John MacDonald: Here's how you can tell council elections are looming

Let me give a shout out to Christchurch City Councillor Melanie Coker, who has told her council colleagues that what they are doing by not paying-off debt to keep the rates rise this year lower and then stinging us with an even bigger increase next year, is misleading.  

That’s how she’s describing this smoke and mirrors way councillors are trimming-back this year’s rates increase with one thing in mind - getting votes. 

She says the council is showing “poor leadership, poor financial management and is misleading the public”. And she’s bang on.   

They’re being short-sighted. Reckless. And if any of the ones who voted for this try to tell you over the next few months that you should vote for them because they’ve done everything they can to keep rates and down and they’ll do everything they can to keep them down again if you vote for them, call them out on these shenanigans. Because that’s what it is.  

Which is being generous. Councillor Coker puts it better, when she says it’s misleading. In fact, that’s being generous too, because what it really is, is a sham.     

I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers because that’s not what this is primarily about.   

When it comes down to it, this is about councillors trying to protect their backsides and get re-elected when the local body elections happen later in the year.  

But we need a few numbers  for context.   

So the council was proposing a 9.93% increase. It was going to put that out for public consultation yesterday.  

But, at the last minute, councillor Sam Macdonald cooked up this idea that they could pay-off less debt and get the increase down to 7.5%.  

And what do you think happened? Enough of them around that council table thought “ooh, that’s a good idea. That’s a much easier sell when I’m out trying to get re-elected later in the year.”  

So when it went to the vote, that’s what they decided.  

It was close, though. Nine voted in favour of it —including mayor Phil Mauger— and eight were against it.

Which is going to mean several things. The increase this year will be lower but, at this point it looks like next year’s increase will be over 10 percent%.  

What’s more, it’s going to contribute to the council’s books being in worse shape than they were going to be by $12 million.  

Before yesterday, the budget was going to be unbalanced by $48 million. This smoke and mirrors stuff is part of the reason why the council’s books will be unbalanced by $60 million.  

Going by the report I’ve read, councillor Kelly Barber takes the cake - saying this yesterday: "At the moment, our ratepayers are suffering. Next year is another year. Let’s deal with the problem of next year, next year.”   

In that one statement, councillor Barber demonstrated perfectly the problem with politicians in this country. Central government. Local government. They’re all the same. All they care about is the next election.  

And by saying “let’s deal with the problem of next year, next year”, Kelly Barber has shown us that all he cares about is getting another three years around the council table.  

And when it comes to dealing with “next year, next year” and that rates increase is looking like being more than 10 percent, and the council’s books are even more out of whack, it won’t matter, because the election will be history. 

Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter’s another one.  

She says reducing rates artificially instead of paying off debt makes her uncomfortable, but "this is a good year to be easing financial pressure on people”. And she’s hopeful the economy will improve next year.  

But is that really the approach to take when you’re overseeing a $1.5 billion annual budget? Hoping things will get better.  

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Time Regular catch up with christ Church mayor Film Major
Morning Film Morning Mate. Can you tell me how it
is good governance to artificially reduce a rates increase one
year and effect will be kicking into touch to the
next year at the same time increase your debt levels
and that's supposed to be good financial management.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
It is good. We had we went through the annual
plan yesterday and we've come up with some really good ideas.
Because everyone's in the financial grind at the moment. We've
got to look after people. And just because next year
was floated at ten point two or three or whatever
it was, that's not a target. Just because it's written there,
it doesn't mean to say it's going to happen. We've

(00:54):
got to work hard to get that down. So that's
next year's problem, not this year.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Is it council's job to look after people or is
it council's job to look after in the best way
possible one point four one point five billion dollar and
your budget.

Speaker 3 (01:10):
That's right and that's what we're doing. Yes, But you.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Talked about looking after people and the other councilors yesterday
who talked about that same people are struggling at the moment,
and yes, people are struggling, but people were struggling last
year and chances are they'll be struggling next year.

Speaker 3 (01:22):
That's right, but we've got to make it as easy
as we can. Now see our rates increase is five
point eight percent plus the stadium, right, which takes it
up to the seven and a half. Right, thirty five
thousand people in christ Church said we would like to
have a bigger stadium, and that's good and they're more
than happy in the spring that people got on their
step which they'll see from the stadium and it's going

(01:42):
to be good for christ Church. So our base is
five point eight percent, which I'm very pleased.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
With nothing to do with the election as far as
you because you've voted in favor of this, and nothing
to do with getting re elected.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
Not at all. No, No, we've got to do what's
good for the people that a city as well, but
what's good for the rate pace as best we can.
And as I say, next year, just because it's come
out at ten point whatever percent it is, that's not target.
It'll be less in that that we'll be working on
having a lesson that.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Well, you said the same thing. I know we're gonna
be careful how I'm talking to you, was the mayor. Yes,
But I just want to mention something that we discussed
when you were campaigning to be met last time. You
talked about going in there and line by line and
you were going to cut costs and you do all this,
and you're going to keep rates to below the rate
of inflation, and none of that happens. So why should

(02:30):
people believe you as mere now that next year is
going to turn out the way that you are saying, we.

Speaker 3 (02:37):
Still will be going down the budget line by line.
We have to have more input from staff on the
options to go. It's no use saying, oh, we're going
to do this, do that. Staff have to come to
us and say this is something that you can chop.
Let's have a look at it. And that's that. They
are the lines that will be going down. Take one example,
yesterday we voted on stop Well we're going to have
a workshop on it, but stopping spending on speed humps

(03:00):
and raised intersection not a lot of people like them.
So what Counsel McDonald put it, up that we were
going to stop spending on those, and that's what we're
looking at doing. And that is one of the lines
that we're looking at.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
And Aaron Curon might have heard him earlier. One of
his eyes. Some of his ideas are like not replacing
carpet in council facilities. Is that the sort of stuff
that would get your your tick.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
What we've got to be careful of is just because
it comes up and says, oh, this is due for replacement,
we'll say carpet, Say carpet in this room, just because
it's due for replacement. If it isn't worn out, let
it run for another few years and get a bit
more time out of it. We don't have to spend
it just because of the computer. Siees Yes.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
So what do you say to Melanie Coca, your council colleague,
who says that the council's being misleading with what it's done.

Speaker 3 (03:44):
No, I don't. I don't agree with that at all, because.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
We've seen through it. What's your your water charges? On
the program we discussed yesterday, this whole idea of instead
of it being included in your rates, you pay a
bill based on how much water you use. What's your
position on that side?

Speaker 3 (04:00):
Well, what you're talking about volumetric charter?

Speaker 2 (04:02):
You yet right, what we've got, We've got a.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
Paper coming back to council next week which we decide
one of three things. Were you keep it in house
which means as quota as pro rater of what it
does now, or we go a c CO for three
waters or a CECO for two waters. If you choose
the CCO option, you have to have volumetric charging by
a certain date.

Speaker 2 (04:24):
Okay, I just want to bring up that's getting very
council speak and I'm always aware of that's what's your position?
What's your philosophical position when it comes to people paying
for water? Should it be done a rate based on
part of your rates based on your property, or should
you be charged based on how much you use?

Speaker 3 (04:43):
I look at Upper Nelson, where like you have to
have a place to go to every drop from the
first drop your charge volumetrically. There's a lot of places
around New Zealand that are like that. One day we
may well be like that, and if it is, that's
what it is, because if you use ten drops, you
pay ten.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
It's a great political response, but philosophically, you personally, where
do you stand?

Speaker 3 (05:07):
Of course I wanted us to. We lifted it from
seven hundred liters a day free to nine hundred liters
a day. You talk to people in Wellington and Auckland,
they go, holy hell, we dream about being able to
use water like that. If we go to volumetric one day,
it will make one hell of a lot of difference
and save a lot of water.

Speaker 2 (05:27):
So you're in favor of it in the long run.
All right, okay, but if we use the.

Speaker 3 (05:32):
In house model, we don't have to do volumetric immediately.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
The things too, is there is the water meters, not
a lot of or not all properties have water meters,
so that's going to be a big issue.

Speaker 3 (05:46):
You cannot go to volumetric unless everyone's got everyone's got
to be on the same song sheet. You can't charge
one and not the other. Everyone has to have a meeting.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
So long, it's long. It's a long way way, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
She had load of work to get to that point.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
That was that what the fifteen million dollars cost covers,
is it?

Speaker 3 (06:01):
No, that's that's for doing all sorts of other things
with water and stuff. Now, contrary to popular belief. The
city's water is not in the basket case that some
people might have you think it is. We're actually doing
a lot of a lot of good stuff. We're continually
replacing water mains and doing leak detection. So it's not
as bad as what some might have you believed.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Not as bad as other places, is what you're saying.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
Oh yeah, no, and as in I went up to
a place and about the middle of New Zealand the
other day and had to look at their wastewater treatment
plant and they've they've got they've got some issues here.
They really have, all right.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
Someone was his answer that would someone like the hospital
pay if it was based on volumetric Someone raised, yes,
it's a very good point. They used a truckload of water.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, you've got to remember it also, hospitals don't pay
rates because it's a government thing. All those hospital and
government stuff, we don't get money.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
You know. When the fire happened, the second one, the
last one, yep, I remember saying. It was the day
after it started. I said to you that the response
was like night and day compared to the first one.
I said that that's borne out in this report. You
must be pleased, Oh.

Speaker 3 (07:08):
Very pleased. I was sitting on the council wedding and
Mary leaned over to me and said, the four hills
are on the fire and holy that word. And we
went round to the operations center around the corner, and
on the way round I was talking to Sam Broughton
from Selwyn and said, we've got to do something. My
view is do a state of emergency early. Let the

(07:29):
people who know what they're doing do it. You better
have to be told off a little for a short
time and say I went early it wasn't necessary. Then
be told off for the rest of your life. Say
you went late and never bloody did it?

Speaker 2 (07:40):
Yeah? Yeah, okay, so you pleased with.

Speaker 3 (07:41):
The absolutely And I'm unveiling four new cameras up on
the porthills tomorrow for we got four up there already,
but four more which do smoke, temperature, wind direction, humidity,
all that sort of stuff, so you can see it
happening on the minute that happens. So there's senses absolutely
all solar power. They've got eight cameras on each one
and the real state of the art.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
All right, a listen to this, or say who's paying
for it? One in christ Church, or who's paying for.

Speaker 3 (08:07):
It now, we're with the cameras. You know, we're paying
it out of the last of the better off money
that we got from the government a few years ago.
So it's not it's not going on rais.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
There we go, all right, so when you get that
ten percent increase next year, but these senses are not
part of that. Thank you, Phil.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.