> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Auckland Council’s ‘Emergency Budget’
- URL: https://goodoil.news/auckland-councils-emergency-budget/
- Published: 2020-06-16T01:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2020-06-15T17:34:13.000Z
- Author: Guest Post
- Tags: NZ, NZ Politics, Politics, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 03:00

This is a major, difficult task for Council and for its ratepayers. Unfortunately, the Council has a shaky history: more than 10 years of so-called consultation in which it has used persuasive language to try and achieve its own desired ends. It seems to many including me, that it has basically ignored whatever feedback it received from citizens that was not in line with Council’s intent. Woven into the Council’s language are a goodly number of euphemisms and background static smudging the facts.

In other words, it seems that Council may have been its own worst enemy and now, when it needs sensible and robust, co-operative help, it is unlikely to get much of that because of previous “consultations” and also because of the size and complexity of this exercise.

Perhaps one approach for those who wish to try, is to select some aspects of the problem and respond to those.

That is what I started to do, and then I quickly met the following euphemism: **“Asset Recycling”**. Read that as flogging off the people’s assets at bargain prices to interested pirates. What is selected for the bargain bin is not specified. That makes it easy to avoid any questions or, heaven forbid, protests.

Talking about ‘smudging’ the facts with regard to the Council’s needs, it brings water to our eyes by mentioning the drought and the needs of Watercare in the future. However, the official description carefully avoids mentioning the **fact** that the Council **does not** allocate ratepayers’ money to Watercare!

Watercare’s website states:

***“How we are funded: We do not receive any funding from Auckland Council…All the money we receive from customers…”.*** (ie you and me paying our water charges.) The money Watercare receives goes into operations, treatment plants (water and wastewater) etc.

So why throw Watercare into Council’s need to raise household rates? We are already paying for it separately.

Now for some positive suggestions:

**CCOs**. The Mayor already has an expensive survey of these troublesome, largely separate companies underway. The council could just truncate that and do the following:

Abolish **ATEED** (Basically an events and overseas visitor attractant). Visitors will be far fewer for some time, especially from cruise ships. Leave the matter of visitors to the NZ Government and its overseas arms to deal with. Any remnants needing Council oversight can be brought back in house.

Abolish **Regional Facilities.** Bring them back in house. With a highly reduced list of events and activities, there can be no contemplation of renewals or additions to these now, or for a number of years.

Abolish **Panuku.** (Selling or “improving” publicly owned assets and open space.) We can’t afford “improvements” at this time. Also, like ATEED, it is involved in economic development. Why have two economic development bodies?

The abolition of these bodies would mean that there would not be three separate little “empires” each with its own unelected Board, its own Chief Executive and staff, and that would save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The **Council.**

The Mayor should set an example to his staff by voluntarily taking a meaningful salary reduction for the next 2 years.

Councillors should vote to cut any travel outside Auckland and overseas by 80% for the next 2 years.

The **Government and Council.**

Unfortunately, one of the Council’s major problems is that it is not a local government. It is a huge unitary government, imposed on the people without any referendum. It was forged by two governments started by Labour with a Royal Commission. Labour was superseded by a National/Act government which came up with a quite different proposal although that continued toward the objective which both governments desired: the fantasy of creating a “Super City”.

As long as Parliament continues trying to fulfil that desire, Aucklanders will continue to pay substantially for it.

The most important suggestion I can make is that this Council, its Mayor and its people should pursue strong and continual lobbying of Parliament to ensure much larger amounts of funding from Government coffers to meet Auckland’s infrastructural, environmental and social needs. They should also stop pushing more and more people into this region.

*If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.*