Council rate increases of up to 65% too much, Taxpayers' Union says
Jo Danilo / Supplied
Rates increases at levels double the scale of inflation over the past three years show local bodies' spending needs to be reined in, the Taxpayers' Union says.
The lobby group has released its rates dashboard which ranks local bodies across the country on how much they have increased rates.
It's been campaigning for the government to
bring in a cap on rates increases
.
Its survery found, on average, rates have increased 34.4 percent in total over the past three years - that's more than two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation during the same period.
"Over the last three years West Coast Regional Council had a rates increase of 65 percent. It's absolutely up there and it's driving the cost of living for a lot of people," Taxpayers Union local government campaigns manager Sam Warren said.
West Coast Regional Council has been approached for a response.
Other noticeable rates increases were seen in Wellington with the capital's city council increasing rates 47 percent while Wellington Regional Council was up 54 percent.
Taranaki, Queenstown, Hastings and Central Otago were also among the top 10.
"We'd like to see a return to focus on the basics particularly when families are doing it so tough," Warren said.
He said while each council had it's own needs and challenges, spending was increasing across councils in various areas.
"Employee costs were up 7 or 8 percent and finance costs up 16 percent off the top of my head.
"I make a career of finding a lot of council waste, so it's endless obviously, but really I think right now when it's so difficult they need to tighten their belts," he said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
11 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
RNZ News
11 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Work begins on Napier's $110m civic centre redevelopment
Napier City's civic centre redevelopment. Photo: NCC (supplied) Construction is underway on a $110 million re-development of Napier's civic centre. Eight years ago, the entire civic centre was damaged in an earthquake and deemed unusable. Council staff have been working from three different temporary and leased buildings since then, and Deputy Mayor Annette Brosnan told Nine to Noon that Napier City Council looked at 30 alternative sites to relocate to and underwent public consultation on whether to rebuild or move. She said 90 percent of the public was in favour of using the existing site, and they worked through a range of business cases on what would be the best value for ratepayers. The new project will include a library, council offices and public spaces. "So, what we've ended up with off the back of that analysis is re-strengthening the old library tower for our council staff, and then building a new library adjacent to that," Brosnan said. Napier City Council strategic programmes manager Darran Gillies said it's a massive undertaking with 10,500 square metres of public land to re-develop. "It's a big, big project that will take us about two years to complete," he said. Hawke's Bay consortium MCL Stead won the tender for the project, and 80 percent of the work is being done by local contractors "We've got up to five local apprenticeships being created and the modelling was that for every $1 million we spend locally on this product, we are adding $3.4 million to our local economy. So, it's going to be a really big boost to Napier," Brosnan said. The new civic centre is in the heart of Napier, and Brosnan said it's been hard for residents not having that space. "What we've lost in Napier is our city hub. We have our main streets and retail sector but our space where our community could come see us ... has really been dispersed," she said. "Bringing that back together we are going to see new businesses open up, especially in that hospitality sector, we are already seeing that especially with construction starting on site." The council is hoping to cut the ribbon on the new civic centre around May 2027. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Pay rise for Kmart workers
File photo. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Kmart workers say a new union agreement is a "huge win" for them. Kmart and Workers First Union have signed a two-year pay deal that will mean staff who have been employed for six months will be entitled to the new living wage of $28.95 from September 2025, increasing to the new living wage the following year. Union members will also get bonuses, of $500 for full-time workers, $350 for part-time workers and $200 for casual workers. The company will provide an improved pathway from casual to permanent employment, and an increase to safety and medical footwear reimbursements. Rudd Hughes, deputy secretary for retail at Workers First, said he believed the new agreement put Kmart workers among the highest-paid retail chain workers in the country. "We're extremely proud of our Kmart bargaining team and hopeful that this new agreement sets a standard in the retail industry that other big brands are paying attention to. "We started negotiations with the company talking about the CPI and 'clawbacks' of previous entitlements, but due to the efforts of our dedicated group of Kmart workers on the bargaining team, we've ended with an industry-leading agreement that includes a progressive living wage for two years and a generous union-only bonus." Tarsh Sullivan, a union coordinator from Kmart Te Rapa said it was a huge win for staff. "I'm happy that we're making progress and moving forward with this deal - we know it's not the same for all retail workers at the moment." Hughes said the Kmart deal sent a clear message to other big-box retailers. "Many of the other big retailers still don't believe their staff are worth a living wage," he said. "But Kmart has been thriving as a business because their staff are fairly paid and feel more motivated and valued by their employer." Kmart has been approached for comment. Careers NZ said retail sales staff generally earn about $48,000 a year and start on minimum wage. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
