Auckland governance ward system

I got a reply back from the Local Government Commission on my submission on the ward and electoral system for Auckland City:

Thank you for your submission. The Commission has completed an initial information gathering phase in its work to assist it prepare draft proposals for consultation. These proposals will be released on 20 November with submissions invited until 11 December. In relation to your email, I should point out that the Commission's tasks are prescribed by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 this includes a requirement that there be a maximum of 20 councillors all elected by wards and that the electoral system will be first past the post.

So all we can make really a submission on is how the wards should be gerrymandered to suit the powers that be, and we are not allowed to speak truth to power.

Submission on the ward representation system for the Auckland Council

Proposal background: The Auckland merged city structure should be governed by city-wide visions and policies. The new Auckland Councillors will, after all, represent the total population of the isthmus, not parochial interests. The way they are elected should reflect this, and electors should be given the chance to vote on policies for the city rather than be distracted by personality politics and contests.

Electoral system for Auckland City: The city should be established as one constituency, not split up into wards. All Auckland electors can vote to elect Councillors from one ballot listing all tickets and candidates.
20 Councillors (but preferably more, say, 50) should be elected from ticket/party lists applying strict proportionality in the voting system: 5% of the valid vote yields one seat. In the case of 50 seats the threshold falls to 2%.
Voters choose one candidate on the ballot (organised in ticket lists of maximum 20 candidates - independents can stand too and be subject to the same threshold).
When votes are counted the total of all candidates on each individual list will be tallied to determine how many seats the list is awarded on the Council: 1 seat per 5%.
All individual candidates who clear the threshold hurdle will be automatically elected. If more than one seat is won by the list, they go to the highest polling candidates on that list.
Note that this does not mean your placement on the list will trump votes received by another candidate on your list - list leaders will thus not automatically be elected when the list clears the threshold.
Independent candidates outside the lists will need to clear the threshold in their own vote to be elected. The "leftover" effect of the lists means that independents are actually encouraged to organise themselves into lists in order to profit from the same effect. This will benefit voters as lists will emphasise policy and vision instead of glamour or single issues.
The system is easy to understand and administer, does not distort vote weight (all votes are equally valid) and lists will have space for a wider variety of candidates than under any other system based on ward representation.
There is also no need for separate reserved seats for Maori or any other group because a low threshold will ensure a possible wide variety and proportionality of representation.
There is even no need for a separate election for mayor. Like in the parliamentary system, the largest faction elected on the Council should have first dibs on forming an Auckland government with its leader as Mayor. This will greatly help integrating the mayoral office with the power structure on the Council.

Auckland Council Bill

Submissions on the Auckland Governance Bill have to be in by this Friday, so get your skates on if you haven't already. How to do this is explained here.
The text of the Bill is here, but you can only comment on the sections, not propose any new or radical ideas (such as abolishing property taxes and rates).

My submission is largely the same as the one I made for the Royal Commission last year:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission as a private citizen.
I have no particular expertise in local government - apart from paying rates - but as a Waiheke Islander, I am concerned that the future governance structure in Auckland will take insufficient stock of the needs and wants of small geographically distinct entities such as Waiheke Island and the other Hauraki Gulf islands.
It's a pity we can't have our County Council back unless we have 10,000 residents (at the last census we barely made it to 8,000) which would be my preference. So for the time being we have to deal with Babylon-Across-The-Sea that is Auckland City.

My submission concerns the future governance structure.

1 Auckland Council

Section 7: The new Auckland Council should become a geographical entity that will be known as Auckland around the world. The current city and district councils should be abolished and their current competences, such as planning, environment, dealing with central Government, transferred upwards to the new Council.
The non-urban areas of Rodney and Franklin should not be included.
The Council should run and own the regional entities responsible for water, sewage, transport, roads, infrastructure, culture and regional well-being.

Section 8: The Auckland Council should have 50 elected members from a proportional region-wide list system (the city as one ward) where your party list gets a seat for every 2% it polls in the election.
The leader of the faction who can form a workable majority on the Council should become leader - in effect a mini version of parliamentary democracy but with stricter proportionality.

