Hats off to the Christchurch City Council.

Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”.

Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”.

And that’s what I think too. I’ve always thought it’s a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it’s never going to work.

The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.

Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.

Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.

Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.

Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.

In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.

Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.

I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.

This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.

No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.

LISTEN ABOVE

Hats off to the Christchurch City Council.
Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”.
Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”.
And that’s what I think too. I’ve always thought it’s a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it’s never going to work.
The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.
Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.
Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.
Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.
Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.
In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.
Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.
I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.
This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.
No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

John MacDonald: Rate caps won't make a difference

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fc2e3137-6c4f-4bf8-bc01-b3d90005f11d/transcript

Phil Goff agrees with the Christchurch City Council's response to a Government proposal of capping rates to no more than 2 to 4 percent per year.

Goff says the Government is not performing in lowering the cost of living, but a rates cap is not the right answer.

The former Mayor of Auckland told John MacDonald the Government sees local councils as an "easy target".

Christchurch City Council has responded to the Government's proposal, saying that while they support a prudent approach to managing rates, the cap as currently designed is “unrealistic and unworkable”.

LISTEN ABOVE

Phil Goff agrees with the Christchurch City Council's response to a Government proposal of capping rates to no more than 2 to 4 percent per year.
Goff says the Government is not performing in lowering the cost of living, but a rates cap is not the right answer.
The former Mayor of Auckland told John MacDonald the Government sees local councils as an "easy target".
Christchurch City Council has responded to the Government's proposal, saying that while they support a prudent approach to managing rates, the cap as currently designed is “unrealistic and unworkable”.
LISTEN ABOVE

Phil Goff: former Mayor of Auckland dismisses rates caps as 'pure politics'

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e5b7cc91-e79c-4c71-8abb-b3d9001086b2/transcript

In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road.

He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough.

What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they’ll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won’t be a NZ Super pension.

That’s what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time.

Because the problem we’re trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable.

By the end of the decade, we’re going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government’s budget will be “rats and mice”.

So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn’t include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme.

But, the way we’re going, nothing’s going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I’m talking about would be meaningful.

It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can’t underestimate the long-term benefits.

I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can’t afford to be all sentimental about it.

We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we’ve been doing things - can’t continue forever.

LISTEN ABOVE

In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road.
He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough.
What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they’ll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won’t be a NZ Super pension.
That’s what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time.
Because the problem we’re trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable.
By the end of the decade, we’re going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government’s budget will be “rats and mice”.
So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn’t include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme.
But, the way we’re going, nothing’s going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I’m talking about would be meaningful.
It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can’t underestimate the long-term benefits.
I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can’t afford to be all sentimental about it.
We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we’ve been doing things - can’t continue forever.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: What the PM should have said about the retirement age

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ad01654f-2744-47cc-a6f4-b3d70183db03/transcript

The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs.

This wouldn’t be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes.  

I think it’s a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us. 

Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying.

Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system. 

The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it. 

And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they’ve got no control.

You know: “They’re all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can’t say no. Because they’ve got no self-control. Haven’t they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah.  

The funny thing is, you don’t hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer.

You don’t hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn’t be on Pharmac’s funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said.

That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn’t get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn’t get medications that might save or extend their life.  

Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It’s way more complicated than just how much food someone eats.

Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn’t we fund weight loss drugs for them?

LISTEN ABOVE

The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs.
This wouldn’t be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes.&nbsp;&nbsp;
I think it’s a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us. 
Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying.
Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system. The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it. And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they’ve got no control. You know: “They’re all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can’t say no. Because they’ve got no self-control. Haven’t they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah.&nbsp; 
The funny thing is, you don’t hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer.
You don’t hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn’t be on Pharmac’s funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said.
That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn’t get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn’t get medications that might save or extend their life.&nbsp; Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It’s way more complicated than just how much food someone eats. Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn’t we fund weight loss drugs for them?
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Pharmac funding weight-loss drugs is a no-brainer

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fcfbf84b-24d2-44f6-9126-b3d7000761d0/transcript

John MacDonald: Rate caps won't make a difference

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips