When spin becomes rort

It'd be one thing if the spin spewing forth from Guyton St these days was original. At least that would be entertaining. But the merry-go-round of Spin Fairies and other, more pressing, concerns such as defending absent councillors seem to be affecting the Diva's rotational ability, because all that's emerging lately is reheated tripe.

Back in the 1980s, boasting of lower taxes while cranking up user charges made the people in power look fleetingly smart. After years of Muldoonist protectionism, we willingly suspended disbelief and looked only at our (slightly) larger pay packets, ignoring the fact that we were now paying for things which had once been provided from the common taxation pool.

But now, regular reports that direct plus indirect taxation is a greater burden on most than the mainly direct taxation of old have all but debunked those claims. Even the most ardent neo-conservative would blush if asked to run the line that everyone is better off under such cost-shifting. We're not debating neo-conservatism vs socialism, or any other philosophies come to that, merely pointing out that using smoke and mirrors to make cost-shifting look like reductions in the overall burden on tax- and rate-payers is long discredited.

But not for our Mickey, who clearly adheres to the philosophy that repetition of an untruth often enough will lead to it eventually being perceived as fact. For Michael Laws runs about Wanganui mouthing "nil rates rise" at every possible opportunity, while steadfastly ignoring the issue of user charges - a performance worthy of Basil Fawlty at his "Don't mention ze var!!" best. But like Basil, Michael's obvious reluctance only serves to highlight both the issue and his inability to sensibly address it.

First former councillor Stephen Palmer, then Cr Ray Stevens both publicly raised the issue of excessive user fees and charges. But the most comprehensive explanation we've seen was a press statement prepared by occasional LawsWatch commenter Rob Vinsen.

While Mr Vinsen has been quiet on the blog of late, a Watcher obtained a copy of the statement which was originally handed to the Chron, but was later rewritten as a Letter to the Editor, necessarily omitting some of the detail.

Mr Vinsen points out - and we're sure even Michael Laws would agree with this bit - that there has been a "philosophical change in policy since the Vision dominated Council took control".

He makes the claim that Vision - and their accommodating cronies on Council - have increased user fees and charges by 63 percent in the past two years, effectively to pay for the low percentage increase in rates over the same period. And he backs this up with examples (which we'll come to in a minute).

Vinsen's certainly makes a prima facie case. Staff cuts aside, Council has limited room to move on expenses, and limited scope to derive income other than from the pockets of its residents. They're under pressure from the Audit Office to produce a balanced budget, and costs are rising. They've also willingingly accepted (on our behalf) the burden of additional costs for pet projects. Therefore if income is to meet outgoings and increased income can't come from rates, it's a matter of raising user charges till the books balance.

That's led to a 50 percent rise in parking fees (and a likely further rise this year) as well as dog registration fees. That this hasn't gone unnoticed by ratepayers is confirmed in no less an authoritative publication than the Mayor's own e-coli e-column:

From a preliminary assessment by council officers, a good proportion of the submissions centre around the divestment of rural/community halls, and dog registration of all things!

Gosh, people have noticed that they're being sold a duck (or rather, a dog) and started complaining. How extraordinary! The majority of people are concerned - primarily or solely - with their own back pockets. That's why they'll vote for a Mayor who promises "no rates rise" no matter how short-sighted and destructive his other policies may be. But it's also why they'll turn on him - and viciously - if they find they've been conned.

Vinsen goes on to note that there have been "significant increases right across the regulatory activities" and comes up with the figures to prove it. Looking at the LTCCP figures for income from "Regulatory Services" (which in 06/07 is to include, for the first time, parking, which used to be in the CBD activity column) we find:

User fees ($000s)
04/05: 953
05/06: 1,134
06/07: 2,275 (inc parking)

Parking fees have risen from $450,000 in 04/05 to a projected $730,000 for 06/07. Perhaps after emptying your change purse into that suddenly voracious parking meter just so you can stop for a coffee in town, you'd be advised to lower your blood pressure by looking again at your "nil" rates rise demand.

