Latest news with #fiscaldiscipline
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Local democracy under threat? Officials warn against removing council 'four wellbeings'
Photo: RNZ / Quin Tauetau Removing the "four wellbeings" for councils is unlikely to make much difference, and could even impact services and development, officials' analysis of the government's law changes shows. The report shows the approach taken by the government can be expected to overall improve clarity and concerns about spending "beyond core infrastructure" - but would undermine stability and localism. It shows the Department of Internal Affairs would have preferred to keep the status quo. The Local government (System Improvements) Amendment legislation passed its first reading last night , with the select committee reporting back in November. The government and the minister have made their views clear, stating that councils have "lacked fiscal discipline", that they "are not mini-Parliaments; they are service delivery agencies", and that residents have become increasingly concerned about rates. The opposition parties have argued it is a power grab that degrades the rights of democratically elected councils. A key part of [ the bill is the government's proposal to remove all 10 mentions of the "four wellbeings" - social, economic, environmental and cultural - from the law governing councils. However, the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on the bill from Internal Affairs said that in isolation, this change was "unlikely to benefit communities more than the status quo". "Previous regulatory impact statements have suggested that despite various changes to the purpose by successive governments, there has been limited impact on council decision-making, activities, and service levels, regardless of intended focus. "Refocusing the purpose of local government will likely have limited impact on its own and may create implementation costs and issues." The paper highlighted that the "proposed changes will likely disrupt the sector" and had led councils to do "costly compliance exercises in the past to determine which activities fit within a narrower purpose". Despite this narrowing, it said the purpose of local government "should reflect the broad range of responsibilities local authorities have under all primary and secondary legislation in New Zealand" - pointing to the 47 statutes councils already have responsibilities under. It noted that departmental feedback from agencies, including the Infrastructure Commission and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the independent Future of Local Government Review (FLGR) - effectively binned by the government a year ago - had "contrary views to those of ministers". "Feedback suggested that removing the four wellbeings could be seen as disempowering local government, and while focusing councils on low rates may succeed, it would likely come at the expense of key council services and infrastructure development." It noted the FLGR had found successive governments' changes to councils' purpose were disruptive, and recommended the four wellbeings be entrenched in law to provide greater certainty. Removing the wellbeings "could impact [Treaty of Waitangi] settlement arrangements between iwi or hapū and councils". However, some councils had told the minister, "they felt it would also help them to manage community expectations and do fewer things better". In a table assessing the costs and benefits of the legislation, the officials found that "restraint" (addressing concerns about spending beyond core services) and "clarity" (providing useful direction about what councils should be expected to do) were improved compared to the status quo. However, "stability" (minimising disruption and allowing councils to plan effectively) and "localism" (recognising the broad role of councils valued in communities and empowering them to decide for themselves) would be worse than the status quo. The RIS suggested that other changes proposed by the government, including additional performance monitoring and rate capping, were "more likely" to support the government's objectives. While ministers have continued to say the changes are targeted at a lack of fiscal discipline by councils, the RIS stated "cost pressures on councils are being driven by capital and operating cost escalation, flowing from supply chain upheaval and a tight labour market during the Covid-19 pandemic, and accelerated headline inflation since". "Infrastructure costs have long been a major cause of rate increases, with councils needing to upgrade infrastructure, especially for water and wastewater treatment plants, and invest in more infrastructure to meet growth demands. "Around two-thirds of capital expenditure for councils is applied to core infrastructure, not including libraries and other community facilities, or parks and reserves." Local government Minister Simon Watts, at the first reading speech on Thursday, said, "We looked at the evidence and it showed that whenever the four aspects of community wellbeing are included in the purpose of local government, rates go up as councils are focused on too many things". Local Government Minister Simon Watts says the bill is all about reining in costs. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Internal Affairs' analysis showed rate increases were "about two percent higher when the four wellbeings are in the Act", so while it bears out the minister's statement, the effect cannot explain the full weight of rate rises across the country. The data used also did not account for population growth or distinguish between residential or commercial ratepayers. "Usually, where rates have increased faster, this is because costs for councils have risen faster. The current infrastructure deficit for local government is evidence of prolonged underinvestment, where rates (along with other revenue sources) did not increase enough to enable responsible asset management. "For example, despite rates appearing to increase more towards 2007, the Infrastructure Commission has identified the period from 1995 to 2008 as a time when rates were consistently below their post-World War II average as a share of gross domestic product, and this coincided with a deterioration of the stock of transport, water and waste assets." The analysis stated that the minister only allowed officials to examine two options: the status quo and his preferred approach. "The data and evidence used in carrying out this analysis was generally low quality due to limitations on options exploration and consultation. "There was a heavy reliance on previous regulatory impact statements that covered the same or reverse law changes." The inclusion of the wellbeings has been added to or removed from the law four times since the Act came into force in 2003, so there were more than enough previous analyses to draw from. It remains unclear whether rate capping, which the minister wants "before Christmas", would be included in the bill after the select