Section 9: The leader of the faction who can form a workable majority on the Council should become Mayor - in effect a mini version of parliamentary democracy but with stricter proportionality.
No separate Maori seats are needed under this system as all votes will have equitable weighting under the proportional system.

2 Community Boards

Section 13: All localised issues such as district and local planning should be devolved downwards to the beefed-up community boards who should become responsible for local planning issues and all localised matters (following the subsidiarity principle that policies should be determined and carried out at the lowest possible level) and be properly funded for their allocated tasks.
Community boards should cover natural geographical entities within the region, but do not need to be of the same size or population.
They should be approved by a popular vote after their design.
Their number and boundaries should be determined by local demand.

I do not wish to make my submission in person. Thank you for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

Progressive Bills Project

Now here's something to get your citizen's teeth into so it makes you stop moaning about politics and how little power we have. No Right Turn has set up a NZ Progressive Bills Project where you can draft Member's Bills on whatever topic you deem relevant and is being ignored in conventional party politics.
So put your thinking cap on and start submitting.

I started off with throwing up a few ideas, reprising earlier ideas. At the ideas stage still are:
- Join the EU and euro
- Lower the drinking age to 16
- Increase the driving age to 18

But my first Bill drafted concerns the abolition of advertising restrictions on New Zealand television, bringing the regulations in line with other media, old and new.

Honk if you want to subsidise them

What the No Right Turn man said.
The trucking industry indeed protests too much. They demand that we, taxpayers, subsidise not only their profits but their (often shonky, sole-operator, scandalously long hours, P-fuelled dangerous driving) business model. They only pay just over half their fair share in national roading costs, so the Government should up their charges.
Perhaps 4 July could become National Trucker Day, when all those redneck talkback honkers can celebrate the fact that from that day, for the rest of the year, it will be them only, as taxpayers, that will pay for truckers to use the roads gratis.

Mixing the Members Proportionally

Ever since the New Zealand electoral system was changed from a British (and US)-style First Past the Post (FPP) system to a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) modelled on the post-war German one, the major parties, who have seen their easy majorities lost to a plethora of upstarts in Parliament, would love to turn the clock back to a more majoritarian system away from a proportional one.

Matt McCarten opined on this berating the Business Round Table, a New Zealand free market think tank, for proposing to do away with the separate Maori seats as it causes over-representation of Maori in parliament. Under FPP there was an over-representation of white males in parliament. But this has not really changed with MMP since electorate seats are won under FPP rules. The diversity of parliament comes from its proportional aspect of the electoral system. His argument that right wingers only want to do away with the brown seats forgets to add that a party running in the Maori seats doesn't need a majority vote to win it, only a plurality will suffice, as is the case in all other electorate seats

I am much in favour of MMP, but the proportionality can definitely be improved on:
1. The obvious one is to abolish electorate seats altogether, both general and Maori, and move to a completely proportional system.
2. The threshold then would be 1/120th of the votes cast for a party list. Since there would be no electorates there would be no one-man-band parties with limited geographical appeal. Small parties would still exist if they can appeal to 120th of the total electorate, which in my opinion is preferable to appealing to the largest minority in a current electorate (since FPP still applies there under MMP)
3. Maori (and pakeha) would be able to choose between more than one Maori party instead of having to rely on the current "Maori Party" pretending to speak for all Maori. The current situation in Maori seats is like the National Party pretending to speak for all New Zealanders in non-Maori seats! I can understand the Maori party prefers the in-effect FPP structure of the Maori seats: it doesn't need an absolute majority to win them, a relative majority will do.
4. The two vote system can be simplified to one list vote, with a published ranking of candidates. You either vote for the total list accepting the party ranking, or you vote for a candidate on the list to push his/her placing higher (those votes would be counted to re-order the seat outcome for list members). There could be more Maori MPs under that system than there are now, so nobody should be fearful of losing the "guaranteed" Maori representation. Even pakeha could vote for a Maori party!
5. This list-only proportional system would move away from personality politics and focus the minds far more on actual policy and with possible coalition agreements, workable and pragmatic majorities that are far more reflective of the electoral will.

