Tremendous to see this Newsroom partnership with The Integrity Institute. It gives us hope for cleaning up this government’s act and encourage future politicians to bring in the necessary legislation to permanently do same.
The CPI has increased by a factor of nearly 5 since 1982. On that basis the increase to $100,000 of the threshold at which council payments to one of its members requires Audit Office approval appears to be justified. But is this just a case of "catching up with inflation"?
Eight years ago I bought shares in a farming retail cooperative. Three years later the cooperative introduced a member account fee of $25 p.a. This year it increased the account fee to $65 p.a., with management claiming that it was a necessary "catch up" because there had been no increase over the past five years. On the basis of inflation, the fee should increase to something less than $50. But what is really happening is that the cooperative is changing its business model. It is looking to change the source of its revenue stream, from profits on sales to fixed charges on customer/shareholders.
A similar phenomenon is seen in local government. The model has changed. Prior to 1982 local government service was seen as a civic duty. It was something that worthy citizens took on later in life and after more or less retiring from their business pursuits.
Now government is regarded as a business like any other, and there is a widely shared presumption that business people are by definition best equipped to manage the state, the government and the economy.
Therefore those who govern must be paid what a business person would expect in the way of income, and must not be discouraged from going into politics by a potential loss of income to their outside business interests.
Before the $25,000 threshold for audit was introduced there was a presumption that Councilors should not financially benefit from their position on council apart from their meeting fees, which in those days were quite modest. The introduction of the threshold sent the message that we don't really need to worry about "small" sums of council funds being directed towards the business interests of councilors. Thus the threshold represented a loosening rather than a tightening of inhibitions on combining political and personal business interests.
The large increase in that threshold, albeit justified by "inflation" is a sign that government is doubling down on the "politics as business" model. One can only assume that many councils do in fact direct spending to the businesses of their members and that it is becoming more of an issue and hence a cost to the Audit Office. That gives government another reason to raise the threshold. It is necessary in order to spare the Audit Office time and money. Presumably that has not been a problem till now, which suggests that the initial $25,000 threshold was set high.
But can we safely assume that the business model of politics, and the concomitant business capture of the political system is right and correct? An alternative theory is that non-business people should manage the political system so as to keep the business sector honest. The main objection to this alternative theory is the inference that non-business people must, by definition, be less intelligent and less capable than their counterparts in business. That is a myth. It is the same myth that propelled Donald Trump and Elon Musk to the pinnacle of power in the United States of America, and its false nature is being demonstrated by the day in Washington DC, just as it is in Wellington NZ.
There is another equally pernicious development: the Christian heresy of the cult of business also known as the "prosperity gospel" to which the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reportedly ascribes. The final outcome of capitalist domination of the economy, the state, religion and ideology in general is that they control virtually everything in society. Not just their own businesses, but the government that is supposed to regulate them, the church which is supposed to call them to account to their Creator and the media which is supposed to critique them. Are they fit to take on all these roles? We may not have to wait long to find out the answer to that question.
Keep your work up, Bryce. When vested interests dust off that strange man, Slater, to have a go at you, you're obviously hitting home. I'm disappointed that BusinessDesk are playing the man not the argument, as the points you are raising are obviously hitting home commenting on their cozy embracing of the neo-liberal economics which are hurting so many in this country. Also don't forget that Luke Malpass worked for an extreme right-wing organization in USA. He appears to be a lacky for this government, or pro status quo opinions, in most of his articles. I enjoy reading alternative views, but he certainly doesn't provide them very often. I felt that your article on the Waikato Med School rort was terrific analysis. As a mere accountant, and not an economist, I'd say the costings are out by a mile and I'd like somebody qualified to compare the cost of increasing the size of Otago and Auckland med schools compared with what it would actually cost to build Waikato in a decent B/C ratio exercise. I was sacked by Stephen Joyce off NZTA Board for questioning his interference with Board independent decisions. His dismissal of B/C ratios made me sick. One example; consider the eventual cost of Transmission Gully which started with a B/C ratio of below 1. Under Joyce it was built at enormous cost. Bryce, always remember the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. The fact you are being attacked by vested interests is part of the debate on issues within a healthy democracy.
I totally disagree with Matthew Campbell, again. I challenge him to move his view away from conspiracy theories and stop observing the world from a narrow "left" being wrong and "right" being acceptable and look at the quality of the articles on Newsroom. What we need is to support and promote journalism which focuses on all sorts of perspectives. Campbell obviously hasn't read David Williams' articles which are extremely well balanced, and at times quite humorous. Let us all watch Campbell's comments in the future to see if he consistently reflects the views of the Ratepayer's Union, or their ilk.
Most certainly not. I will keep discussing until my heart stops. I have never subscribed to cancel culture nor do I now. I just felt your generalizations about Newsroom were not correct.
Tremendous to see this Newsroom partnership with The Integrity Institute. It gives us hope for cleaning up this government’s act and encourage future politicians to bring in the necessary legislation to permanently do same.
The CPI has increased by a factor of nearly 5 since 1982. On that basis the increase to $100,000 of the threshold at which council payments to one of its members requires Audit Office approval appears to be justified. But is this just a case of "catching up with inflation"?
Eight years ago I bought shares in a farming retail cooperative. Three years later the cooperative introduced a member account fee of $25 p.a. This year it increased the account fee to $65 p.a., with management claiming that it was a necessary "catch up" because there had been no increase over the past five years. On the basis of inflation, the fee should increase to something less than $50. But what is really happening is that the cooperative is changing its business model. It is looking to change the source of its revenue stream, from profits on sales to fixed charges on customer/shareholders.
A similar phenomenon is seen in local government. The model has changed. Prior to 1982 local government service was seen as a civic duty. It was something that worthy citizens took on later in life and after more or less retiring from their business pursuits.
Now government is regarded as a business like any other, and there is a widely shared presumption that business people are by definition best equipped to manage the state, the government and the economy.
Therefore those who govern must be paid what a business person would expect in the way of income, and must not be discouraged from going into politics by a potential loss of income to their outside business interests.
Before the $25,000 threshold for audit was introduced there was a presumption that Councilors should not financially benefit from their position on council apart from their meeting fees, which in those days were quite modest. The introduction of the threshold sent the message that we don't really need to worry about "small" sums of council funds being directed towards the business interests of councilors. Thus the threshold represented a loosening rather than a tightening of inhibitions on combining political and personal business interests.
The large increase in that threshold, albeit justified by "inflation" is a sign that government is doubling down on the "politics as business" model. One can only assume that many councils do in fact direct spending to the businesses of their members and that it is becoming more of an issue and hence a cost to the Audit Office. That gives government another reason to raise the threshold. It is necessary in order to spare the Audit Office time and money. Presumably that has not been a problem till now, which suggests that the initial $25,000 threshold was set high.
But can we safely assume that the business model of politics, and the concomitant business capture of the political system is right and correct? An alternative theory is that non-business people should manage the political system so as to keep the business sector honest. The main objection to this alternative theory is the inference that non-business people must, by definition, be less intelligent and less capable than their counterparts in business. That is a myth. It is the same myth that propelled Donald Trump and Elon Musk to the pinnacle of power in the United States of America, and its false nature is being demonstrated by the day in Washington DC, just as it is in Wellington NZ.
There is another equally pernicious development: the Christian heresy of the cult of business also known as the "prosperity gospel" to which the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reportedly ascribes. The final outcome of capitalist domination of the economy, the state, religion and ideology in general is that they control virtually everything in society. Not just their own businesses, but the government that is supposed to regulate them, the church which is supposed to call them to account to their Creator and the media which is supposed to critique them. Are they fit to take on all these roles? We may not have to wait long to find out the answer to that question.
Keep your work up, Bryce. When vested interests dust off that strange man, Slater, to have a go at you, you're obviously hitting home. I'm disappointed that BusinessDesk are playing the man not the argument, as the points you are raising are obviously hitting home commenting on their cozy embracing of the neo-liberal economics which are hurting so many in this country. Also don't forget that Luke Malpass worked for an extreme right-wing organization in USA. He appears to be a lacky for this government, or pro status quo opinions, in most of his articles. I enjoy reading alternative views, but he certainly doesn't provide them very often. I felt that your article on the Waikato Med School rort was terrific analysis. As a mere accountant, and not an economist, I'd say the costings are out by a mile and I'd like somebody qualified to compare the cost of increasing the size of Otago and Auckland med schools compared with what it would actually cost to build Waikato in a decent B/C ratio exercise. I was sacked by Stephen Joyce off NZTA Board for questioning his interference with Board independent decisions. His dismissal of B/C ratios made me sick. One example; consider the eventual cost of Transmission Gully which started with a B/C ratio of below 1. Under Joyce it was built at enormous cost. Bryce, always remember the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. The fact you are being attacked by vested interests is part of the debate on issues within a healthy democracy.
Sorry Bryce but using Newsweek who have a distinct left, anti business,woke, pro green emphasis in their reporting is hardly a neutral observer.
Leaving them with editorial control is a bit like Gavin Ellis said of the PIJF
"I will give you that the PIJF may cause a perception of political control but the media aren't doing anything they wouldn't have anyway"
Interesting - good quality journalism (not click baiting) = "distinct left, anti business, woke, pro green"?
You would rather let these Wanting And Nefarious Knuckleheads to dictate our news coverage. WANKS.
I totally disagree with Matthew Campbell, again. I challenge him to move his view away from conspiracy theories and stop observing the world from a narrow "left" being wrong and "right" being acceptable and look at the quality of the articles on Newsroom. What we need is to support and promote journalism which focuses on all sorts of perspectives. Campbell obviously hasn't read David Williams' articles which are extremely well balanced, and at times quite humorous. Let us all watch Campbell's comments in the future to see if he consistently reflects the views of the Ratepayer's Union, or their ilk.
Reply to Garry Moore
"You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you" :)
Is this cancel culture at work?
Most certainly not. I will keep discussing until my heart stops. I have never subscribed to cancel culture nor do I now. I just felt your generalizations about Newsroom were not correct.
: You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you: :)
Is this cancel culture at work?