-scale, long- term, and highly uncertain dry year problem."
Here is a link to a specific document that looks at feasibility of non-hydro renewable solutions to the dry year problem, at least just read the executive summary which includes an explanation of the problem:
Yes the Lake Onslow battery project is one way to skin the energy cat. Assumptions behind this option include continuing growth as usual, with a green tinge.
However, given we are in a state of planetary resource overshoot, breaching 6 of 9 basic planetary boundaries, with climate change as an immediate symptom of this, we simply cannot continue growth as usual. Rather we need to transition and reduce to a steady state.
Under this scenario, widely distributed, domestic scale electricity generation makes sense. It provides greater resilience, albeit it is not 'just in time' efficient.
Agree with some of that, however either you don't understand the dry year issue, or you are genuinely comfortable with the grid going down every now and then. My proposal is that grid instability is a leading indicator of societal breakdown and civilisation in general and we don't want to go there.
I've known many dull business people, but none as offensive as this one. I can handle dullness in a leader, but not the petty callous vengeful behaviour and ignoring/encouraging the bad behaviour within his cabinet.
It's just amazing how well Luxon is screwing this up. Completely debunking the myth that National means good governance. And the idea that a CEO running the country is a good thing. He's acting exactly as a CEO would. Demand his departments (aka councils) toe the line and cutting people and cost without actually understanding the Frontline service impact. If it wasn't so bloody awful it would be laughable.
On the contrary, he's probably hitting the exact notes his audience/voter base want. He is performing "good governance" by criticising the purported profligacy of local government.
Of course National's "good governance" is a myth, it always was. But it is a myth that succeeds when it is performed, not necessarily because it is true. They continue to cultivate that myth regardless of its basis in fact.
The longer I live, the more I return to that infamous Bush-era quote to understand how conservatives think and act with regard to power:
“[you are] in what we call the reality-based community…[people who] believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality….when we act, we create our own reality*
That is how conservatives use power. To create discourses that empower their own actions. Luxon is promulgating narratives that provide the justification for the things he and other likeminded people believe. They aren’t interested in discerning reality, but in defining it.
I'm a bit puzzled though. At least in Ōtautahi, those who screamed (and submitted) for an even bigger stadium at a whopping $200m more, are exactly his voting base! I'm sure it's the same in Wellington. Those stuck in unaffordable rentals on the minimum wage are not the ones asking for these vanity projects. So he is insulting his own voting base. Unbelievable!
Cognitive dissonance carries a lot of explanatory power in politics. People don’t necessarily believe in the things they believe they themselves believe in.
Same for the earthquake-damaged cathedral. Even the church wanted it demolished, but an assertive group of wealthy locals went to court to force what is now an unaffordable rebuild. They assumed, of course, that someone else would pay for it.
Yep, some of them can fund the entire rebuild, including the cost blowout, without a cent of public money, but of course they don't want to do that. So now not only did we put public money into it, but we will be stuck with an unfinished job for decades.
At the end of the day the extra capacity will bring many economic opportunities for Christchurch & local hospitality business especially will massively benefit from it. Having visited Melbourne having a stadium close to the city is an awesome experience. That extra 200m is going to be paid back many times over for the life of the stadium. Why build a stadium if it can’t be the best that it can be? Those are my thoughts
At the end of the day, the business case for the smaller version was for loss, so there is no business case for an even bigger stadium. Look at evidence from around the world, stadiums are always a money loss exercise. In a world of climate crisis, where are those thousands of people going to come from to fill these events? Add to that the unicorn music events during winter. Who is the stadium filling musician that will come to Christchurch in winter to have one concert of 35,000 people when they can be in the summer of the northern hemisphere and fill open spaces with 100,000 people every other night?
My question is why build a stadium at all when there is one already in Dunedin? Trying to relive the 80s isn't sound economic management.
Tbh I've woken up with a lot of questions about this policy, tempering my frustration.
1) Refocusing the purpose provisions in the LGA - ok, but make it viable enough that it doesn't get changed *again* come the next Govt flipping season. Consistency is good (see also: infrastructure & housing policy).
2) Investigating performance benchmarks: we already set those as part of the LTP, but sure, quantify and qualify your expectations. Just.. don't expect all councils to be able to maintain the same LOS, given the wide range of median incomes and services provided (e.g. km roads per capita in Chch v. Far North).
3) Investigating options to limit council expenditure on nice-to-haves: uh huh. Who defines the nice to haves: Govt, or locals? Does this include timely maintenance and renewals, if you can find a specialist who thinks those can wait another decade?
4) Reviewing transparency and accountability rules: our LTPs and Annual Plans are already publicly consulted and audited, but yes, daylight is good. Please extend this to unfunded Govt mandates, which rarely come with an economic impact assessment, much less social, environmental or cultural. See also: RONS, and the Budget.
Yip, the comments on the RNZ youtube clip are full of folk drinking the blue koolaid, thankful that Luxon is "taking it to the councils". We need to be careful of our own echo chamber so TKP2026 is a good start to get a wider conversation.
Here's a sample comment from the YT clip:
"@andrewking9435
Lots of moronic questions from media, who are out of touch with struggling ratepayers. Good on Luxon / Brown for holding councils to account"
Love the bird action! The strength and resolve of the ideology of starving the beast is shocking. I’m happy we can focus on the TKP 2026 as well as bird action
Cluxon sure did hen peck the room with that speech by the sound of it! Wellington has made it a bit easy with the water pipes and conference centre juxtaposition. Poor Tikanga will catch up with him soon enough. I love how the A team field trip to Sydney listened to all the waffle from Beca etc and came back with that… not the other parts of NSW revenue policy like their LAND TAX for large holders that helps to keep rates levels to households down. It’s like going to the pick and mix and only choosing the crusty old raisins.
A surreal, almost auto-parodic performance by the PM - as an ex-employee of a large SI local authority (and not very high up - but high enough to know about the day-to-day grind of making a city work), I can only imagine the tack-spitting that is going on now in local government offices around the country. Those doing the work of delivering real services to actual citizens tend to know very clearly just how little in the way of "free lunches" there actually are.
Notice how much is actually slated to go towards "bread-and-butter" services: roads, 3-waters, waste management and all the things that actually go to make a city a good place to actually be: libraries, museums, galleries, sports fields, parks, etc. Curiously, the "vanity projects", the "other" sector are the consequences of things foisted on us by central government - as is so much else.
I am tempted to once again put this petulant rant down to a distraction technique - but I think it is actually a symptom of a flailing PM and a moribund National party - Only one part of the Taniwha - ACT - actually has an agenda seemingly, and they are pursuing it with malevolent focus. The rest are taking the money and closing their eyes, ears and mouths.
I suspect we worked together at CCC, Simon. I wait, with an element of fatigue, for Luxon to tell his elderly parents, who live here, that their croquet club's land has been revalued for potential housing and their token rent will now be up through the roof. Or they will have to pay for every library book. That there's too many sports fields, or the plantings alongside roads are unnecessary, alongside everything you list above, etc, etc. This Government is making the centralizing instincts of the last Labour Government look like child's play. I am reading a book by George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison called "The Invisible Doctrine" with the sub-title "The Secret History of Neoliberalism". This book reads like the textbook the government are using to do their best to destroy fundamental blocks of decency in our society. The tax reductions for the rich, and the pandering to lobbyists are just portions of their modus operendii. Now Local Government are in the firing line. Who's next?
Please add The Shock Doctrine and maybe some Thomas Piketty to your reading list Garry, I think you'd find it illuminating.
Luxon is ultimately an MBA graduate used to running businesses in an MBA fashion: you can yell at your employees, fire them before the quarterly earnings call to goose the stock price, expect those remaining to do twice the work for the same pay before they burn out and quit at which point you just replace them with the next person desperate to get off the dole.
"Government should be run like a business!" But 60% of businesses fail in 2 years. Whatever lessons the private sector had in terms of efficiencies and process have by this point been learned; what we need to rediscover is running governments like a government. Anyone who works in the public sector on some level does so because they're mission focused and respecting that expertise and passion is essential.