There is also discussion on this issue (and possible future referendums) on Public Address.

Auckland governance

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is busily updating its website adding all submissions it has received. Apparently there will be some 3,000 entries including over 1,200 from Waiheke Island alone! We are a very politicised island.
I am, of course, pleased to see my submission has been added too.
And Herald columnist Brian Rudman in most parts seems to have same ideas. So all good if that advice were followed in the Commission's final report.

Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance

I have outlined it before but I have now sent it off to the Royal Commission. You can too here.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission as a private citizen.
I have no particular expertise in local government - apart from paying rates - but as a Waiheke Islander, I am concerned that the future governance structure in Auckland will take insufficient stock of the needs and wants of small geographically distinct entities such as Waiheke Island and the other Hauraki Gulf islands.
It's a pity we can't have our County Council back unless we have 10,000 residents (at the last census we barely made it to 8,000) which would be my preference. So for the time being we have to deal with Babylon-Across-The-Sea that is Auckland City.

My submission consists of two parts. One concerns the future governance structure, and two, an argument to replace the funding mechanism of local government with something resembling a more equitable burden sharing among the citizenry.

1. Auckland governance:
The Auckland Regional Council should become a geographical entity that will be known as Auckland around the world. The current city and district councils should be abolished and their current competences, such as planning, environment, dealing with central Government, transferred upwards to the new ARC. The regional council would also run and own the regional entities responsible for water, sewage, transport, roads, infrastructure and culture.
All localised issues such as district and local planning should be devolved downwards to the beefed-up community boards who should become responsible for local planning issues and all localised matters (following the subsidiarity principle that policies should be determined and carried out at the lowest possible level).
The ARC should have 50 elected members from a proportional region-wide list system where your party list gets a seat for every 2% it polls in the election. The leader of the faction which can form a workable majority on the Council should become leader - in effect a mini version of parliamentary democracy but with stricter proportionality.
Community boards should cover natural geographical entities within the region, but do not need to be of the same size or population. They should be approved by a popular vote after their design.

2. Local government finances:
Rates and other property taxes should be abolished. The new community boards and ARC should be financed from a portion of the income and business taxes paid to the national Government: say, 2 percent of your gross tax should be transferred to the local board where the taxpayer resides, plus, say 1 percent of locally generated GST should be refunded to the boards and council - rather than setting up a local sales tax.
This would spread the tax base of local authorities far wider and more equitably than the current system, and those percentages should be set locally with Government setting the ceiling.
These new transfers would offset any current central Government subsidies for local governments and are easy to administer and transparent for payers and receivers.
In essence, local government funding would be done completely from the national tax take instead of local authorities constantly pushing up local rates (which also push inflation), cut out a massive layer of bureaucracy and local authorities would be forced to live more frugally and work smarter with far more control, input and oversight of local citizens.

Yours sincerely.

Local potentates on last legs?

Local government issues and governance are a bit of bore in most people's minds but I do take a more than passing interest because it affects my pocket book as a ratepayer and taxpayer, and I find power structures, democratic developments and self-governance issues (let alone my obsession with small states) interesting.
If you are not in New Zealand you probably think that Auckland is this big town with city aspirations, but in reality it's a collection of local fiefdoms (4 city councils and two district councils, towered over by a regional council, and supported by a gaggle of local community boards - including the Waiheke Island one).
The Government now has set up a Royal Commission to look at future governance structures for the whole region and residents, boards and City councils can make submissions.
One of our local board members, Nobilangelo Ceramalus, whom I voted for on the strength of his name alone (call me shallow, but call me), has launched a one-man campaign to try to convince islanders to switch local government from Auckland City to the Thames-Coromandel District Council, a peninsula about 20km east of Waiheke, and populated by an assortment of (summertime) rich listers, hippies and bushmen. He claims Waihekeans have far more in common with those folk than with the urbanites across the water to the west. The Waiheke Gulf News reports:

He believes that as a community we have more in common with Thames-Coromandel and would be better served by it than the current regime. “Islands are places apart, islanders are people apart,” he says.
“They march to the beat of very different drums. Mainlanders, especially the city sort, are what they are. But when they dominate our lives the result is 'ouch!' Such as in the infamous proposed Hauraki Gulf' District Plan being rammed down our throats.
“They might, for a time, shower money on us, but we pay a high price for it. We lose our independence. And when the city is heading for a mega-city, and thinks it can be 'a world-class city', the tune is one that no one sane would call music.”

The rest of the community board members, and both the current and former Gulf Councillor have all poured cold water on the idea, criticising the timing, his lack of consultation with colleagues and the suspicion, backed up by some facts, that the Coromandel hippies need Waiheke money more than vice versa.
All fun and games at future board meetings, no doubt, but it's good to hear ideas out of leftfield because the whole governance issue is a live debate for islanders fed up with lack of control, being sucked dry by city bureaucrats and never have any say on what goes on or what should be done on the island.
It's a pity we can't have our County Council back unless we have 10,000 residents (at the last census we barely made it to 8,000) so for the time being we have to deal with Babylon-Across-The-Sea that is Auckland City Council. So I will make a submission to the Royal Commission along these lines:
- The Auckland Regional Council should become a geographical entity that will be known as Auckland around the world. The current city and district councils should be abolished and their competences transferred upwards to the new ARC (regional planning, dealing with Government and overseas) or regional entities responsible for water, sewage, infrastructure and culture - or devolved downwards to the beefed up community boards who should become responsible for local planning issues and all localised matters.
- Local government finances: rates and other property taxes should be abolished. The community boards and the ARC should be financed from a portion of the income and business taxes paid to the national Government: say, 2 percent of your gross tax should be transferred to the local board where the taxpayer resides, plus, say 1 percent of locally generated GST should be refunded to the boards and council - rather than setting up a local sales tax. This would spread the tax base of local authorities far wider and more equitably than the current system, and those percentages should be set locally with Government setting the ceiling. These new transfers would offset any current central Government subsidies for local governments and are easy to administer and transparent for payers and receivers. In essence, local government funding would be done completely from the national tax take instead of local authorities constantly pushing up local rates (which also push inflation), cut out a massive layer of bureaucracy and local authorities would be forced to live more frugally and work smarter with far more control, input and oversight of local citizens.

UPDATE: Waiheke Island now has its own site to make, collate and discuss submissions to the Royal Commission.

Bali Hai

I'm doing my bit to reduce my carbon footprint by consuming huge amounts of locally made Waiheke Island wine at various Christmas parties around town these days, so blog writing has been taking a backseat for the time being.
Something topical regards climate change caught my eye the other day on DW TV when a reporter travelled to Siberia to look at methane emissions as the permafrost melts. The hardy and lonely Russian climate researcher in Siberia said methane emissions were five times larger than previously estimated, and methane is a greenhouse gas that is far more efficient in greenhousing than carbon-dioxide. That release may dwarf carbon-dioxide emissions we are all fretting about and is creating a feedback loop that emission caps, carbon taxes or trading would not stop. The Siberian tundra is busy collapsing into a huge amount of tiny lakes and broken hillsides due to the methane release - lighting the methane gas bubbles coming up from under the ice looked spectacular and singed more than the reporter's eyebrows. The whole area would become even more inaccessible as it is now. That might not be a big deal unless you want to go there but it just showed to me that that there is no way out of climate change no matter what Bali negotiators, carbon traders and technology buffs come up with.
Will this mean in the future all fresh air will have a tinge of rotten egg smell to it? Will sea levels rise by 15 metres so we will have our own boat jetty at the bottom of our driveway? Is there any way to be optimistic in the climate issue?

