Allow local retailers to compete - end council protectionism

Yesterday's Dominion Post editorial exposed the City Council's fast tracking of measures to protect CBD business interests over and above local Johnsonville shop owners. In an age of rising concerns about pollution and increasing petrol prices surely we should allow the market to operate for benefit of local retailers and residents alike?

Progressive liberalism

The word "liberal" has been misused by many groups in recent years. Some see it as a badge for laissez-faire capitalism - despite liberalism's concern with equal opportunity and freedom from poverty, ignorance or superstition. Others, see liberals as soft on crime, supporters of Big Government and the welfare state.
However, a dictionary definition describes liberal as :
"relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform" - Collins Concise Dictionary p.853.
Intrinsic in the liberal attitude is a willingness to always look to improve things, to question established assumptions and to find better solutions to the challenges of the day. Freedom and responsibility are at the heart of the liberal philosophy.

Today the greatest threat to liberalism is not monarchist absolutism of the type facing liberals in revolutionary France. Rather it is the desire for freedom without the acceptance of responsibility and the selective blindness regarding the need to broaden freedoms for all sorts of forgotten groups in society. Rebuilding social capital and the linkages that unite local communities is one of the main tasks facing the country today. The party that can rediscover the roots of this type of balanced yet progressive liberalism will be the party that surprises at the election.

Step Change Needed in Economic Performance

New Zealand needs a step change in economic performance if it is to raise the living standards of all its people and to afford the increasingly expensive healthcare treatments now available. In addition we also have a large number of baby-boomers coming through the system to retirement during the next two decades.

Productivity growth, adoption of hi-tech production methods and lower income tax rates are all part of the policy mix required. We also need to agree and implement a NZ Broadband Strategy and build links between our education system, job training and the global marketplace in a way that encourages kiwi companies to remain headquartered here and to be smart about retention of Intellectual Property rights here in New Zealand.

Whichever parties are involved in forming the next government should probably consider convening a NZ Summit of the type David Lange convened after the 1984 election. We need to debate and agree some key national goals and then set about achieving them.

Income Splitting Long Overdue!

The long overdue recognition of at home parents came another step closer this week with the launch of a Discussion Paper by Revenue Minister and United Future Leader - Peter Dunne.

Income Splitting allows parents to split their combined income so that each partner pays less tax. This is a simple way of recognising the valuable role played by parents who choose to work at home raising their own children. The times are changing and there is a groundswell of support for this tax reform. In addition to our own supporters in Parents' Choice 08 - other groups such as various Playcentre groups and Parents As Partners are also rallying support for this change. United Future has led the way in terms of including Income Splitting in its policy programme. Other parties have been asked to consider Income Splitting.

No Nukes Is Good Nukes

Over the past 12 months a number of print and radio news items have appeared extolling the virtues of nuclear power and urging a reconsideration of New Zealand's opposition to nuclear power.

There are at least five good reasons for continuing to oppose nuclear power in New Zealand. These are:
1. Even now there is still no way to safely dispose of highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. If we're going to be good stewards of the environment then we cannot just dump toxic radioactive waste in the Pacific or in the Southern Alps.
2. The risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists and the large scale damage that could result. Globally the risk of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material increases every time another country adopts nuclear power as an energy source. We do not need to be part of that problem.
3. The inability of the pro-nuclear lobby to guarantee the safety of nuclear power plants. Nuclear accidents in the USA (Three Mile Island) and Russia (Cheronobyl) continue to remind us that sometimes our faith in science and human engineering can be misplaced - no matter how many safety systems are in place. The engineers of the Titanic also believed they had a truly safe and unsinkable product. Supporters of nuclear power will argue that life itself can be seen as being one big risk management exercise but frankly when it comes to nuclear power it pays to err on the side of caution.
4 New Zealand has particular geographical challenges such as our terrain and earthquake risks. Even if the case for nuclear power can be made for the USA or France - the challenges for New Zealand and the reasons not to do it are stronger here than elsewhere.
5. The economics don't stack up. The cost of nuclear reactors in the UK is now budgeted at $9billion each. That could fund our entire education or health system for some years. In most countries nuclear power plants rely on taxpayer subsidies to cover the cost of construction. I can think of a lot of other things I'd prefer to use taxpayer subisides for ahead of helping the nuclear power industry.

The nuclear lobby argues that because we have tiny radioactive sources in things like smoke detectors it is not true for us to claim to be "nuclear-free" Therefore - so the argument runs_ we should adopt nuclear power. But there is a huge leap between smoke detectors and nuclear power plants churning out radioactive waste.

As of 2007, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety.

Alternative energy sources, such as wind, tidal, solar and geothermal, which do not have the pollutant waste involved with nuclear, remain far better options.

Wellington's Regular Rates Rise

WELLINGTONIANS face another rates rises this year. The average rates increase is likely to be around five percent - almost twice the inflation rate. The Council's Draft Annual Report also recommends increases to fees and charges for sports fields, burials and cremations, and swimming pools.

At a time when central government is urging people to get fit the Council is proposing a 10% increase in fitness centre fees and 5% in learn to swim programmes. Pool entry fees are expected to increase in 2009. At the other end of the spectrum burial and cremation fees will go up by an average of 8.5%.

Surely its time for much greater rigour to be brought to bear on Council spending. Perhaps the Council could focus more on those items that promote the city's economic development - such as improved infrastructure in the north of the City - and less on some of the never-ending series of Council-sponsored events or the rate-payer funded sculptures dotted around the central city?

The Draft Annual Plan will be debated and finalised for consultation at a council meeting on March 27. Wellingtonians will then get their say between April 16 and May 19. For more information visit www.wellington.govt.nz

Time to Renew Local Democracy

Monday, October 15, 2007

When most people of voting age cannot be bothered to vote in local body elections then we should be concerned about the health of our local democracy. With voter participation at just 42% in 2004 and possibly even lower this year we need to start asking questions about the causes of this deterioration in local democracy.

Is it simply voter apathy? Are people so content with arrangements that they see no reason to get involved? Or did the proliferation of voting documents for several elected bodies, using different methods of election, different ways of listing candidates deter people from making the effort?

Having three weeks in which to vote appears to have made the situation worse rather than better as residents put the voting papers to one side to "look at later". Postal voting must also be reviewed. The last minute publicity during the last two days of the elections contributed to the late flurry of votes. Perhaps having a single day as a focus would deliver a greater sense of community participation and voter turnout? Perhaps having local polling booths as in the parliamentary elections would help. Electronic voting, including voting by Txt, should also be considered.

Then there are the broader issues such as whether we should move towards greater inter-council co-operation or amalgamation in order to boost region-wide economic development. However, if we are going to go down that path then voters will want some assurance that local community issues will be treated with respect and that grassroots democracy will not suffer further as decision-making moves even further way from some communities.

The creation of Community Boards would be one way of balancing community input with Councils taking a broader strategic view of things. Compared to Christchurch, and even Auckland, Wellington has a poor track record of facilitating Community Boards. Community Boards allow local residents to help make changes in their neighbourhood. Its one of the few areas in the democractic process where some local participation can bring tangible results close to where people live. As such it helps rebuild a sense of community and helps restore some faith in the democractic process. The cost is relatively small. Based on last weekend's results we cannot afford to do nothing. Change is long overdue. It's time the City Council adopted a consistent approach to Community Boards and facilitated their establishment city wide.

Posted by Roger Ellis at 4:22 PM
Labels: