PRESS RELEASE : RATES BILLS

26th September 2007

Dr John Hinchcliff who is contesting the Auckland mayoral election agrees that “skyrocketing” homeowners’ bills for rates and water charges must be curbed.

“We are stewards of a precious and limited public purse,” claims Dr Hinchcliff. Our responsibility is to allocate this resource according to a priority order, putting first the basic needs of people. “Those who are on pensions or who are income poor and asset rich must be protected against the entirely understandable desire of Council to build a better city.”

Hinchcliff respects Mayor Hubbard’s continued quest for a “magnificent city” with “stunning” iconic buildings, as well as coping with the many problems such as leaky buildings, Aotea carpark, Spaghetti Junction, underground tunnels, electrified trains, State Highway 20, AMETI Highway, etc, etc.

Dr John Hinchcliff is as keen to have these necessary repairs and eye-catching and splendid additions. But “they cannot be all at once and they must not impose significant financial hardship, especially on our elderly citizens.”

The findings of the Local Government Rates Inquiry chaired by David Shand that called Councils to show “more restraint with ratepayers’ money” are to be heeded.

The rates rebate scheme of the present Council partially relieved the burden on poorer people during this Council. The unfortunate sales of both airport shares and pensioner housing by the previous Council temporarily disguised the impact of the greater expenditures they incurred.

John Hinchcliff believes more systemic and more creative answers must be found to meet the funding requirements:
• Restrict rates increase to the Council’s audited level of inflation – unless there is direct endorsement by the public.
• Accept intergenerational debt to a responsible debt-equity ratio.
• Promote regional governance to get economies of scale (in conjunction with local governance for local issues).
• Lobby, with all city Councils, for Central Government to return the GST on rates to Council coffers. This tax on a tax is manifestly unfair especially with the wealth of government and the stressed budgets of local Councils. This could mean an immediate saving of 12.5%.
• Accept the Shand Inquiry recommendations that Central Government rather than local government should cover the costs of rates for hospitals, sports and educational institutions. This would yield a significant saving for Councils.
• If more money is needed we should explore the possibility of a minimal increase in GST which would be allocated to the local Councils. This would mean visitors and all who shop in Auckland would contribute and relieve the rates burden on Auckland City homeowners.

Dr Hinchcliff argues that a Council must protect less well-off citizens from stress-inducing taxes. He says, “We must be careful not to believe our destiny is shaped by our ability to construct crystal palaces which will make living in Auckland beyond the reach of the ordinary rate payer.”

ends

© Scoop Media