committee reports back in November. However, the analysis repeatedly highlights that efforts to "limit council revenue from rates" are part of the government's intended package of reform, and a section laying out a timeline of changes includes a redacted entry that follows the implementation of the changes described in the bill. The disclosure statement prepared by the department noted that the RIS was limited to assessing the impacts of refocusing the purpose of local government. It said the Regulations Ministry had determined other aspects of the bill did not need to be assessed, "on the grounds that these proposals would have no or only minor economic, social, or environmental impacts". The ministry also asked the minister to provide an analysis on rates capping when reporting back to Cabinet on the overall bill in December. The statement also showed Minister Watts had asked for consultation relating to transparency and accountability with the Free Speech Union lobby group, the Taxpayers Union lobby group, the New Zealand Initiative think tank, Transparency International, and other ratepayer groups and academics. On performance management, the department also sought feedback from a reference group, and on regulatory relief, the department was instructed to consult LGNZ, Local Government Professionals NZ, Federated Farmers, and Business NZ. Officials also shared a clause of the draft bill with the Local Government Funding Agency. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
CTV News
09-07-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
‘Having choice is essential': MLAs ousted from UCP look to revive PC Party
Independent MLA Peter Guthrie speaks with Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins about plans to relaunch the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Michael Higgins: Why revive the PC identity of the past? Why not just pursue a whole new political identity? Peter Guthrie: We want to be able to restore confidence and bring back discipline and accountability. Right now, the UCP party, they've increased expenses by 23 per cent in just three short budget periods. If you look back to 2019, that's a 42-per-cent increase from a bureaucracy standpoint. When I was elected in 2019 through to 2022, we reduced the size of government by seven-and-a-half per cent. Danielle Smith and the UCP have increased that by 14 per cent, creating new layers of bureaucracy, as well as expanding Crown corporations. They've also been shrouded in suspicion and scandal, and have now implemented a separatist agenda. So we want to be able to bring back that PC name, go back to the roots of the party, and reestablish that fiscal discipline, the limited government philosophy. Working within Canada and building alliances with other provinces for the betterment of Alberta, and then naturally bringing back transparency, accountability, and creating consequences for those, including politicians, that do not want to follow those rules. MH: How much of this is about a difference between parties and how much of it is about leadership? PG: As far as looking at the UCP and whether or not it's salvageable, I don't think so. They have just gone down a path of driving out moderate voices. The PCs have been pushed out of the party. It has a dwindling membership that is mainly supportive of a separatist agenda, and the PCs, they're not coming back to this party. With the scandal that they have there, with the separatist agenda, there is a number of significant risks. Even without this current leader, I don't think that the party can survive. I think that it will turn into the Wild Rose Party pre-2015. MH: What leads you to conclude there is a sufficient enough group of disenfranchised conservatives out there to warrant or even legitimize your efforts? PG: I guess that dwindling membership. I think that's indicative of the population. The UCP, as well as the NDP, they're focusing on 20 to 30 per cent of the population. Their strategies have been to build mandates that don't focus on the majority and all of the province. I think that there's a market here now. Since being removed from the party, the number one thing that both Scott (Sinclair) and I hear is that voters don't have a political home. We're here to be able to offer that. I think a three party system would work very well and work in favour of the constituents of this province. MH: We all know you were elected as a UCP MLA. How committed are you to this Progressive Conservative push? What if you encounter pressure from within the existing provincial, federal conservative movement here in Alberta to back off? PG: We're not feeling that. About 10 days or so ago, we were trying to keep this under wraps, and once we started reaching out, it started growing and growing. We went from about half a dozen people within our small group just 10 days ago, to hundreds that have been flooding in since we made this public last Wednesday. There is definitely a market for this. There's no question that there's going to be certain segments of the population, those that support the current premier and separatism, that may not agree, but from our perspective, we're coming here to instill confidence. And we think, by leading with integrity, we can gain the support of all Albertans. MH: Is this a fresh start for the PC party, or do you seek out names, associations from the past that that maybe create a link to the progressive ideology? PG: We're not wanting to reestablish what there was at the end. We're trying to go back to those (Peter) Lougheed days, back to the roots of principled leadership. We're trying to grow that back. We know that there were issues in the past, but we're looking forward. It's a new time, and we're looking ahead. We're looking to the future, and are very excited about it. MH: Is splitting the conservative vote at all a concern? Might any degree of success on your part not open up a potential door for Naheed Nenshi and the NDP? PG: Alberta is the only two-party system in all of Canada. We used to have several parties here. If you look back to 2015, we had the accidental government — the implementation of the NDP. At that time, it had nothing to do with splitting the vote. It had everything to do with corruption and cronyism and entitlement. Conservative governments have won every election for the last 50 years, and that was with multiple parties. I think there's plenty of room here. Just looking at the federal election as an example: the federal Liberals won four consecutive elections for the first time in Canadian history, and they did so with three major parties on the left and only one conservative on the right. I think that a vote split in that case didn't make a difference to the outcome. I think having choice is essential, and Danielle Smith herself, and the risks that she and the UCP are taking with policy, being shrouded in scandal and having the separatist agenda that could really swing voters one way or another, very, very quickly, that's where the PC party can come into play.