But we are also guilty of adding 5,000 more seats and a roof to a sports stadium. Just so the city might get a concert or two and maybe an extra rugby test here or there.
And paying Sail-GP to come to Lyttelton. Businesses love to rave about the millions of dollars that will come into the local economy but virtually none of that extra income ends up back in the council's coffers. It stays in the corporate back pockets.
Luxon is a massive hypocrite talking about councils and building white elephant convention centres. From what I remember the post Christchurch quake government funding deal the National party forced upon the Christchurch City Council required them to build a giant convention centre which lets be honest never makes any money. They had then tried to force the CCC to sell of the likes of the Airport & Lyttleton Port shares to help pay for these oversized anchor projects as well. 'Brilliant' plan for the long term financial health of a council thanks National !
I spoke to Ian Athfield after the earthquakes. He had designed the then just recently constructed Eastern stand at Lancaster Park. I asked him if the new stand was fixable. He said yes it was and that he had consulted engineers who said it was savable. They recommended that it be cut in the middle and each side jacked up and new foundations poured. He promoted this as a very affordable solution. It was dismissed by somebody in power, and we have now ended up with a VERY expensive alternative. The current PM was flying planes at the time, but it was his Party which promoted the then "nice-to-have" and the complete demolition of Lancaster Park. I guess consistency should not be expected of somebody, who is now PM, who has little understanding, or history, in public policy.
I have lived in the same place for 45 years. One day it flooded, and we found we lived in the "Flockton Basin". This city is built on a swamp. I reckon it would not be hard to find an engineer who could declare ground being unsafe anywhere in Christchurch. I guess my tightness toward public expenditure would cause me, if I was in a position to make decisions, to weigh up risk v cost of Lancaster Park($100m) v cost of new stadium ($683m) and decide the risk was worth it.............
My nanas house is in Flockton. Family lore is that the ex Dept of Works family member who built the place went ham on draining and foundations and it was still an EQ write off. ^_^;;
I'm not opposed to *a* stadium but i do think the site is wrong and the financing was weird. I do know the same people who want somewhere nice to watch the rugby are also the same people kvetching about rates: everyone wants world class facilities but nobody wanta to pay for them.
Aotearoa New Zealand is a sovereign currency issuing country. At the national government level we need to address a resource constraint, not a financial constraint.
This simple reality seems to elude our Prime Minister, although it is not clear whether this is because
(a) he is economically illiterate; or
(b) he is being duplicious (and is just channeling the failed narrative of the Conservatives in the UK); or
I agree with your sentiments the Coalition is squeezing shit out of our economy for tax cuts and attempting to balance the books this only creates unnecessary hardship increases unemployment, increases crime and unhealthy sick people. What advice is treasury providing or are they’re just ignoring advice, they know best? both major parties need sort the future of our nation and stop wasting money and create a nation we can be proud to live in!
Look., I didn't agree with everything in his speech, but why does anyone think the government (general taxpayers) should be giving local government ratepayers (land owners) cash? Growth should pay for growth infrastructure, and existing ratepayers haven't been paying enough for infrastructure maintenance and renewals for decades. It's time to pay up or accept a lower standard of infrastructure and services.
I totally agree Malcolm. Developers play Council's like toys. They moan about costs and complications and blame everybody, especially public agencies which are acting in the long-term community interests. They cash up their often-excessive profits (especially if they paid little for the land) and leave. Often winding up their cash rich companies. Then the rest of the ratepayers' pick-up long-term costs when things go wrong. The leaky homes disaster comes immediately to mind, but that's just one example. Where were the developers then? Did any of them cough up? The sort of idiots currently promoting non inspection of house building acting in their own interests should be called "transfer pricers". All they are doing is transferring the long-term cost ramifications to a future public entity to mop up as they cruise around the world in their super yachts.
I'm not sure that is the point at issue. As noted by Bernard in his excellent analysis, the issue is that the government is benefiting from local councils through GST and through the increased tax take from an increase in population - the infrastructure cost of which is pretty much all levied at the local council level. There's also another point at issue here - councils don't have the ability to fund their activity through tax (only rates which is a pretty archaic mechanism past its due by date). Councils are also often better placed to make local infrastructure decisions for their communities. Central government have a liability to local councils that they should take responsibility for funding.
Hearing this makes me fume, Bernard. I'd like to know what Luxon and his household have cut. Nothing? It certainly isn't overseas, wasteful, travel, to learn about things he's already burnt to the ground, like ditching 3 Waters and the (now disrupted) infrastructure pipeline. And from people he's just called "dim"?!
FYI, my council (Horowhenua) sent us a line-by-line, detailed list of things that *could* be cut, according to the level of rates increase ratepayers could live with: e.g. not cutting rural roadside vegetation saves [from memory] c$180,000. I'd call that pretty detailed scrutiny, wouldn't you?
The level of ignorance about cost/benefit interpretation and long-term investment shown by this government appalls me.
WellingtonNZ CEO John Allen is spot on and I think we need to adopt this line and repeat it to fight the "you can't tax your way to prosperity." Actually, yes, we can tax our way to prosperity because the govt can issue as much money it wants to and tax those that hoard too much.
You can line by line cut your way to a better society.
I think our PM has forgotten we are all in this together and that we all benefit from better infrastructure and amenities. I can't believe that he made such a speech. What is he up to? Is he just trying to diminish all hope? Also given the leaked heated tobacco products game plan, should NZ First not be the subject of an investigation into lobbying from the tobacco industry? The evidence against them would appear to be overwhelming.
Luxon sayeth: - "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".
Let's rephrase that to "Taxpayers expect central government to do the basics and to do the basics brilliantly. Educate our children. Keep our people healthy. Make sure the lights stay on. Put a roof over our heads. And more generally, maintain assets quickly, carefully, and cost effectively".
100% - I'd worry less about the removal of wellbeings from the LGA, if central govt was acting like a fence, a safety net, or even an ambulance. But they're not; they're dismantling all those things, with no acknowledgement of the harm this will do to "ordinary hardworking Kiwis".
He was spiteful nasty and offensive. In contrast John Allen from Wellington NZ was inspirational and aspirational.
Luxon is not only a lazy narcissist he has a dystopian view of our beautiful Aotearoa. Aue.
The hell-no effect.
He looked red faced and angry. What kinda outcome did the outcome PM want for this kind of speech? Wasnt how to win friends and influence people in his middle management reading list?
What a genuinely bizzare take from Luxon.
Does he expect councils to suddenly turn around and say
"Ooohhhh that's that we've been doing wrong this whole time! Surely it's not our decades and decades of flat rates rises [Thanks, as always, to Property Owning Class who votes in local body elections]. We're simply just not trying hard enough! Thanks for the tip Mr Luxon, we'll hop right to it!"
What do you expect from this narcissistic arrogant P***k. I find it incredibly sad that someone so nasty and incompetent has been elected to lead (sic) our beautiful country. What is even more concerning is the recent poll showing an improvement in his ratings. What happened Aotearoa? I thought we were better than this?
I agree with your sentiments. To his constituents, Luxton is probably seen as "telling it like it is"...or..."calling a spade a spade"...
Alas, the root of all of this change in attitudes amongst Kiwis is the "permission" to be more outwardly prejudice. Prejudice against minorities... or in this case, local councils...who are often already viewed in a negative light because of those very rates that homeowners & landlords pay... who in-tern (often but not always)have prejudice against lower income or renters.
Notice: the pattern of punching down!
I am of the belief that it is all interconnected, our prejudice gives government permission to create policies & treat certain groups certain ways & if it's going to get them elected/re-elected then they will keep punching down.
There seems to be a broad misunderstanding of what the dry year problem even is. It is unique to NZ. It is not the same problem as high energy prices, and ironically it becomes more of a threat to energy security as we replace thermal with rooftop solar to improve the day-to-day pricing problem. The dry year problem must not be confused with the second problem, we need solutions for both! Solar will save some water but it won't make it rain! The work has already been done for the previous government on solutions for this: the NZ Battery project.
"it [the NZ battery project] aims to address an element that neither the market, nor policy or regulatory measures, are likely to solve on their own – the large-scale, long- term, and highly uncertain dry year problem."
