"Lies, damn lies and statistics" - The Coromandel Informer

Want to promote your business or idea?

Written by

Published on

November 28, 2024

A rebuttal of TCDC political point scoring BY FLEMMING RASMUSSEN, A LOCAL, INDEPENDENT LAWYER This rebuttal’s heading was popularised by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It describes the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Seeing a debate in a broader context can help avoid…

A rebuttal of TCDC political point scoring

BY FLEMMING RASMUSSEN, A LOCAL, INDEPENDENT LAWYER

This rebuttal’s heading was popularised by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It describes the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

Seeing a debate in a broader context can help avoid misunderstandings, unproductive arguments, and speaking past each other in life and the law.

Key to addressing concerns about TCDC’s financial practices is instigating structural and cultural change, eliminating inefficiencies, aligning strategies, and enhancing democratic accountability. The catalyst is the upcoming repeal of the four well-being principles (s 10(1(b)) in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

INTRODUCTION

On Tuesday, 19/11/24, The Informer (Issue 1132), at TCDC’s request, published a politically charged criticism of a 5/11/24 (Issue 1130) opinion piece penned about TCDC’s increased, bloating bureaucracy, which is costing the ratepayer $27.9m in personnel costs (2024-25 budget).

I welcome TCDC’s critique. It stimulates debate and increases awareness, hopefully leading to engagement. As the saying goes, sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

REBUTTAL

Turning to TCDC’s alleged “nine errors or misleading (pieces of) information…” I respectfully respond:

TCDC’s script is a thinly veiled, political soundbite, a vague attempt to justify its spiraling, out-of-control (personnel) costs. All data in the opinion piece is derived from TCDC-published information .It is TCDC data. It is their information.

TCDC points 1,4 and 5 allege, “The claimed increased rates for Mercury Bay to an average of $4610 is incorrect”. My source is TCDC’s LTP publication “Tackling the future head on” WHAT’S YOUR TAKE” p48 (depicted here): TCDC – Proposed rates changes MB

For the readers’ benefit, it states, “a Mercury Bay Residential (dwelling) will be rated at $4,610 in the 2024/25 FY, based on an average rate increase of 16.3%”. Tairua-Pauanui p49 ($4,556 p.a.), Whangamata p50 ($4,553 p.a.).

TCDC states, “The residential property rates (in Mercury Bay) range from $3880 to $4560….providing an average of $4220.” Again, factually incorrect. As I write this, I hold a Mercury Bay rate bill for $4,856.13 in my hand. Other ratepayers pay even more!

My argument was, and remains, that rate rises and absolute rates for Mercury Bay, Tairua, Pauanui, and Whangamata, the eastern peninsula, are too high, unsustainable, and disproportionate.

With respect, TCDC attempts to distort facts which can mislead the public by quoting peninsula-wide statistics. They know we in the two eastern wards pay +74% of all rates, (Fiscal Year 2024-25). We subsidise the Thames and Coromandel wards. Most of our rate money, a land tax, is not spent on delivering core services to us in our areas. Most of our money is spent elsewhere and on an ever-increasing Thames and wider bureaucracy.

Have a look yourself – it is publicly available data. You can see what you pay and what your neighbours or friends pay: https://www.tcdc.govt.nz/Our-Services/Property-and-Rates/Rates/Online-Rating-Information-Database.

CONTESTING IRREFUTABLE FACTS

Puzzlingly, TCDC’s attempt to push back on irrefutable facts, e.g.:

(1) the fact it adopted its Annual Report on the very last day of its 4-month statutory obligation period (s 98(3) LGA 2002) (their point 7). Because other Councils do it in the last week of October, it is allegedly OK. What about setting a higher bar. Being first. What a novel idea,or

(2) use of CPI (Consumer Price Index) as a cost adjustment justification (their point 2). TCDC admits its rate increases are “a substantial contributor to inflation”. They proceed to argue that instead of using CPI (officially 2.2% in the year ending 30 September 2024 per https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/consumers-price-index-cpi/), the “Council used the more appropriate Local Government Cost Index +2% for the 2023/2024 FY (6.5%)”. Their logic (if there is one) defies common sense!

Without tiring the reader, ALL of TCDC’s alleged “…errors or misleading (pieces of) information” can be comprehensively rebutted using facts and TCDC’s own data (per above).

FACTS V POLITICS

As an advocate and litigator, I have first-hand experience defending the undefendable on behalf of clients. It can be challenging and frustrating sometimes, so I sympathise with the frustration a growing number of TCDC communication staff must feel.

We must prioritise delivering basic services over other expenditures. This year (FY2024_-), personnel costs represent +25% ($27.9m budget) of all rates collected ($108.6m budget), a clear indication that our focus needs to shift.

We write 2025 in our calendar in five weeks. All NZ Councils faced 2023 macroeconomic headwinds, and many Councils faced severe Q1/23 weather events. That only illuminates TCDC’s structural deficiencies and does not warrant its decision to implement unsustainable rate rises not once but twice since the Q1/23 weather events!

LACK OF BASIC UNDERSTANDING (NUMERACY)

Analogous to financial TCDC predicaments, most, if not all, of us are aware that there have been recent factual reports of declining societal numeracy skills and competencies in our schools.

Reality has clearly caught up with TCDC. Have a first-hand look at TCDC’s recent publication, “Our Coromandel 2024-2025” (ratepayers have had it mailed (at considerable publishing and distribution expense to us all)). It is all but a re-election write-up.

Please turn to pp 38-39 (Our “Village” – an attempt to put our community composition into %-terms). “Our ethnic groups” (bottom p38): somehow 88+19+4+3+1+1 is supposed to = 100. Go figure! (Most of their examples do not add to 100%).

THE SOLUTION: FUNCTION, FORM AND FUNDING

Our government has confirmed it will repeal the four well-being principles before next year’s Council elections (11 October 2025). It has challenged Councils “to rein in the fantasies and to get back to delivering the basics brilliantly.”

We pay our Council rates to receive clean drinking water, storm and wastewater treatment, solid waste management, rubbish pick-up, local roads and walkways (fill the potholes), and cost-effective maintenance of local assets (basics).

Focussing only on “delivering the basics brilliantly“ will enable us to restructure our Council and make redundant (significantly reduce) functions linked to the four well-being principles, thereby achieving a leaner, more focussed, cost-effective, and efficient Council organisation.

What do you think?

“Lies, damn lies and statistics”