Public transport wonking

Maxx has a public forum where one can rant and rave about the diabolical public transport system in Auckland. Here are my recent contributions:

- on the free City Circuit bus: When looking at the huge crowds waiting every morning for the free City Circuit bus that takes them to their places of learning, it struck me that many of the students would benefit health-wise by trekking up the hills to University or AUT by actually walking instead of taking the free bus. I mean, they sit in lectures all day long and the exercise would do wonders to fight their obesity risk.
Then we could use the annual subsidy now spent on it to lower fares across Auckland.

- On integrated ticketing: When integrated ticketing comes in, it must ensure that fares are linked to distance traveled, regardless of transport mode. I.e. taking the bus or train from Britomart to Manukau should attract the same fare. The same should be the case for taking a bus to Howick and the ferry to Waiheke, since it's the same distance traveled. This is the case in Germany.

- On Pacific Blue $39 fares to fly to Auckland to Wellington: I have long suspected that flying to Wellington from Auckland will soon be cheaper than going to Waiheke by ferry. And although I'm cheerful that this is happening faster than I expected, it doesn't bode well for the future tourism prospects for the island. It just shows how a bit of free market competition benefits customers, while monopolies gouge us to the max.

Some good news

Green MP Sue Bradford has launched a Bill to lower the voting age to 16.
This is good news because, as we have discussed before, it is a step towards aligning adult responsibilities with adult rights. It doesn't make sense that you can have sex and marry, work and pay taxes, drive and commit crimes - all adult rights - but you can't vote on how those taxes are spent (or watch a porn movie).
The period of childhood, as defined by society, is far too long and needs to be shortened to line up with biological, social and economic realities. There is a good summary, albeit for the US, which has an even larger infantilization period of its young people, here.

Are you glad to be back home again?

Being on holiday for a longer period meant not having to keep up with the usual parochial issues that crop up almost daily in New Zealand. Mind you, being abroad meant being subjected to their parochial issues, such as a missing British 3 year old from a Portuguese resort. But hey, glad to be home again anyway.
So what have we missed? The abolition of the parental right to legally beat their children, the Budget and KiwiSaver. Oh, and the flap over boy racers and their proposed remedy: compulsory third party insurance.
Believe it or not but this kind of insurance, which covers you when you do damage to other vehicles, is not compulsory in New Zealand. This, alongside the importation of cheap second hand cars from Japan, is the reason why New Zealand is a car-mad culture: you basically can drive with impunity and it panders to those that prefer to be risk-takers - with your own life and that of others. I have long thought this sort of insurance cover is pretty essential in a car-driving culture. And thinking about it a bit more:
- it's a green policy: it would remove a substantial number of cars off the road, reducing carbon emissions, creating greater demand for public transport from the young and the poor. You wouldn't need a regional fuel tax to achieve the same result.
- it's sound financial policy: having your car wiped out by an uninsured driver is of no use to anybody.
- it's a preventative health policy: those young people will be spared a life of obesity when they get too young behind the wheel. Teenagers will look much better toned and firmed when they use bicycles as transport. They can never look fit enough, in my book.

Stating the bleeding obvious

There was loud wailing in the corridors of power this week and much gnashing of teeth over a UNICEF report [PDF] that places New Zealand (and a few other Anglo-saxon countries) near the bottom of the list of child welfare in developed countries.
But when the newspaper headline on the same day said this:

Teen driver defied parents and took car with no warrant
A 15-year-old learner driver who ploughed into a group of children had been given strict instructions by his parents not to drive his new car because it had failed a warrant of fitness.
But the teen defied his parents after deciding he wanted to go and buy fish and chips down the road.
His decision to get into the unwarranted car on Thursday, despite being on a learner licence, has left a 3-year-old girl fighting for her life and four others nursing a range of injuries.

you can't miss the bloody obvious: children in New Zealand get killed in accidents in large numbers because they are allowed to drive cars from age 15 and are not safe on the roads due to lack of separate foot and cycle paths and a viable public transport system. Not rocket science.

