A recent release from Federated Farmers says: “Councils have a mountain to climb to win back the trust of rural ratepayers and that starts with cutting wasteful spending and sharing the burden more fairly. At the same time, councils deserve an overhaul of their funding tools and other changes to central government policy.”
Fed Farmers argues farmers are paying a disproportionate share of local rates, whereas the benefits are often urban-centered. Whatever one thinks of that proposition (farmers also cause some problems that require local government attention/spending), their current local government election wish list includes measures others might be sympathetic to. What do you think?
- “It’s time to scrap unfair rating differentials and shift towards targeted uniform charges and annual general charges to reduce reliance on property value-based rates.”
- “Voters should back candidates who commit to capping general rate increases at inflation – unless there’s a genuinely extraordinary reason not to.”
- Legislation changes should “require binding referenda on any council commercial projects that cost more than $500 per rateable property. We’re not talking about sewage treatment plants, bridges or other such essential infrastructure. We’re meaning commercial ventures like stadiums, conference centres and marinas that are beyond core council purposes and can destroy balance sheets. It’s not to say these projects can’t happen, but ratepayers should get to make the final call.”
- “Leave climate policy to central government.”
- “Councils that haven’t already should bring in a rates remission policy for land under QEII covenants, Significant Natural Areas and Outstanding Natural Landscapes. Given that public conservation values are protected by these mechanisms, farmers deserve rates relief.”
- “Road users, rather than property owners, should be paying for local roads and bridges – as is the case for State Highways. We’re calling for 90% of local roading maintenance and renewal costs to come from fuel excise tax and road user charges, rather than rates. Currently, the average is only 53%.”
And in a positive nod toward councils: “Crown land should be rateable, the 30% cap on council uniform annual general charges should be scrapped, and the Beehive should stop unfunded mandates – piling extra responsibilities onto councils with no corresponding funding.”
Really pleased to see the suggestion of rates’ remission for QE2, SNA,ONL,etc ; that’s something I have been submitting to Councils for years. Instead of negativity from the farming community about bureaucrats telling them what they can and cannot do with their land, I’m sure they’d see things in a positive light if they weren’t paying rates on those pieces of their land. And the preservation and protection of those places is for the benefit of the whole community so we should all help carry the load.
I agree re rates relief for covenated etc land, but most of the rest of it is 1960’s thinking. Farmers do NOT pay a disproportionate amount of rates; in fact, they and commercial businesses in town both get significant discounts compared to the ordinary urban-dweller – yet (generally, though I do! lol) you don’t see townies moaning about this. As for moves to “cap rates” and stick to “core services”, this is on the one hand entirely unrealistic when costs are escalating all over the place and on the other, the services councils provide are what the public expects/wants to have… and rural-dwellers benefit from them too! (oh, yes, they do.) which is also why leaving climate change to central govt is akin to doing nothing worthwhile… because it’s too ideologically-driven. (which such suggestion also is.) and yes, govt is foisting too much work on councils… why do you think rates are going up so fast and councils are providing “non-core” services? because central passes off its responsibilities. so, please, take it up with your Natz govt mates instead of asking us townies to pay even more!!!
the ownership of farms has changed from the 1960’s succession is now a past game as you need allot of money to go farming I wonder why that is? Interestingly house affordability has gone the same way of farming.
I like the the tapestry of farming brings many good things to us all, the people, the way of life, and food.
If you can’t control costs you don’t pour more fuel on the fire by increasing tax and spending 50% more history the world over tells us this. And certainly not by the amounts Government has increased tax it can only viewed as evil, is inter-generational and in perpetuity its wrong no matter how you spin it all for something “called” infrastructure. Infrastructure meaning appears to change with the wind pending who is using the word.
Government is no longer affordable in its current form logic tells us this. Looking at some ideas put forwarded I tend to agree with them.
We urban dwellers do moan too.