Cost effectivness out warm, fuzzy in

A Bill amending the Local government Act will takes out the requirement for cost effectiveness and replaces it with warm fuzzines:

new bill to amend the Local Government Act should alarm all New Zealand ratepayers as it would remove the last remaining fiscal restraint on Council spending, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

The relevant proposed law change is as follows:

10 Purpose of local government
(1) The purpose of local government is—
(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.
(b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “The proposed changes replace a clear requirement for councils to be ‘cost effective’ with a vague suggestion that councils promote ‘well-being of communities’.”

“In effect, this change lets councils off the leash. It’s financially terrifying.”

“Local Government New Zealand – the ratepayer-funded lobby for councils – is excited about this change because it gives councils free reign to act without regard for fiscal responsibility. For example, councils could hike salaries without increasing output, or they could spend ratepayer money on ‘cultural’ investment without budget constraints, and no need for any consideration of costs versus benefits.”

“Councils already waste our money as it is. The last thing councils need is more license to pursue wishy-washy whims on the ratepayer’s dollar.”

The current Act requires: Meeting the current and future needs of communities for good local quality infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses.

That’s clear, and concrete and cost-conscious.

Replacing it with  to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future is wishy washy, warm fuzziness with no regard to cost or cost effectiveness.

2 Responses to Cost effectivness out warm, fuzzy in

  1. adamsmith1922 says:

    Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    This change is so wrong. It exemplifies the problems we see daily with this regime.

  2. Why the need to break something that’s not broken?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: