February 22, 2021
The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance is questioning the lack of community consultation by Auckland Transport in relation to the 13 traffic cameras set to be installed on Onewa Road. Alliance spokesperson, Monique Poirier, says:
“It is unacceptable that the Kaipātiki Local Board were not aware of the installation of these traffic cameras. They weren’t even privy to a presentation or workshop on the project.”
“What is the point of local representation if they are just as oblivious to planned activity in the area as the community? Ratepayers are paying millions of dollars every year to fund local boards and it is bureaucratic arrogance for Auckland Transport to turn around and say that there is no legal requirement for them to do any consultation.”
“There is an obligation for Auckland Transport to consult with local boards on transport matters that will directly affect the community. There are clearly a number of concerns that have been raised by locals, such as the possibility of being pinged for driving in and out of their driveways. These concerns could have been addressed and alleviated earlier if the local board had not been kept in the dark.”
“It is not acceptable for residents to just simply receive a letter in their letterbox with the local board being none the wiser."
“It is unacceptable that the Kaipātiki Local Board were not aware of the installation of these traffic cameras. They weren’t even privy to a presentation or workshop on the project.”
“What is the point of local representation if they are just as oblivious to planned activity in the area as the community? Ratepayers are paying millions of dollars every year to fund local boards and it is bureaucratic arrogance for Auckland Transport to turn around and say that there is no legal requirement for them to do any consultation.”
“There is an obligation for Auckland Transport to consult with local boards on transport matters that will directly affect the community. There are clearly a number of concerns that have been raised by locals, such as the possibility of being pinged for driving in and out of their driveways. These concerns could have been addressed and alleviated earlier if the local board had not been kept in the dark.”
“It is not acceptable for residents to just simply receive a letter in their letterbox with the local board being none the wiser."
January 20, 2021
The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance is calling out Mayor Phil Goff for his undignified comment that the claim made by Councillor Greg Sayers asking why Auckland Council is funding yoga classes is “bullshit.”
Yesterday, Councillor Greg Sayers penned an opinion piece questioning why ratepayers were paying for yoga classes, among other services. Responding to Heather du Plessis-Allan, who asked if ratepayers were indeed funding yoga classes, Mr Goff declared “no no, look it’s all bullshit. It’s patently false.”
Mr Goff went on to say that yoga classes are only provided in some pool and leisure centres where membership fees are required, and that Sayers “couldn’t be more wrong.”
Contrary to Mr Goff’s denials, it took the Ratepayers’ Alliance just thirty seconds to uncover a Waitematā Local Board grant towards the cost of yoga instructor wages, venue hire, promotional materials, and catering for LGBTQI yoga workshops.
Spokesperson Jo Holmes says, “it’s actually Mr Goff’s claim that is, in fact, bullshit – funding yoga classes is precisely what the Council has done.”
“Instead of resorting to petty attacks, the Mayor should be focusing on ways to cut spending ahead of the Council’s 10-year budget.”
“It’s very clear Mr Goff is in breach of the Council’s code of conduct which requires respect, honesty, and courtesy. We’re calling on Phil Goff to apologise to Mr Sayers and get back to work cutting Council waste – yoga classes included.”
January 15, 2021
The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance is slamming the lack of progress on the Tamaki Drive cycleway project, with the road still operating at just a single lane in both directions. This is despite reassurances from Ōrākei councillor, Desley Simpson, in September last year that Tamaki Drive would only be down to one lane each way for “two weeks” to help speed up construction. Ratepayers' Alliance Ōrākei spokeswomen, Carmel Claridge, says:
“This is beyond a joke now. A year ago, Ms. Simpson said that there would be “hell to pay” if Auckland Transport continued to disrupt traffic on Tamaki Drive. But that warning was obviously just bravado. It’s motorists who continue to suffer the consequences, with local elected representatives being arrogantly ignored by Auckland Transport.”
“The project is plagued with problems, not least narrow lanes that a standard bus is too wide for. It’s a $14 million luxury spend that seems to have no end in sight, and it’s choking Tamaki Drive and adding up to 15 minutes onto a CBD commute from Mission Bay.”
“Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, and our local officials need to front up. How does a cycleway take more than a year to build?”
December 09, 2020
The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance has today lodged a complaint with the Financial Markets Authority alleging a breach of the Financial Markets Conduct Act for a deceptive media statements on the size of a proposed rate increase made by Mayor Phil Goff and referred to in an announcement to the NZ Debt Market (NZDX) on the draft 10-year budget.
The Mayor misled the NZX Debt Market when he said that Aucklanders would only be hit with a rate bump of $36. The $36 is just the 1.5% difference between a 3.5% and a 5% hike. He was being cute with his words, and the media took it hook, line and sinker.
Unfortunately for Mr Goff, being misleading or dishonest is illegal when it comes to our financial markets. What he may get away with in statements made to the media does not cut it for financial markets.
Much of the reporting has perpetuated the Mayor’s falsehood of a ‘one off rates bump of $36’. It is evidence of the Mayor’s misleading behaviour.
Notes:
- Auckland Council’s debt trades on the NZDX.
- Under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 participants are prohibited from conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive (a similar test to the Fair Trading Act).
- Earlier this year Auckland Council was required to correct an untrue statement in relation to claimed ‘majority support’ for an earlier proposed rates increase, following a complaint by the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance to the Research Association New Zealand (RANZ) pointing out that the opinion poll commissioned by the Council only provided participants with rate hike options.
- Last year, Auckland Council officials presented sworn affidavit evidence that Mr Goff’s public claims that he had ‘banned’ two controversial Canadian speakers from Council venues in 2018 were untrue, in a judicial review related to that decision.
December 08, 2020
The 2020 edition of Ratepayers’ Report confirms that Auckland Council is charging the second highest rates in the country, with an average bill of $3,469 per rating unit. The Report was co-published by the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance and the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.
Alliance spokesperson Monique Poirier says, “Auckland ratepayers have been fed a lie: annual rate hikes are not an inevitability. In fact, the latest Ratepayers’ Report suggests Auckland Council could even cut rates if it took cues from councils that run tighter ships.”
“Hamilton City Council’s rate bills are more than $1000 cheaper than Auckland’s. In fact, Grey District Council and Central Otago District Council get by charging half what our Council does.”
“There is no good justification for Auckland’s disproportionately high rates. Rates are a payment for services. Rubbish collection costs the same regardless of how valuable the local properties may be. If anything, a larger population base should see efficiencies in service delivery – that was the great promise behind the Super City.”
“Other findings from the Ratepayers’ Report make for concerning reading and go some way toward explaining why we pay so much in rates. 2831 Council staff are paid more than $100,000 – that’s 26 percent of all staff, compared to an average of 14 percent across all local councils. And the Council has been spending $830 per household just paying down the interest on its debt.”
“Despite all this, Auckland Council fails to include an accountant or lawyer on its Audit and Risk Committee which is meant to provide oversight of spending.”
Auckland Council also has the second highest level of liabilities per household – $25,372, behind only Christchurch. The figures in the 2020 Ratepayers’ Report are based on the 2018/19 financial year, and therefore do not reflect changes that all local councils have made to their budgets in light of COVID-19.
The full league tables are available now at www.ratepayersreport.nz.
September 16, 2020
A new briefing paper co-published by the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance and Democracy Action reveals that in just six years, Auckland Council spent at least $129 million on iwi consultation and targeted Māori spending. In 2018/19 alone, the total spend was $30 million – more than double the $13 million spent in 2013/14.
This spending includes that of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, ‘Ngā Mātārae’, formerly ‘Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta’, payments made by Auckland Council for consultation, payments made by Auckland Council Controlled Organisations, Long-term Plan allocations, and direct grants to iwi.
Ratepayers’ Alliance spokesperson Jo Holmes says, “Every dollar allocated to cultural advice, a marae development, or an unelected Māori authority is a dollar that cannot be used for the core council services that benefit all ratepayers."
"The function of Māori representation at Auckland Council is duplicated by at least six different Council mechanisms. Not one of these can be held to account by the general ratepayer who funds their operations.”
“Many Aucklanders will be supportive of some degree of race-based spending, but what this report uncovers is the extent of duplication and an alarming increase in costs. The Independent Māori Statutory Board was set up to promote issues of significance to Māori to Auckland Council, but we’re now paying eight times its budget because the Council undertakes the same function through other branches.”
“As the Council annually increases rates far beyond increases to living costs, including during an economic crisis, we’re calling for an urgent review into this non-essential spending.”
Democracy Action spokesman Lee Short says, “A 2015 report by the NZ Institute of Economic Research showed that the Māori economy in Auckland is substantial – at around $4 billion of GDP with $23 billion of assets. This being so, the wisdom of Council contributing towards Māori economic development at ratepayers’ expense is questionable at best.”
“This paper is evidence that the interests of those who identify as Māori are being elevated above those of all other Aucklanders, thereby undermining the concept of equal rights upon which our democracy is based.”
July 24, 2020
Auckland’s water crisis has been in the media over recent weeks, and the 2020 drought reminds us a lot of the water restrictions in 1994. Auckland’s population is now 50% larger than 1994, has water infrastructure kept up? Just how vulnerable are we to dry years? Is the Waikato river the solution?
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, and Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance Founder, Jordan Williams sat down with the CEO of Water Care Raveen Jaduram for a deep dive into Water Care - its business model, how it’s funded, and how it trades the risk of drought with affordability.
*** If you are struggling to pay your Water Care bill and need some assistance, including details on the Water Utility Consumer Assistance Trust is available at https://www.watercare.co.nz/Help-and-advice/Help-with-your-account/Need-help-paying-a-bill and http://www.waterassistance.org.nz ***
You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio and all good podcast apps.
June 22, 2020
June 06, 2020
The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance has launched a major campaign to give a voice to the hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders who oppose Auckland Council’s proposed rate hike options.
In Auckland Council’s official consultation form for the Emergency Budget, ratepayers are told to choose between a rate hike of 3.5%, 2.5%, or an ‘I don’t know’ option. The message seems to be that if you oppose a rate hike you must be uninformed.
The Council’s plan is clearly to manipulate ratepayers into endorsing the lower 2.5% option so Phil Goff can claim public supports for his rate hike. That is an insulting attempt to fudge the consultation process and screw the scrum.
In response, the Ratepayers’ Alliance has published an alternative submission form at www.Rates2020.nz. This form poses the same question about rates, but adds additional choices: a zero rates increase, a 2.5% rates decrease, a 3.5% rates decrease, and an ‘other’ option. Ratepayers’ details and comments are sent straight to the Council as a formal submission.
An economic crisis is the worst time to increase taxes – especially council rates, which unlike income taxes show no mercy towards households that have lost their livelihoods.
The Council cries poverty while it pays more than 2800 staff salaries higher than $100,000, and forges ahead with gold-plated projects like the City Rail Link. A zero rates increase is absolutely achievable, but Councillors must wrestle control of the Emergency Budget from self-interested officials, and sacrifice the nice-to-haves just like private businesses and households across the Super City have done already.
The campaign will be boosted with billboards, yard signs, Facebook ads, and (at this stage) 80,000 pamphlets delivered to homes across Auckland.
May 12, 2020
You will recall our proposed advert below which we proposed to run as double page spread in the Herald on Sunday. The Herald’s publishers got cold feet and delayed, and eventually rejected it for publication
No matter we thought – Stuff (publishers of the free local papers) told us they were happy to publish the advert. They even ran it past the Advertising Standards Authority which gave our Town Hall Rich List advert the green light.
So we were amazed when, again at the very last minute, Stuff too pulled the plug! The Council is too big an advertiser to jeopardise.
Morally obligated to spend the money we’d fundraised for advertising the Town Hall Rich List on advertising, we hoped to tell you this week that we were buying a billboard right outside the Council’s offices in the CBD.
But now we discover the extent of the skulduggery of Auckland Council. We were told last night that the Mayor’s Office has been calling around billboard companies demanding that our Town Hall Rich List billboards are not put up!
The Council has even lobbied the Outdoor Advertising Association to pass the message onto its members. The Association told us that the billboard companies are in ‘partnership’ with the Council – in that the Council dictate continued resource consents which the companies rely on. Naturally, billboard companies are reluctant to take on the Council’s heavies when they can veto future consents.
According to the industry association, the Council has never objected to an advertiser in this way. Clearly our Rich List got under Phil Goff’s skin!
Where to now?
I don’t know about you, but frankly I am appalled that the Council is using my ratepayer money to bully newspapers, and now billboard owners, so as to prevent us telling the public how the Council spends our money!
What next? Will Phil Goff fly one of his highly paid staffers to Silicon Valley to demand Mark Zuckerberg ban our Facebook adverts too?? Already, the Town Hall Rich List has had 17,000 shares, comments, and reactions on Facebook.
Here’s the mock-up of one of the proposed billboards:
Phil Goff’s fibs
Phil Goff’s spin doctors are telling media companies that ‘most of the information in the Rich List is incorrect’. But we know for sure that isn’t true! The Council’s own audited financial information shows that there are 86 people paid more than $250,000. And even if we have the identities wrong for one or two of the 86 people, why haven’t we had a single person contact us to say that they were incorrectly put on the list?!
And if we are so wrong, why won’t the Council point to an error? It says a lot that the Mayor's Office is using such underhand tactics to try and undermine this effort. It shows the Council is really feeling the pressure. Good.
How we’ll fight back for you
Later this week our steering group is meeting to decide how to best get the message out. We’re still looking at other billboard options, letter drops, Facebook advertising, and combinations of all three. I’ll let you know once we’ve got everything lined up.
In the meantime, to chip in to our fighting fund to hold the Council to account for how it spends our money click here.
Thank you for your support.