Here is a link to a specific document that looks at feasibility of non-hydro renewable solutions to the dry year problem, at least just read the executive summary which includes an explanation of the problem:
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/27128-other-technologies-feasibility-study-options-analysis-report
More NZ Battery Project documents here:
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/low-emissions-economy/nz-battery
Yes the Lake Onslow battery project is one way to skin the energy cat. Assumptions behind this option include continuing growth as usual, with a green tinge.
However, given we are in a state of planetary resource overshoot, breaching 6 of 9 basic planetary boundaries, with climate change as an immediate symptom of this, we simply cannot continue growth as usual. Rather we need to transition and reduce to a steady state.
Under this scenario, widely distributed, domestic scale electricity generation makes sense. It provides greater resilience, albeit it is not 'just in time' efficient.
Agree with some of that, however either you don't understand the dry year issue, or you are genuinely comfortable with the grid going down every now and then. My proposal is that grid instability is a leading indicator of societal breakdown and civilisation in general and we don't want to go there.
Luxon is a dull businessman with none of attributes for leading a nation.
I've known many dull business people, but none as offensive as this one. I can handle dullness in a leader, but not the petty callous vengeful behaviour and ignoring/encouraging the bad behaviour within his cabinet.
Having met my share of petty callous businesspeople Luxon fits into that mould exactly
It's just amazing how well Luxon is screwing this up. Completely debunking the myth that National means good governance. And the idea that a CEO running the country is a good thing. He's acting exactly as a CEO would. Demand his departments (aka councils) toe the line and cutting people and cost without actually understanding the Frontline service impact. If it wasn't so bloody awful it would be laughable.
On the contrary, he's probably hitting the exact notes his audience/voter base want. He is performing "good governance" by criticising the purported profligacy of local government.
Of course National's "good governance" is a myth, it always was. But it is a myth that succeeds when it is performed, not necessarily because it is true. They continue to cultivate that myth regardless of its basis in fact.
Quite. They've been holding steady in the polls in the high 30% range since the election.
Luxons voter base see absolutely nothing wrong with anything that's happening. God help us all
The longer I live, the more I return to that infamous Bush-era quote to understand how conservatives think and act with regard to power:
“[you are] in what we call the reality-based community…[people who] believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality….when we act, we create our own reality*
That is how conservatives use power. To create discourses that empower their own actions. Luxon is promulgating narratives that provide the justification for the things he and other likeminded people believe. They aren’t interested in discerning reality, but in defining it.
Yes I remember Cheney or Rumsfield talking about creating their own reality and did not really understand it at the time. I do now though.
This is an uncomfortable truth.
I'm a bit puzzled though. At least in Ōtautahi, those who screamed (and submitted) for an even bigger stadium at a whopping $200m more, are exactly his voting base! I'm sure it's the same in Wellington. Those stuck in unaffordable rentals on the minimum wage are not the ones asking for these vanity projects. So he is insulting his own voting base. Unbelievable!
Cognitive dissonance carries a lot of explanatory power in politics. People don’t necessarily believe in the things they believe they themselves believe in.
Same for the earthquake-damaged cathedral. Even the church wanted it demolished, but an assertive group of wealthy locals went to court to force what is now an unaffordable rebuild. They assumed, of course, that someone else would pay for it.
Yep, some of them can fund the entire rebuild, including the cost blowout, without a cent of public money, but of course they don't want to do that. So now not only did we put public money into it, but we will be stuck with an unfinished job for decades.
At the end of the day the extra capacity will bring many economic opportunities for Christchurch & local hospitality business especially will massively benefit from it. Having visited Melbourne having a stadium close to the city is an awesome experience. That extra 200m is going to be paid back many times over for the life of the stadium. Why build a stadium if it can’t be the best that it can be? Those are my thoughts
At the end of the day, the business case for the smaller version was for loss, so there is no business case for an even bigger stadium. Look at evidence from around the world, stadiums are always a money loss exercise. In a world of climate crisis, where are those thousands of people going to come from to fill these events? Add to that the unicorn music events during winter. Who is the stadium filling musician that will come to Christchurch in winter to have one concert of 35,000 people when they can be in the summer of the northern hemisphere and fill open spaces with 100,000 people every other night?
My question is why build a stadium at all when there is one already in Dunedin? Trying to relive the 80s isn't sound economic management.
Tbh I've woken up with a lot of questions about this policy, tempering my frustration.
1) Refocusing the purpose provisions in the LGA - ok, but make it viable enough that it doesn't get changed *again* come the next Govt flipping season. Consistency is good (see also: infrastructure & housing policy).
2) Investigating performance benchmarks: we already set those as part of the LTP, but sure, quantify and qualify your expectations. Just.. don't expect all councils to be able to maintain the same LOS, given the wide range of median incomes and services provided (e.g. km roads per capita in Chch v. Far North).
3) Investigating options to limit council expenditure on nice-to-haves: uh huh. Who defines the nice to haves: Govt, or locals? Does this include timely maintenance and renewals, if you can find a specialist who thinks those can wait another decade?
4) Reviewing transparency and accountability rules: our LTPs and Annual Plans are already publicly consulted and audited, but yes, daylight is good. Please extend this to unfunded Govt mandates, which rarely come with an economic impact assessment, much less social, environmental or cultural. See also: RONS, and the Budget.
Ok, I feel better for getting that out 😁
Vanity 🚲 projects? 🚶🏻♀️🧑🦯 👩🏾🦽 🚴🏼♀️ 🚌 🚉 🏠 🚰
Projection much 🚦🚱 🧳 🚣♂️
Yip, the comments on the RNZ youtube clip are full of folk drinking the blue koolaid, thankful that Luxon is "taking it to the councils". We need to be careful of our own echo chamber so TKP2026 is a good start to get a wider conversation.
Here's a sample comment from the YT clip:
"@andrewking9435
Lots of moronic questions from media, who are out of touch with struggling ratepayers. Good on Luxon / Brown for holding councils to account"
Spot on Mate!
And getting way better with practice!
Love the bird action! The strength and resolve of the ideology of starving the beast is shocking. I’m happy we can focus on the TKP 2026 as well as bird action
Oh my. It reminds me of episode one of Shortland Street and the unforgettable line "you're not in Guatemala now, Dr. Ropata".
He is such a chump.
Yes, I cant see him ever being sought out to speak on the world stage.
Cluxon sure did hen peck the room with that speech by the sound of it! Wellington has made it a bit easy with the water pipes and conference centre juxtaposition. Poor Tikanga will catch up with him soon enough. I love how the A team field trip to Sydney listened to all the waffle from Beca etc and came back with that… not the other parts of NSW revenue policy like their LAND TAX for large holders that helps to keep rates levels to households down. It’s like going to the pick and mix and only choosing the crusty old raisins.
He wants us to be like Finland but without the level of tax they pay.
A surreal, almost auto-parodic performance by the PM - as an ex-employee of a large SI local authority (and not very high up - but high enough to know about the day-to-day grind of making a city work), I can only imagine the tack-spitting that is going on now in local government offices around the country. Those doing the work of delivering real services to actual citizens tend to know very clearly just how little in the way of "free lunches" there actually are.
Any council will show how it spends it rates dollar. Here is a link to the forecast spend for 2024/25 for the city where I live: https://ccc.govt.nz/services/rates-and-valuations/setting-rates-and-valuations/where-the-money-goes).
Notice how much is actually slated to go towards "bread-and-butter" services: roads, 3-waters, waste management and all the things that actually go to make a city a good place to actually be: libraries, museums, galleries, sports fields, parks, etc. Curiously, the "vanity projects", the "other" sector are the consequences of things foisted on us by central government - as is so much else.
I am tempted to once again put this petulant rant down to a distraction technique - but I think it is actually a symptom of a flailing PM and a moribund National party - Only one part of the Taniwha - ACT - actually has an agenda seemingly, and they are pursuing it with malevolent focus. The rest are taking the money and closing their eyes, ears and mouths.