Both Vinsen and Stevens allege that these extra fees are being siphoned off into other activities – and Vinsen provides an analysis of the LTCCP which backs up this claim. From here on we'll quote Vinsen directly:

Each Council activity attracts a charge for meeting council overheads – this provision is used to fund the costs in the Corporate Management activity.

LTCCP overhead contribution for Regulatory Services ($000s)
04/05: 85
05/06: 82
06/07: 588

So the extra income from user fees, including dog registration fees, are generating a 600 percent increased contribution from regulatory activity to corporate management costs this year.

The massive increase in the Corporate Management activity in Overhead Contribution recovered from all the Councils activities should be of concern to councillors.

Corporate Management operating costs ($000s)
04/05: 2,338
05/06: 2,328
06/07: 4,817
07/08: 5,572

Vinsen points out that it seems obvious that expenditure which previously wasn't classified as corporate management now comes under this category, and warns "councillors should be very vigilant in monitoring this 107 percent increase... and Council should be asked to explain these extra costs, especially considering the restructuring currently being undertaken".

Then there's the issue of the change in accounting methods. For any set of figures to have relevance, they need an historical basis for comparison. But as Palmer and Vinsen have both pointed out, the LTCCP no longer lists the previous years costs, and expenditure is no longer itemised under the various activity headings - an uninformative "operating costs" total is all the information anyone is given. Imagine receiving an annual report which not only made no reference to historical performance but didn't tell you whether the company's increased expenses were due to the rising cost of materials or a huge payout to directors. You'd be trying to sell your shares before the NZSE delisted them.

Vinsen says the "previous method of itemising expenditure was transparent, and the public (and councillors) could monitor costs better". Of course it was, and of course it did. And equally as obvious is the reason why it's no longer done that way - so that precisely the opposite applies.

On Vinsen's evidence, ratepayers are being rorted.

He concludes by urging other independent councillors, as well as Ray Stevens, to explain to the public why they are approving these massive increases in user fees (63%), overhead charges (600%), and corporate management operating costs (107%) in this year's plan.

In the unlikely event that one of them is brave enough to do so, our email inbox is, always, open.

And while on the topic of just how flaccid Mickey's spin is becoming of late, what can one make of the defence he's made of having Cr Sue Pepperell based in Wellington.

Cr Pepperell's partner is on secondment to Police HQ in Wellington and, not unnaturally, she joins him as often as she can.

Err... they're not temporarily bunking at a Terrace B&B Michael, they're listed in the phone book at a Wellington address. If their intention is to return to live in Wanganui it's simple - let Cr Pepperell tell us when that will occur.

She continues to fulfil her council responsibilities, attends more council meetings than some stationary representatives...

In fact her record of attendance at committee meetings during May shows she turned up only for the Youth meeting. "Stationary" representatives? We were a little puzzled as to who this meant till we realised it was a synonym for "nailed, petrified, rooted, screwed, asleep, barren, closed down, dead, deserted, down, empty, gathering dust, inactive, inert, passive, quiet, redundant, rusty, sleepy, uncultivated, vacant, void, waste and workless". Our hats are off to you, Mickey - you've come up with a word that deftly encapsulates every single member of your "team".

...and has single-handedly created the best youth committee and youth council in the country.

As a commenter has already pointed out, whilst no one should under-estimate Sue's work on youth issues, to say she has "single-handedly" created the youth presence on Council ignores the work of many people - Council staff and the youth themselves included.

Sue is a hard-working, independently-minded councillor making a real contribution to Wanganui. That is more than can be said for her male detractors.

Clearly he's referring to David Murray and Ross Mitchell-Anyon, who raised Sue's absence in the Chron. They both happen to be male. And the relevance of that is...? We didn't detect a hint of sexism in their letters - indeed they read like many that were written at the time of GK Taylor's departure. Can it be that Mickey thinks prefixing "detractors" with "male" will somehow demonstrate the kind of sensitive, feminist side that's been noticeably absent when dealing with female Council employees lately?

Comments on this post are now closed.