Key points
- Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has been questioned about his call on councils to spend less on “nice-to-haves” and more on basics like roads and pipes.
- Speaking to Q+A, Brown said councils needed to go through budgets “line by line”, but hesitated to comment on specific examples of spending in his own electorate.
- Critics have questioned what the Government counts as a “nice-to-have” and say it is taking decision-making power away from local communities.
What counts as a “must have” versus a “nice to have”? That’s the question put to Local Government Minister Simeon Brown as he signals a clampdown on councils’ ability to spend on so-called “nice to haves”.
Speaking to Q+A, the Pakuranga MP was quizzed about the criteria he wanted to apply and he was given a set of examples of spending from the council in his home electorate.
Brown and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced their plans on Wednesday, suggesting higher-than-usual rates rises this year were “unacceptable” and that councils needed to “rein in the fantasies and to get back to delivering the basics brilliantly”.
The Local Government Minister has said this approach was consistent with a commitment to devolving power to local communities.
Speaking to Q+A, he said councils must go “line-by-line” to stop wasteful spending, citing examples, including a new $2.2 million public transport interchange in Paraparaumu.
Meanwhile, cash-strapped councils are welcoming a long-term funding option from the Government to deal with infrastructure challenges. (Source: 1News)
But when asked about several line items in the council budget of his own electorate, Brown refused to say whether he considered them nice-to-haves.
“I’m not going to get into this — ‘Is this not [a must have], is this [a must have]’,” he said.
Homeowners faced an average rates rise of 15% this year, according to analysis.
The Prime Minister has said the Government would consider “options to limit council expenditure on ‘nice-to-haves'”, suggesting options such as capping rates rises on certain spending.
“Councils need adequate revenue to fund core responsibilities like roads, rubbish and water, but the value-for-money proposition is more questionable in a range of other areas,” he said.
“Councils need to examine those areas more closely, and I’m up for any tool – like revenue capping – that makes them do so.”
Luxon said earlier this week: “The central government focuses on must-haves, not nice-to-haves, and we expect local government to do the same.”
Critics, including mayors, have questioned the Government on what it saw as a “must-have” versus a “nice-to-have” in local government expenditure.
Brown has spoken of wanting councils to focus on “getting back to the basics” such as “picking up rubbish, fixing water infrastructure, and filling in potholes”.
“When rates are increasing four times the rate of inflation, people across this country have had enough, and so that’s why making these changes,” he told Q+A.
Bite back about Govt’s ‘nice-to-haves’ clampdown
Writing in the Sunday-Star Times, Wellington mayor Tory Whanau said the signalled changes were “offensive, wrong” and a “huge overreach in local decision-making”.
Several other mayors have questioned what the Government meant by “nice-to-have”.
Meanwhile, Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins repeated the “nice-to-have” mantra in a speech on Friday, attempting to paint the Government as out of touch.
“It’s all very well to describe a community swimming pool as a ‘nice-to-have’ when you have your own pool in the backyard, but the majority of our local residents aren’t that privileged,” he said, in a speech.
“You might not value the local playground if you can afford to buy your kids whatever experiences they want, but most hard-working parents can’t do that.
“You might not think a library is a core service when you can afford to buy whatever books you want, but not all of our local residents can do that.”
Minister explains Govt’s local govt ‘refocus’
Brown has signalled he wants to “refocus” the purpose of local government, notably suggesting that he wanted to cap rates rises for “non-core” council spending.
Part of the changes included stripping out provisions in legislation which require councils to promote social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing in communities.
Speaking to Q+A, Brown said: “When you’re seeing rates increasing at more than four times the rate of inflation — there are serious questions that need to be answered.
“We are going to intervene as a Government to say, those four well-beings, they will be removed, because we know when they’re not in legislation, rates do not increase as fast.
Councillors say hiking up rates and rising debt can only go so far, urging the Government to consider other tools to help raise revenue. (Source: 1News)
“We’re also going to be doing some benchmarking, and we’ll look at rate capping in terms of non-core activities.
“We’re going to be requiring [councils] to find efficiencies through, actually saying those non-core areas, there’s going to be a cap on how much you can do. That’s exactly what they do in New South Wales, right? And that’s what we’re going to do here.”
In New South Wales, local government rates rises were capped by mandate with some exceptions, including for waste and water infrastructure.
Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
