'We are not a shop': Council hits back at critics
The Waimakariri District Council adopted its 2025/26 plan on Tuesday. Photo: David Hill / North Canterbury News
Waimakariri councillors have taken aim at online critics, as they locked in an average rates rise of 4.98%.
''We are not a shop,'' councillor Tim Fulton said. ''We can turn down the lights, but the obligation to our community doesn't change.''
The Waimakariri District Council adopted its annual plan at a meeting today, with the backing of Mayor Dan Gordon and nine councillors.
During the meeting, councillors took aim at comments online that said the council needed to rein in its spending and be run more like a business.
Cr Joan Ward said the council provides a variety of services, including roading, infrastructure, pools and libraries.
''We are not a business. When you compare what we offer with your power bill, so much is received for the community for much the same expense.''
The Waimakariri district is continuing to support growth. Photo: Waimakariri District Council
In moving the motion to adopt the annual plan, Deputy Mayor Neville Atkinson said transparency has become ''a buzz word''.
Power bills have gone up an average 11% this year and insurance an average 22%, compared to the council's 4.98% rate rise, he said.
''I don't know any business which is as transparent as a government agency like us.''
Councillor Paul Williams, who has been critical of council spending, abstained from the annual plan vote and didn't comment during the debate.
The annual plan consultation received 787 submissions, with the bulk on the council's proposed waters services model, designed to meet the requirements of the Government's Local Water Done Well legislation.
A water services delivery plan has since been prepared for a beefed-up internal business unit to manage water services, after 97% of submissions backed the proposal.
The council plans to spend nearly $90m on capital projects over the next 12 months to support the ongoing growth.
During the meeting, Mayor Dan Gordon paid tribute to Mr Atkinson, who plans to retire at the election.
''I could not have asked for a more loyal deputy behind me. I've had someone who gives extraordinary advice and support.''
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
How to make sick pay and holiday pay more equitable
Analysis: As the Government reviews the Holidays Act, we would urge them to consider how they could build more equity in their approach to sick pay and public holidays. Currently each employee in Aotearoa New Zealand receives 10 days of sick pay per year once they have been working for their organisation for six months, up to a maximum accrual of 20 days. Some organisations offer more days per year or longer accruals or both, as part of their enhanced benefits. The draft bill proposes shifting from an annual entitlement to an accruals system, using pro-rata pay, but this could go further. Positively, accruing paid sick leave on a pro-rata basis from the day we started our first job makes access to paid leave more immediate. If we add to this removal of a maximum accumulation and manage it in a centralised government system (a little like ACC but with individual accrual) transferrable between jobs, we could create more equity in the sick pay system for employees and employers. This could be managed in the IRD system. When an employee changes job, their accrued sick leave moves with them, and while the dollar value may not equate directly if they move to a higher earning job it is still better than beginning accrual again. Regardless of how many hours or days a week a person works, currently everybody receives 10 days annually from each job they work. A part-time employee may also be working more than one job and so could technically have double or triple the number of sick days a full-time worker has. Though this probably only occurs in a minority of cases, it does create inequity in the system. Accrual based on hours worked can negate this anomaly. By creating a system where sick leave is centralised, it puts employers on an even playing field. All employers pay the pro-rata amount in their pay runs per employee into the employee's centralised pot, rather than only paying when an employee is sick. Employees would earn their sick leave not at 10 days a year, but at a percentage of their pay equivalent to 10 days per year (about 4 percent). Imagine taking this a step further and enabling families to combine sick pay, so that employees can better balance the workload when there is a need to care for a child or an older person. Therefore, all employers contribute to sick pay, whether their employees are sick or not, which may decrease indirect discrimination. This potentially takes pressure off employers when people are sick for longer as their pay is already accrued. We know that sometimes employees see their sick leave as an extension of their annual leave, but unlimited accrual and the associated benefits of being able to have paid leave if you are sick for an extended period could discourage this thinking. Similarly, some employers may discourage their employees from taking sick leave, particularly if this results in a direct replacement cost. Accrual can resolve this issue as it is paid from the employees' pot, not the employer's pocket. The flipside is that employees may try to save their sick pay by not taking time off when they are sick, in case they are ever in a long-term sickness situation. This would have to be carefully managed. Although discrimination based on characteristics such as gender or disability is illegal in New Zealand, we do know that indirect discrimination often occurs. People are not chosen for a role because they may cost their employer more in sick leave. This may help to negate this. The current stand down of six months before being able to access sick pay means those more likely to change jobs, who are also often more vulnerable workers, have less access and a higher likelihood of it being reset. Some employees may experience multiple points in time where they do not have access to sick pay. Part-time workers are more likely to change jobs and have precarious employment. This means that although they might technically have access to more paid sick in the current model, they may not get the opportunity to use it. In terms of public holidays, these are currently given to an employee who works on the day on which they fall. Although in theory this makes sense when we look at a standard 8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday working week, it can also create unfairness. A classic example is a full-time hairdresser who traditionally works Tuesday to Saturday, missing out on five of our 12 public holidays in 2024, essentially getting five fewer paid days off work a year. 'Mondayisation' has privileged those who work traditional working weeks. So how can we address this in the Holidays Act reform? I propose that public holidays should also be pro-rated. Therefore, if you work five days a week you would receive 12 public holidays a year. Someone who works two days a week would receive two fifths of their public holidays per year, or four days. This would be added to annual leave, but they would still be expected to take each public holiday they work off, and use annual leave if needed. Although this might feel unfair to a person who works part-time on a Monday, it puts more fairness in the system.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
Those responsible for pushing a retrospective law change that could wipe out the rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders must now front up to provide a formal 'please- explain'. That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine. 'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.' Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain': The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process; Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks; The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability. 'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.' The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating. 'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Ninety-Five NZ Lawyers Call for Stronger Govt Stance on Israel Amidst Rising Tensions in Middle East
Ninety-five New Zealand lawyers – including 9 King's Counsel – have signed a letter to the Prime Minister and other ministers urging the Government to consider a stronger stance against Israel's actions in Gaza. The letter has been sent amidst rising tensions in the region, following Israel's surprise attacks on Iran, and Iran's attacks on Israel in response. The letter's signatories come from all levels of seniority in the legal community including senior barristers, law firm partners, legal academics, and in-house lawyers. The letter cites UN sources that document the steadily deteriorating plight of civilians in Gaza, featuring escalating levels of bombardment, forced displacement, blockades of aid and deliberate targeting of hospitals, aid workers and journalists, and notes key responses to date. In July 2024 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to be unlawful. In September last year New Zealand voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling upon all UN Member States to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel's ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. At the time, New Zealand noted it expected Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law including withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The letter comments that Israel has done nothing of the sort. The letter goes on to point out that in May this year Independent UN Experts demanded immediate international intervention to 'end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.' UN experts have observed the occurrence of over 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher has called for a response 'as humanitarians' urging 'Humanity, the law and reason must prevail'. The letter urges the Government to consider a stronger response including to condemn Israel's unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to review immediately all diplomatic and political and economic ties with Israel, and to go further in imposing sanctions after New Zealand imposed sanctions on two extremist Israeli politicians. One of the letter's signatories, barrister Max Harris, says: 'This letter reflects rising concern among the general community about Israel's breaches of international law.' 'The Government has tried to highlight red lines for Israel, but these have been repeatedly crossed, and it's time that the Government considers doing more, in line with international law,' adds Harris. Aedeen Boadita-Cormican, another barrister who has signed the letter, says: 'The Government could do more to follow through on how it has voted at the United Nations and what it has said internationally.' 'This letter shows the depth of concern in the legal community about Israel's actions,' adds Boadita-Cormican.