I suspect we worked together at CCC, Simon. I wait, with an element of fatigue, for Luxon to tell his elderly parents, who live here, that their croquet club's land has been revalued for potential housing and their token rent will now be up through the roof. Or they will have to pay for every library book. That there's too many sports fields, or the plantings alongside roads are unnecessary, alongside everything you list above, etc, etc. This Government is making the centralizing instincts of the last Labour Government look like child's play. I am reading a book by George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison called "The Invisible Doctrine" with the sub-title "The Secret History of Neoliberalism". This book reads like the textbook the government are using to do their best to destroy fundamental blocks of decency in our society. The tax reductions for the rich, and the pandering to lobbyists are just portions of their modus operendii. Now Local Government are in the firing line. Who's next?
👍really appreciate your informed and eloquent comment. Thanks
Please add The Shock Doctrine and maybe some Thomas Piketty to your reading list Garry, I think you'd find it illuminating.
Luxon is ultimately an MBA graduate used to running businesses in an MBA fashion: you can yell at your employees, fire them before the quarterly earnings call to goose the stock price, expect those remaining to do twice the work for the same pay before they burn out and quit at which point you just replace them with the next person desperate to get off the dole.
"Government should be run like a business!" But 60% of businesses fail in 2 years. Whatever lessons the private sector had in terms of efficiencies and process have by this point been learned; what we need to rediscover is running governments like a government. Anyone who works in the public sector on some level does so because they're mission focused and respecting that expertise and passion is essential.
I've got it on my bookshelf. I totally agree with you.
Hi Simon
But we are also guilty of adding 5,000 more seats and a roof to a sports stadium. Just so the city might get a concert or two and maybe an extra rugby test here or there.
And paying Sail-GP to come to Lyttelton. Businesses love to rave about the millions of dollars that will come into the local economy but virtually none of that extra income ends up back in the council's coffers. It stays in the corporate back pockets.
Yes, that is all true...
Isn’t that what govt is for though? To create opportunities for the community to make money?
Building roads and other infrastructure - yes. But, for example, doing what the local tourism operators won't do themselves, then no.
The people who complain about white elephants are also the people who want somewhere nice to watch the rugby.
Luxon is a massive hypocrite talking about councils and building white elephant convention centres. From what I remember the post Christchurch quake government funding deal the National party forced upon the Christchurch City Council required them to build a giant convention centre which lets be honest never makes any money. They had then tried to force the CCC to sell of the likes of the Airport & Lyttleton Port shares to help pay for these oversized anchor projects as well. 'Brilliant' plan for the long term financial health of a council thanks National !
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/70084887/how-much-is-the-government-really-spending-to-fix-christchurch
I spoke to Ian Athfield after the earthquakes. He had designed the then just recently constructed Eastern stand at Lancaster Park. I asked him if the new stand was fixable. He said yes it was and that he had consulted engineers who said it was savable. They recommended that it be cut in the middle and each side jacked up and new foundations poured. He promoted this as a very affordable solution. It was dismissed by somebody in power, and we have now ended up with a VERY expensive alternative. The current PM was flying planes at the time, but it was his Party which promoted the then "nice-to-have" and the complete demolition of Lancaster Park. I guess consistency should not be expected of somebody, who is now PM, who has little understanding, or history, in public policy.
I vaguely recall there being issues with Lancaster Park's ground being deemed unsafe to build on? Is that accurate?
I have lived in the same place for 45 years. One day it flooded, and we found we lived in the "Flockton Basin". This city is built on a swamp. I reckon it would not be hard to find an engineer who could declare ground being unsafe anywhere in Christchurch. I guess my tightness toward public expenditure would cause me, if I was in a position to make decisions, to weigh up risk v cost of Lancaster Park($100m) v cost of new stadium ($683m) and decide the risk was worth it.............
My nanas house is in Flockton. Family lore is that the ex Dept of Works family member who built the place went ham on draining and foundations and it was still an EQ write off. ^_^;;
I'm not opposed to *a* stadium but i do think the site is wrong and the financing was weird. I do know the same people who want somewhere nice to watch the rugby are also the same people kvetching about rates: everyone wants world class facilities but nobody wanta to pay for them.
