Opinion: Well-being Bill has ominous implications

Louis Houlbrooke

With little media coverage, Parliament has passed the first reading of the Local Government (Community Well-Being) Amendment Bill.

The bill changes the "purpose" of local government.

Currently, councils are required by law to provide good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

The new bill would replace that with a broader suggestion that councils promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

See what's missing?

It replaces clear direction and a requirement for cost-effectiveness with wishy-washy language that invites councils to endlessly expand their activities. The ratepayer will pick up the tab.

For its supporters, the bill's vague language is not a bug but a feature.

The ratepayer-funded lobby for councils, Local Government New Zealand, say they are "delighted" with the bill.

It's no wonder – mayors' pet projects in any area, at any cost, can now be justified if they can be said to promote social or cultural "well-being". Special interest groups will also rejoice.

They will be able to justify sinking ratepayer money into their cause of the day without regard for value for money, or the need to prioritise basic services and infrastructure.

Even under current legislation, local councils have a tendency to waste ratepayer money on feel-good initiatives unrelated to core services. Hamilton's mayor sought an expensive name change for Hamilton City Council to Kirikiriroa District Council; Wellington has its planned movie museum and $40,000 "rainbow crossing".

Auckland's tourism agency spent half a million dollars just on a new slogan.

The result for ratepayers across the country is rate hikes above the rate of inflation — in some cases, many times so. Having councils invest in "community well-being" is cold comfort when it eats into our heating budgets and mortgage payments.

Currently, the requirement for policies to be cost-effective is the last remaining barrier to councils pursuing blatantly wasteful ideas, such as increasing staff salaries for no extra output.

Dropping this requirement would let councils off the leash entirely.

And we expect councils to display some of the basic restraint that households are forced to exercise every day. We don't expect councils to act like miniature nation-states or wise stewards of our well-being.

Central government taxes us for the fluffy stuff enough as it is. Can we at least keep town halls focused on the basics?

Louis Houlbrooke is communications officer of the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union