Wowser alert

Keep it 18 and move it to 16. It's such an old issue.

Policy wonking

There are another 30 months to go before the next election in New Zealand (barring coalition collapses) so poll data may not be all that relevant in people's minds - one tends to concentrate on matters political when an election approaches: see the fevered frenzy in the NZ blogosphere before last September and the boring backbiting doldrums afterwards.
There is a bill before parliament to reduce the number of MPs to 100, from the current 120, but preserving the Maori seats and the number of electorate seats. The cut would come in the list seats. This is, of course, a salami tactic to get rid of the proportionality as much as possible - the Bill is from a conservative member who longs back to the days that rural New Zealand held sway in elections and could bugger any minority it didn't like.
I have long been a proponent of moving completely the other way and getting rid of both the Maori seats and the general electorate seats, and creating a 120 list MP parliament (with a 1/120 vote threshold) where you vote for a party based on its policies rather than personalities who happen to reside in your electorate.
So how would a NZ parliament look like based on the current poll numbers?

National 47% - 56 seats
Labour 38% - 46 seats
Green 5% - 6 seats
NZ First 4% - 5 seats
Maori 3% - 4 seats
United Future 1.4% - 2 seats
Act 1.1% - 1 seat

A National/Maori/ACT coalition would be a possible Government, or even National/NZF. But the main difference with the current system would be:
- more Maori MPs in parliament because it will make other parties worth their while to target all groups in society because of their equal weight in the total electoral scheme, i.e. National may find it worthwhile fielding Maori candidates on its list in electable positions and get rid of the current dead wood in the Deep North, where Tory MPs have been holding sway for generations since their main opposition is siphoning off to the Maori roll and the opposition vote split between Maori and general electorates.
- an emphasis on party policy proposals rather than (party leader) personality politics: Act and UF should stand or fall on their national appeal rather than the whims of a local electorate that see their member as bringing home the pork and distorting the proportionality of parliament (and have undue influence on Government formation)

When you face life in prison without parole

Shouldn't a more honourable way out offered in contrast to a life in a 3.5 x 2 metre cell? I mean, what difference is there with being on permanent but terminal life support? No visits, no mail, no phone, no sunshine. As a prisoner, like Massaoui, faced with that wouldn't you appreciate options?
I would offer anyone who was convicted to that kind of sentence an arsenic pill or one bullet gun so for the last time in their life they can make an informed choice. No pressure, no false hopes, just certainty whatever you choose. I think that would be quite humane: allow the falsely imprisoned to continue their fight, and the guilty to end their life with whatever honour they think they have left.

More policy wonking

Over at No Right Turn a progressive think tank has been set up, soliciting suggestions and ideas for new legislation that can be framed in a Private Member's Bill in Parliament. Go on, get yours in.
I submitted:
1. Amend MMP to 125 list seats only (no separate Maori seats)
2. Abolish local government above community board level, transfer competencies to national ministries (roading to Transit NZ, public transport to Transport, parks and reserves to DOC, water/sewage to Environment, planning to community boards, etc) - replace rates with local income tax/GST transfer from central Govt to local board - see my previous policy wonking on that subject.
3. Join the EU and euro: joining the euro would mean lower interest rates and a hedge against the US$ fall when commodity trading switches to Euros; EU membership would mean we can have a say in their development rather than being on the receiving end of it all the time, plus free access to all markets for labour, goods and capital. NZ has an associate membership invitation since 1973 when the UK joined but it was never taken up.
4. Lower the drinking age to 16 (with access to safe and supervised drinking areas such as pubs and youth clubs): most of Europe has this, if you're old enough to have sex you should be able to have a beer too.
5. Increase the driving age to 18: it would do wonders to adolescent obesity rates if they went on a bike rather than by car to school. It would solve Auckland's traffic problem (there is no gridlock in school holidays) and boost patronage for public transport. Again, most of Europe has this.
6. Compulsory third party driving insurance: a no-brainer and would elevate driving to a privilege rather than a right. The free market (insurance companies) would price bad drivers off the road
7. 10 yearly re-sitting of driving tests: again, driving rules change, motorways get built, eyesight deteriorates, brains fail. Why does your car need a WOF but you don't? (While we're at it, we could follow Singapore and ban all cars older than 10 years to ensure better technology, fuel consumption and less emission)
(4 to 7 should be in one bill ideally)
8. Lower the voting age to 16: if you work and have pay tax, you should have a say over how that tax is spent
9. Reform the lifestyle drug laws so there is appropriate and safe access to all of them: the main aim is to cut the criminal gangs' extreme profits and to be able to sue your dealer under the Consumer Guarantees Act if he sells you dodgy gear. Black markets should be brought into the bright sunlight of a modern, regulated economy.

Policy wonking

There is some furore on our island after the City Council, which rules over us, issued new valuations on island properties. Quite a few were saddled with increases way beyond their perceived value. (Disclosure: ours was not) On average the island property valuation over the last three years has gone up by about 97%, compared to about 42% in the whole of the city council area.
At the last local election, our member on the City Council ran on a claim that independence would be too expensive, that the City "gave" us islanders a lot of subsidies, and that rates would have to go up under an (independent, de-amalgamated) Island council. All baloney of course, as it transpired, with us islanders paying far more in rates to the city than we get back from it and in effect subsidising city dwellers' lifestyles and public transport. And rates will no doubt go up, independence or not. (The Council has yet to strike a rate for this year)
So it was time to put my thinking cap on and write to the local island newspaper about the issues:

Dear Mr Editor,

Since the debates regarding the new property valuations do not show any sign of abating – and one would be justified to dread the coming uproar when the council finally strikes a rate that will make the valuation and current increases look like very small change – I think it a good idea to look at alternatives to property taxes, because they are generally perceived to be inequitable, inefficient and unfair to large groups of residents.
It should concern all of us that many of us islanders perceive the local council as a money-grabbing entity which milks us to finance the lifestyle of city dwellers, resulting in a probable fundamental change of the island population’s sociological composition as the less-wealthy and those on fixed incomes are being rated off the island.
If that is council policy we should at least be told so at the next election so we can make an informed choice as to whether we want to continue to be part of that, or finally decide that we are a viable and vibrant enough community to go it alone and with a welcome mat for all.
So here are A few short Proposals to change the rating system for local government financing.

1. Base the rate on the property’s real value
Since the Council’s property valuation for rating purposes is at best guess work and at worst wishful thinking, the only real world-based value of a property is the last price it sold at (or was built for, or improved with after purchase). All the rest is conjecture and real estate agent hype. So the base of the rating should be the last sale price and remain so until it gets sold again. Inflation could top it up but I see no good reason why that should be so: a house needs maintenance and gets improvements over the years which would be added to the original price and this would increase the ratings value sufficiently by itself. GST, of course, should be abolished on rates since you pay that already when you build your house.
Instead it should be added to house sales, as it is with all other sale goods and services. It would enable central Government to make simple population and needs based remittances to local councils of locally generated GST portions.

2. Base the rate on the property owner’s real stake in the property
If the rating system is based on taxing people’s property wealth, it should at least be based on their real stake in their property. Many properties are not wholly owned by their owners but have a mortgage attached to them. So the owner should only pay rates on the percentage that is freehold, the rest should be charged to the other owner, i.e. the bank or mortgage company. They may in turn have to charge the mortgage holder higher interest rates, but that is in essence no different from including the rate costs in the rent charged by a landlord to his tenants. All landlords should pay normal business taxes, capital gains tax upon sale and GST on rental incomes. GST remittances to local authorities also should take place as under point 1.
The main drawback would be for people owning their property freehold having to pay more than those on 100% mortgages. But then currently there is no link between income and rates, with cash-poor pensioners in expensive homes paying far more than they should anyway.

