No competent physician would prescribe a remedy for a symptom before determining its cause.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts wants to cap council rates increases at 2 to 4 percent. Why? Because, ratepayers have been hit with "steep and unexpected" rises that add to cost of living pressure.

That describes a symptom. It is not a diagnosis.

Rate rises, unexpected or not, could be justified. Perhaps councils are finally catching up on the need for greater spending for roads, pipes and water infrastructure.

I calculate that in 2024, adjusted for inflation, local government spending per household on capital formation was higher than in 2018 by $1,227, a 46% rise. Spending on current consumption was up by $767 (19%).

The need for increased council current and capital spending on infrastructure is hardly controversial. Quality is a real concern. There are issues of inadequate accountability, incompetence, poor information, inattention to value for money and disempowered elected representatives.

Minister Watts's press release does not mention such matters. Nor does a cap on additional spending do anything to raise the quality of new or existing spending.

Local democracy is another concern. If ratepayers vote for councillors who support large rate increases why stop them? That some ratepayers object is not a good reason.

Given a diagnosis of inadequate self-management, the physician’s attention can turn to treatment options.

Elected councillors need more power to force management to give them more timely and adequate information. That would improve accountability and ratepayer scrutiny.

A ratepayers' bill of rights that requires a referendum before major capital commitments is an additional option.

Requiring rigorous, timely cost benefit analysis of big projects would inform councillors and ratepayers alike. The Regulatory Standards Act might help here.

Our diagnostician might also detect a spreading disease. A 4% rates cap decrees that increases above about  $400 million a year (around $200 per household) are unaffordable. In contrast, the government’s 2026 Budget is for the core tax take this fiscal year to be 6.5% higher than last year. This is an $8 billion rise from $124 billion to $132 billion. That increase represents about $4,000 per household. How can $4,000 be affordable if anything over around $200 is not affordable?

Our physician could be forgiven for adding a taxpayer bill of rights to her prescription for a ratepayer bill of rights.

This week, the government introduced legislation intended to protect youths from online harms.

If the Bill passes, covered social media platforms will be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to stop under-16s from having accounts. Platforms that do not do enough will risk large fines. And Kiwis of every age could be blocked from accessing sites that fail to comply.

Risks to freedom of expression are not funny at all. But another part of the Bill could have amusing consequences.

Covered platforms will have to produce child-safety risk assessments. These assessments must consider harms to under-18s, including harm from “false or misleading information”.

It is an election year. False and misleading information is not hard to find.

Meta’s first assessment could include a section that reads something like this:
 

“Thank you for the opportunity to report risks we have seen from false and misleading information over the past year, which includes the election period.

 

On 21 May, the National Party posted a graph suggesting that the number of core public servants fell under the 2008-2017 National government. But full-time-equivalent numbers actually rose by 8.5%.

 

On 29 June, National posted a video saying, “If you ever want to earn $160,000, you’d need to pay 45 per cent of it to the Greens and Labour. It’s right there in their document.” But only income above the threshold would face that tax rate. And only if Labour agreed to the Greens’ proposal.

 

On 4 July, a National Party MP posted a billboard claiming a Labour, Green, Te Pāti Māori government would “Triple Your Taxes.” A person earning $160,000 currently pays $42,677 in income tax: 26.7% of their income. Tripling that would lift it to $128,000 in tax – an implausible 80% of their income.

 

On 16 August, the National Party posted that Labour “is looking to bring back their Ute tax plus a Streaming tax.” There is no evidence that Labour still supports a ute tax. And while Labour has considered a streaming tax, Hon Goldsmith has considered requiring Netflix to invest in New Zealand content. The measures are similar, and the cost of either would pass through to subscribers.

 

To address the risk of false and misleading information, we have deactivated the National Party’s Facebook page.

 

Some may describe this as censorship of important political speech. We believe it is proportionate risk mitigation. Why do these naysayers refuse to protect children?”