Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[MaybeTop8]

This seems like a very weak dig.
Why can't someone use their own report to defend their position? Unless of course the report is complete bogus, then sure hit away.
It looks like there was a proposal to explore privatisation of port operations.

The Post

www.thepost.co.nz

Absolutely Brown and Maurice were keen to sell it off.

 

[miket12]

This seems like a very weak dig.
Why can't someone use their own report to defend their position? Unless of course the report is complete bogus, then sure hit away.
It looks like there was a proposal to explore privatisation of port operations.

The Post

www.thepost.co.nz

There is a large difference in writing a report about whether the Ports operations should be leased out (therefore privatising them) and selling the Ports….. as Smith suggested was the long term goal…. even though there is no evidence available that it was too be sold. Smith used part of his report in a blog and used that as his “evidence” for the sale of the port.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Māori party channeling Trump and playing politics by division:

“Oranga Tamariki should in fact be renamed Matenga Tamariki (killing children).”

Government is on a “mission to exterminate Māori”.

That sort of hate speech is only going to promoting hate and division from their followers.

I’ve found if you don’t get your kids involved with Oranga Tamariki and take personal responsibility for them you don’t need to blame anyone…

 

[MaybeTop8]

So once again we're getting fucked over by these corrupt politicians in our current government (Act and National is who I'm referring to) - the people on here trumpeting the water change, it isn't the win you think it is


THIS IS FROM BERNARD HICKEY

Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s is pushing back hard at suggestions from Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Mayor Wayne Brown that carving Watercare out of Auckland Council can be done easily and cheaply without clear guarantees on the new Watercare bonds from the Government or Auckland Council.

Industry sources have told me Watercare would get a BBB+ or A- credit rating at best under the proposed structure, even with a ‘nod and a wink’ from the Crown that it would rescue Auckland’s water network if push came to shove. This means the Government and Council are loading up an extra 50 to 100 basis points in borrowing costs onto the nation’s key infrastructure provider in the economy’s growth engine.

Over many billions of dollars of borrowing, the costs would mount up to tens of millions of dollars a year and the unnecessarily low credit rating would also restrict Watercare’s ultimate scale of the borrowing because fund managers don’t have much room for BBB bonds. They will happily fund billions of AA bonds that the Council could issue, let alone the AA+ bonds the Government could sell.

To add to the financial pain, those costs are essentially unnecessary insurance premia to pay for the short-term and very political figleafs of keeping high credit ratings for the Council and Government themselves for now, and politicians being able to disavow responsibility for high water charges increases in future.

In my view, that’s an expensive and unnecessary ‘nod and a wink’ that delays and restricts the amount of house-building needed to cope with previous fast population growth, let alone likely growth. The Government and Council would be achieve a lot more in a shorter period and with much less cost by simply borrowing off their own balance sheets. At worst, Auckland might lose a notch on its credit rating and increase its borrowing costs by 5-10 basis points, which would add about $2 million a year in interest costs.

Messrs Brown and Brown are choosing political figleafs now in exchange for loading up tens of millions in extra interest costs on Auckland ratepayers, while also delaying and downsizing the amount of house-building possible in future decades. It is the exact opposite of the Government’s stated aims of controlling inflation in basic living costs and ‘Going For Growth’ on housebuilding.

(Paying subscribers can see more detail and analysis below the paywall fold and in the podcast above. We’ll open it up for public reading, listening and sharing if we get over 100 likes)

Brown figleaves to cost Aucklanders tens of millions​

The much-trumpeted deal to carve Watercare out of Auckland Council and soften this year’s water charges hike from 25.8% to 7.2% risks costing Aucklanders tens of millions of dollars a year extra in interest costs over the longer run, all to allow the Government and Council to say publicly they aren’t guaranteeing the debt and allow politicians to disavow responsibility for new and/or higher water charges.

The deeper failure is that these extra costs will have been paid unnecessarily, especially from a taxpayers’ point of view. That’s because in reality, the Government would be forced bail out Watercare anyway. As it stands, the key ratings agency Standard & Poor’s is already pushing back at the vagueness of the Government’s position behind Watercare, saying that without a proper assurance the new carved-off Watercare would have a much lower credit rating than the Council’s AA rating and the Crown’s AA+ rating.

Sources close to the process have confirmed Watercare might get a BBB+ rating or A- rating at the very best, even with a ‘nod and a wink’ from the Government. That would impose an extra borrowing cost over and above regular Government AA+ bonds or Auckland Council AA bonds of at least 50 to 100 basis points.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown trumpeted their deal on Sunday to carve Watercare’s assets out of Auckland Council as a win-win-win for ratepayers, taxpayers and the growth aspirations for Aotearoa’s biggest city and its economic (and housing) growth engine.

They said it would break the shackles on Auckland’s borrowing limits, dramatically reduce this year’s water charges increase and mean the Council and taxpayers would not have to guarantee Watercare’s bonds. It was also seen as a template for other councils to do the same thing. What’s not to like?

The trouble is that combination of lower water charges inflation, more borrowing and no formal guarantees of ratepayer or taxpayer bailouts is an impossible trinity without some sort of implicit reassurance or comfort for ratings agencies and bond investors given by the Goverment that means there is effectively a guarantee anyway.

The real problem is this ‘nod and a wink’ from minister of the day is not being clarified and won’t be clear until legislation is written later in the year.

Strategic ambiguities abound​

I asked Simeon Brown’s office, Wayne Brown’s office and Standard & Poor’s for clarity on what form the guarantee or assurance would take.

The Browns said in their announcement on Sunday that: “International credit ratings agency S&P Global Ratings has determined the model would mean Watercare’s borrowing is considered separate from Auckland Council for credit rating purposes.”

Simeon Brown went further in a news conference (bolding mine):

“What has been tested with S&P is effectively a model whereby the council remains the owner, the council continues to control Watercare through appointments and setting the statement of intent and direction, but the council is no longer able to provide financial support to Watercare.
“Watercare will be legislated as having responsibility for delivering water and wastewater to Aucklanders rather than Auckland council and the Crown will also be legislating that any loans entered into by Watercare must include a disclosure that they’re not guaranteed by the Crown.” Simeon Brown

Really?

Sources close to Auckland Council suggested on Sunday that the lack of a formal guarantee could be replaced by type of ‘nod and wink’, described thus: “Central Government would be under no legal obligation to rescue the entity, but would be able to do so if it chose.”

What might S&P think of not having a guarantee?

I asked and they wrote back with the following (bolding mine):

“Any legislative changes that prohibit Auckland Council from providing financial support to Watercare may greatly limit the risks posed to the council by Watercare from a credit-rating perspective. Doing so, however, means the credit quality of Watercare would likely be much lower than Auckland’s AA rating. An entity such as Watercare can't borrow on terms as competitive as the council can unless it's part of the council or at least backstopped by the council.” S&P spokesman via email

So how much lower would the rating be? Sources familiar with the details of local government credit ratings said a BBB rating was likely with no assurance of Crown support, with a possible one or two extra notches to BBB+ or A- with a ‘nod and a wink.’

So was this the only choice for Auckland Council, Watercare and the Government?

There’s been a lot of chatter about how there was no way for Auckland Council or Watercare to borrow more because the Council was up against its debt ceiling of 280% of revenues. I’m told that’s not true because Watercare could have borrowed more through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), but only if Auckland Council agreed to a one-notch credit rating downgrade.

S&P made clear that such a downgrade would only increase the Council’s costs by 5-10 basis points or less than $2 million per year. In previous years council officials have warned a downgrade for Auckland Council would force a sovereign downgrade, but S&P and others have rejected that.