Aotearoa New Zealand is a sovereign currency issuing country. At the national government level we need to address a resource constraint, not a financial constraint.
This simple reality seems to elude our Prime Minister, although it is not clear whether this is because
(a) he is economically illiterate; or
(b) he is being duplicious (and is just channeling the failed narrative of the Conservatives in the UK); or
(c) both.
I vote (c)
I’ll go for both.
I agree with your sentiments the Coalition is squeezing shit out of our economy for tax cuts and attempting to balance the books this only creates unnecessary hardship increases unemployment, increases crime and unhealthy sick people. What advice is treasury providing or are they’re just ignoring advice, they know best? both major parties need sort the future of our nation and stop wasting money and create a nation we can be proud to live in!
Look., I didn't agree with everything in his speech, but why does anyone think the government (general taxpayers) should be giving local government ratepayers (land owners) cash? Growth should pay for growth infrastructure, and existing ratepayers haven't been paying enough for infrastructure maintenance and renewals for decades. It's time to pay up or accept a lower standard of infrastructure and services.
Actually, it’s time to make the rich beneficiaries of neoliberalism pay at both the local and national levels.
I totally agree Malcolm. Developers play Council's like toys. They moan about costs and complications and blame everybody, especially public agencies which are acting in the long-term community interests. They cash up their often-excessive profits (especially if they paid little for the land) and leave. Often winding up their cash rich companies. Then the rest of the ratepayers' pick-up long-term costs when things go wrong. The leaky homes disaster comes immediately to mind, but that's just one example. Where were the developers then? Did any of them cough up? The sort of idiots currently promoting non inspection of house building acting in their own interests should be called "transfer pricers". All they are doing is transferring the long-term cost ramifications to a future public entity to mop up as they cruise around the world in their super yachts.
I'm not sure that is the point at issue. As noted by Bernard in his excellent analysis, the issue is that the government is benefiting from local councils through GST and through the increased tax take from an increase in population - the infrastructure cost of which is pretty much all levied at the local council level. There's also another point at issue here - councils don't have the ability to fund their activity through tax (only rates which is a pretty archaic mechanism past its due by date). Councils are also often better placed to make local infrastructure decisions for their communities. Central government have a liability to local councils that they should take responsibility for funding.
Hearing this makes me fume, Bernard. I'd like to know what Luxon and his household have cut. Nothing? It certainly isn't overseas, wasteful, travel, to learn about things he's already burnt to the ground, like ditching 3 Waters and the (now disrupted) infrastructure pipeline. And from people he's just called "dim"?!
FYI, my council (Horowhenua) sent us a line-by-line, detailed list of things that *could* be cut, according to the level of rates increase ratepayers could live with: e.g. not cutting rural roadside vegetation saves [from memory] c$180,000. I'd call that pretty detailed scrutiny, wouldn't you?
The level of ignorance about cost/benefit interpretation and long-term investment shown by this government appalls me.
WellingtonNZ CEO John Allen is spot on and I think we need to adopt this line and repeat it to fight the "you can't tax your way to prosperity." Actually, yes, we can tax our way to prosperity because the govt can issue as much money it wants to and tax those that hoard too much.
You can line by line cut your way to a better society.
Brilliant slogan.
I think our PM has forgotten we are all in this together and that we all benefit from better infrastructure and amenities. I can't believe that he made such a speech. What is he up to? Is he just trying to diminish all hope? Also given the leaked heated tobacco products game plan, should NZ First not be the subject of an investigation into lobbying from the tobacco industry? The evidence against them would appear to be overwhelming.
Luxon sayeth: - "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".
Let's rephrase that to "Taxpayers expect central government to do the basics and to do the basics brilliantly. Educate our children. Keep our people healthy. Make sure the lights stay on. Put a roof over our heads. And more generally, maintain assets quickly, carefully, and cost effectively".
100% - I'd worry less about the removal of wellbeings from the LGA, if central govt was acting like a fence, a safety net, or even an ambulance. But they're not; they're dismantling all those things, with no acknowledgement of the harm this will do to "ordinary hardworking Kiwis".