3. Change the rating system to a local income tax remittance
Abolish the feudal relic of property tax and shift the financing of local services to income generated in the local area. Businesses, landlords and property owners pay normal income tax and GST and Government should allocate a percentage of that tax take to the local area, i.e. 2% of income tax and 1% of GST generated locally, to finance local government activities. Administratively, this is a straightforward procedure. General election campaigns could then focus on this aspect of our lives too rather than leave it to the almost irrelevant and pathetic local election campaigns. This would strengthen two current weak points: fiscal responsibility of local government, and the link between local wealth creation and local spending.
The fiscal responsibility of local government would be jolted as it would need to live within its means replacing current continuous over the top rate increases. Central Government is far more sensitive to public opinion on income tax than local government is on rates (when was the last time any council decreased rates?).

4. Abolish local government and expand local island control over planning
In order to limit spending it will also have to look at what services Central Government has been devolving compulsorily to local government, but which are currently un-budgeted by Government - because they are shifted out of its ambit - and left up to Councils to gouge local ratepayers to fund them. Why do we have local road financing and why isn’t all roading taken care of by Transit New Zealand instead? Why aren’t all libraries branches of the National Library and funded from its national budget? Why aren’t all parks and reserves part of the Department of Conservation? Why aren’t all drains and sewage services built, maintained and run nationally as part of a Department of the Environment? Why isn’t public and private transport a national priority and policy?
Localising all these services is wasteful and inefficient since they require enormous local bureaucracies on different and often conflicting levels, who are not always up to the job, especially when they need to tax a small-ish base.
For Waiheke Island, the community board should get control over local planning and other activities should be handled by central government. The local board should deal direct with Government on tax remittances for the financing of its activities. All this can be done with full transparency and accountability and with sufficient local input into all its plans and proposals.
A 10,000 population base is large enough to warrant this degree of independence.

Yours sincerely,
Grumpy of Surfdale

North Shore Busway includes free parking

Last Sunday the new busway opened from the North Shore to Auckland City. Included are 700 FREE car parks for public transport commuters. No doubt the car parks are surrounded by hi-tech surveillance so any theft or damage to cars will be recorded and, hopefully, prevented. It's the only way people will leave their cars all day parked, secure in the knowledge they will be able to use them at the end of the day. This principle of secure parking is also prevalent in all car parking in town, even if you have to pay for it.
Compare this to the situation at Matiatia: what do you actually get for your $6 a day? Will the Council, as landlord, be held responsible for any damage to, petrol siphoning from or theft of your car? If not, why not? Does the $6 not go to insurance against damage claims? Why are North Shore commuters more deserving than Waiheke ones in this respect? Is it because they have us by the short-and-curlies by forcing us to park there as we have no alternative in driving into town like the Shorians have?

My issue isn't so much with parking that has to be paid for by the users or by the whole community (in case free parking is offered) but one of fairness:
1. The half of the Matiatia car park, which used to be free, has always been in Council ownership. So the new charges are actually used to finance the purchase of a block of land that is only partly used (and was already charged for) as carparking.
2. The reason why free parking is offered on the mainland is because people will add the price of parking there to actually driving to town and not having the bother of worrying about safety or bus and train timetables. Since islanders are a captive audience, and perceived as rich, they are expected to pay whatever monopoly price is charged by either the council for parking, Fullers for the ferry service and the ARC for usage of the wharves.

I'm all for bribing people out of their cars and into public transport by subsidies and freebies, to lessen the road congestion. But they should be evenly and equitably spread out.
At the moment Auckland expects Waiheke Islanders to pay for everything: no subsidies for our ferry service; market price for ferry car parking; a wharf tax that covers the cost of maintaining the whole wharf system on the Waitemata and payment of ARC rates that subsidises Auckland public transport we have only marginal access to (BTW why is it that a Link bus trip costs one third of the fare charged by the Waiheke Bus Company for the same distance travelled?).
So, in all, I think you mainlanders get a great deal out of us, so please give us a break.
Here's a deal: we let you pay the wharf charges in return for the island free ownership of the Matiatia land. A win-win situation for everybody!