In eseence, Brown and Brown are choosing an option that avoids rating downgrades that might prove politically embarrassing or increase mortgage borrowing costs nationally (but only marginally). They are also able to distance themselves from decisions made by Watercare and other water providers to increase and/or impose water charges.

 

[Rizzah]

There is a large difference in writing a report about whether the Ports operations should be leased out (therefore privatising them) and selling the Ports….. as Smith suggested was the long term goal…. even though there is no evidence available that it was too be sold. Smith used part of his report in a blog and used that as his “evidence” for the sale of the port.

Lol. Can you link the blog post?

This is def a win for those opposed to privatisation.

 

[miket12]

Lol. Can you link the blog post?

This is def a win for those opposed to privatisation.

View: https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1759657700491952480

 

[Rizzah]

View: https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1759657700491952480

That's it? Lol.

 

[miket12]

So once again we're getting fucked over by these corrupt politicians in our current government (Act and National is who I'm referring to) - the people on here trumpeting the water change, it isn't the win you think it is


THIS IS FROM BERNARD HICKEY

Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s is pushing back hard at suggestions from Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Mayor Wayne Brown that carving Watercare out of Auckland Council can be done easily and cheaply without clear guarantees on the new Watercare bonds from the Government or Auckland Council.

Industry sources have told me Watercare would get a BBB+ or A- credit rating at best under the proposed structure, even with a ‘nod and a wink’ from the Crown that it would rescue Auckland’s water network if push came to shove. This means the Government and Council are loading up an extra 50 to 100 basis points in borrowing costs onto the nation’s key infrastructure provider in the economy’s growth engine.

Over many billions of dollars of borrowing, the costs would mount up to tens of millions of dollars a year and the unnecessarily low credit rating would also restrict Watercare’s ultimate scale of the borrowing because fund managers don’t have much room for BBB bonds. They will happily fund billions of AA bonds that the Council could issue, let alone the AA+ bonds the Government could sell.

To add to the financial pain, those costs are essentially unnecessary insurance premia to pay for the short-term and very political figleafs of keeping high credit ratings for the Council and Government themselves for now, and politicians being able to disavow responsibility for high water charges increases in future.

In my view, that’s an expensive and unnecessary ‘nod and a wink’ that delays and restricts the amount of house-building needed to cope with previous fast population growth, let alone likely growth. The Government and Council would be achieve a lot more in a shorter period and with much less cost by simply borrowing off their own balance sheets. At worst, Auckland might lose a notch on its credit rating and increase its borrowing costs by 5-10 basis points, which would add about $2 million a year in interest costs.

Messrs Brown and Brown are choosing political figleafs now in exchange for loading up tens of millions in extra interest costs on Auckland ratepayers, while also delaying and downsizing the amount of house-building possible in future decades. It is the exact opposite of the Government’s stated aims of controlling inflation in basic living costs and ‘Going For Growth’ on housebuilding.

(Paying subscribers can see more detail and analysis below the paywall fold and in the podcast above. We’ll open it up for public reading, listening and sharing if we get over 100 likes)

Brown figleaves to cost Aucklanders tens of millions​

The much-trumpeted deal to carve Watercare out of Auckland Council and soften this year’s water charges hike from 25.8% to 7.2% risks costing Aucklanders tens of millions of dollars a year extra in interest costs over the longer run, all to allow the Government and Council to say publicly they aren’t guaranteeing the debt and allow politicians to disavow responsibility for new and/or higher water charges.

The deeper failure is that these extra costs will have been paid unnecessarily, especially from a taxpayers’ point of view. That’s because in reality, the Government would be forced bail out Watercare anyway. As it stands, the key ratings agency Standard & Poor’s is already pushing back at the vagueness of the Government’s position behind Watercare, saying that without a proper assurance the new carved-off Watercare would have a much lower credit rating than the Council’s AA rating and the Crown’s AA+ rating.

Sources close to the process have confirmed Watercare might get a BBB+ rating or A- rating at the very best, even with a ‘nod and a wink’ from the Government. That would impose an extra borrowing cost over and above regular Government AA+ bonds or Auckland Council AA bonds of at least 50 to 100 basis points.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown trumpeted their deal on Sunday to carve Watercare’s assets out of Auckland Council as a win-win-win for ratepayers, taxpayers and the growth aspirations for Aotearoa’s biggest city and its economic (and housing) growth engine.

They said it would break the shackles on Auckland’s borrowing limits, dramatically reduce this year’s water charges increase and mean the Council and taxpayers would not have to guarantee Watercare’s bonds. It was also seen as a template for other councils to do the same thing. What’s not to like?

The trouble is that combination of lower water charges inflation, more borrowing and no formal guarantees of ratepayer or taxpayer bailouts is an impossible trinity without some sort of implicit reassurance or comfort for ratings agencies and bond investors given by the Goverment that means there is effectively a guarantee anyway.

The real problem is this ‘nod and a wink’ from minister of the day is not being clarified and won’t be clear until legislation is written later in the year.

Strategic ambiguities abound​

I asked Simeon Brown’s office, Wayne Brown’s office and Standard & Poor’s for clarity on what form the guarantee or assurance would take.

The Browns said in their announcement on Sunday that: “International credit ratings agency S&P Global Ratings has determined the model would mean Watercare’s borrowing is considered separate from Auckland Council for credit rating purposes.”

Simeon Brown went further in a news conference (bolding mine):


Really?

Sources close to Auckland Council suggested on Sunday that the lack of a formal guarantee could be replaced by type of ‘nod and wink’, described thus: “Central Government would be under no legal obligation to rescue the entity, but would be able to do so if it chose.”

What might S&P think of not having a guarantee?

I asked and they wrote back with the following (bolding mine):


So how much lower would the rating be? Sources familiar with the details of local government credit ratings said a BBB rating was likely with no assurance of Crown support, with a possible one or two extra notches to BBB+ or A- with a ‘nod and a wink.’

So was this the only choice for Auckland Council, Watercare and the Government?

There’s been a lot of chatter about how there was no way for Auckland Council or Watercare to borrow more because the Council was up against its debt ceiling of 280% of revenues. I’m told that’s not true because Watercare could have borrowed more through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), but only if Auckland Council agreed to a one-notch credit rating downgrade.

S&P made clear that such a downgrade would only increase the Council’s costs by 5-10 basis points or less than $2 million per year. In previous years council officials have warned a downgrade for Auckland Council would force a sovereign downgrade, but S&P and others have rejected that.

In eseence, Brown and Brown are choosing an option that avoids rating downgrades that might prove politically embarrassing or increase mortgage borrowing costs nationally (but only marginally). They are also able to distance themselves from decisions made by Watercare and other water providers to increase and/or impose water charges.

Less than six weeks ago, Hickey wrote an article saying how Central government imposed debt ceilings were stopping local bodies doing infrastructural work….. now that the government is changing the rules about local body debt, he doesn’t like it. A bit of consistency would be nice. Either extending local body debt is a good thing or a bad thing.

The debt rules being used to strangle NZ

LGFA debt limits are strangling big councils, but that's what officials & voters want; Luxon to use more urgency in new 97-day plan; Warehouse wants food price controls; MSD resumes tenancy reviews

thekaka.substack.com

 

[miket12]

That's it? Lol

You asked where Clint had stated where privatization of the council operations would lead to the sale of assets and I’ve provided it.

 

[miket12]

Less than six weeks ago, Hickey wrote an article saying how Central government imposed debt ceilings were stopping local bodies doing infrastructural work….. now that the government is changing the rules about local body debt, he doesn’t like it. A bit of consistency would be nice. Either extending local body debt is a good thing or a bad thing.

