Will's Word: Both sides on council spending debate have merit

Luxon’s address at the Local Government New Zealand conference has set off a storm of controversy, splitting opinion among mayors and igniting a heated debate.

In his speech, Luxon took aim at what he described as local councils’ fantasy spending, urging them to focus solely on essential services.

His comments came amid ongoing concerns about the financial management of the recently completed Tākina convention centre in Wellington, which he criticised for being a costly “white elephant” when the city faces pressing issues like flooding and deteriorating infrastructure.

Luxon’s call to curb spending on what he termed “nice-to-haves” has not been well received by all. Many mayors, already grappling with budget constraints and rising costs, view his remarks as a blunt dismissal of their challenges.

The Prime Minister’s position is clear: the days of handouts are over, and local governments need to prioritise core responsibilities while being more transparent about their spending. He announced plans to streamline the Local Government Act, abolish certain wellbeing provisions, and introduce performance benchmarks for councils. These measures are intended to ensure ratepayers see value for their money and to address what Luxon sees as excesses in local government budgets.

However, the response from local officials has been mixed. While some agree that accountability and cost-effectiveness are important, others worry that Luxon’s approach could lead to underfunded essential services and stifle the ability of councils to address their challenges.

It’s another classic example of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Which has become my favourite saying.

That’s Will’s Word.