Zawya
07-07-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Egypt sees 35% tax revenue growth through facilities: Kouchouk
Arab Finance: Egypt succeeded in advancing fiscal discipline efforts through tax concessions, which led to a growth of nearly 35% in tax revenues without imposing new burdens, announced Minister of Finance Ahmed Kouchouk. During his meeting with finance ministers and central bank governors of BRICS members in Brazil, Kouchouk affirmed that Egypt's economic reforms are a model for enhancing resilience and achieving inclusive and sustainable growth. The minister added that Egypt has key opportunities for cooperation in the fields of agriculture, manufacturing, and health to achieve food and health security for the Global South. Additionally, he stressed the importance of creating innovative financing mechanisms through the new BRICS investment platform to accelerate infrastructure projects. The BRICS countries, along with all parties, need to unite efforts to ensure debt sustainability for emerging countries, noted Kouchouk. He explained that it is also necessary to promote various financing tools, most notably debt swap initiatives for all emerging countries. Finally, the minister called for facilitating developing countries' access to appropriate climate financing, emphasizing the state's commitment to supporting the development of a fairer international tax system through the UN Tax Convention. © 2020-2023 Arab Finance For Information Technology. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Bloomberg
04-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
One Year of Starmer as UK PM: Where Does Labour Stand?
00:00 Some degree of calm has returned, at least for the markets in Britain, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves underlining her commitment to fiscal discipline and reassurances about her position in the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Now the market moves have really underscored the fragility of Britain's economic position as the Labour Party marked one year in power. Let's get more now from Bloomberg opinions. Rosa Prince Good morning, Rose. We've seen the Labour Party promising to make growth its top mission. So really, as we review this first year in office for Starmer, how is the party doing so far? Yeah, not so great. As you say, I think I thought that they could put everything into growth as a way of balancing those books. But it's easier said than done. You can't just press a button and suddenly achieve growth. So there are some measures which have been successful. They've put through some planning reforms and greenlit a lot of infrastructure projects, which I think they hope will achieve growth in the longer term. Shorter term, not so much, particularly that budget that Rachel Rees herself unveiled back in the autumn, which really hit businesses hard and led to a lack of investment, a lack of job creation. And the figures speak for themselves, really. I think we're on course for growth of about an anemic 1%. And what have been the winners this year? Yeah. It's not been all bad. I think if you had asked Keir Starmer at the start of his term whether he thought he'd do better on the domestic front or the foreign well around, I think he would have said domestically. But in fact, it's he's proved rather a and adept world leader. He's handled President Trump in particular better than most other world leaders. Britain has signed three important trade deals India, the European Union, and that trade deal with America and I think has been the only country so far to manage to mitigate some of those tariffs he's been talking about this morning. So that's probably the big policy win from him. And of course, we've got to talk about the chaos this week, Rose. The drama really centering around Starmer's U-turn, forced U-turn on welfare reform. But there've been a series of walk backs recently. Looking ahead, what are the challenges that he's going to face in terms of seeing through his big agenda? I think the major challenge and the thing that everything comes back to really is that this government is so boxed in on it's room for maneuver on the economy. So as we were saying, he had wanted to get some growth going in the British economy and really be able to fund those projects that he cares about, like improving public services. The growth hasn't come. They had hoped then to make the numbers add up by doing some public sector cuts. And as the welfare reform debacle showed this week, that's proved harder than they expected as well. So that really leaves only breaking the borrowing rules, which Rachel Reeves again committed to not doing. She says that she will continue to balance the budget and that borrowing will not rise. Then we've only got tax rises left, which again is the last thing that this Labour government wanted to do. So going forward, they've got a budget coming down the track. Then again, we don't know exactly when, but it'll probably be at the end of October or early November and the difficult choices are coming. And I wonder, Rachel Reeves was finding the pressure really quite tough.
Bloomberg
04-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Reeves Hails Fiscal Rules as Starmer's Backing Calms Markets
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves stressed her commitment to fiscal discipline in her management of the UK's public finances after reassurances about her position from Prime Minister Keir Starmer led jittery markets to rebound on Thursday. A smiling Reeves was speaking a day after a tearful appearance in Parliament stoked a market selloff amid concerns that the chancellor — who enjoys a reputation for economic discipline — might be about to lose her job following a costly government U-turn on welfare reform. She put her crying down to a 'personal issue,' while Starmer said she'd be in post for 'many years.'