The debt rules being used to strangle NZ

LGFA debt limits are strangling big councils, but that's what officials & voters want; Luxon to use more urgency in new 97-day plan; Warehouse wants food price controls; MSD resumes tenancy reviews

thekaka.substack.com

Also interesting that Clint Smith was all for increasing government debt to fund infrastructure but when National want to change the rules to allow local bodies to do that, debt for infrastructure is such a bad idea.

It’s time for Labour to damn the debt and build a legacy

This government has the means to tackle some of NZ's most urgent problems. But first, Labour must abandon its cautious approach.

thespinoff.co.nz

 

[Rizzah]

Also interesting that Clint Smith was all for increasing government debt to fund infrastructure but when National want to change the rules to allow local bodies to do that, debt for infrastructure is such a bad idea.

It’s time for Labour to damn the debt and build a legacy

This government has the means to tackle some of NZ's most urgent problems. But first, Labour must abandon its cautious approach.

thespinoff.co.nz

Lol, but National want to change the settings so it's much more expensive for local bodies to borrow and add clauses where it's difficult for those entities to get help if they get into financial difficulty. Hence the chat about setting up for privatisation. I thought you were the details man.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

There is a large difference in writing a report about whether the Ports operations should be leased out (therefore privatising them) and selling the Ports….. as Smith suggested was the long term goal…. even though there is no evidence available that it was too be sold. Smith used part of his report in a blog and used that as his “evidence” for the sale of the port.

In terms of what transaction was on the table in recent months, it was only ever an op-co prop-co lease with a concession period of 35 years.

 

[Rizzah]

Less than six weeks ago, Hickey wrote an article saying how Central government imposed debt ceilings were stopping local bodies doing infrastructural work….. now that the government is changing the rules about local body debt, he doesn’t like it. A bit of consistency would be nice. Either extending local body debt is a good thing or a bad thing.

The debt rules being used to strangle NZ

LGFA debt limits are strangling big councils, but that's what officials & voters want; Luxon to use more urgency in new 97-day plan; Warehouse wants food price controls; MSD resumes tenancy reviews

thekaka.substack.com

Lol. The disappointment is making the entities off balance without either the council or govt backing, meaning they have a much worse credit rating, meaning borrowing will be much more expensive. And also leaves them ripe for privatisation.
This is a laughable dig. Geez I thought you were better than this.

 

[miket12]

Lol, but National want to change the settings so it's much more expensive for local bodies to borrow and add clauses where it's difficult for those entities to get help if they get into financial difficulty. Hence the chat about setting up for privatisation. I thought you were the details man.

You do realise the government is allowing local bodies to borrow more money for infrastructure and that companies like Standard and Poors set the credit rating standards based on the councils and their organisations ability to pay it back, their income and expenditure and their asset base to debt ratios.

Government are allowing them to borrow more….. if that borrowing is too much that it effects the councils or their organisations credit rating, that’s their responsibility…. not central government.

You do realise that there is only one country in the world which decided it would try to follow Scottish Water by establishing its own version…. NZ. If the Scottish Water way of doing things was so good, why haven’t other countries adopted it? Think of this, before Scottish Water came into being, it was estimated that just over 20% of water leaked from their system, now it’s over 30%. Smaller cities and towns water infrastructure has deteriorated there while only slight improvements have happened to the major cities…. despite them receiving the bulk of the funding.

TBH, I would rather we had looked at what they are doing right in an earthquake city like Tokyo where their water leakage is less than 10% and adopted that here nationally than do things like complaining that a water leakage of over 30% was happening in Wellington. I’d rather that central government funding was available for new water treatment plants in smaller communities like Havelock North than have a centralised bureaucracy. I’d rather we concentrated on outcomes than ideology.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP09WYIIQ64

Is Mark Mitchell okay? Lol.

Thats a fucking trainwreck...

 

[Damo]

Government actually keeping the free lunches in schools as well as 10,000 lunches for some preschoolers, commend them for that.

 

[dean]

Government actually keeping the free lunches in schools as well as 10,000 lunches for some preschoolers, commend them for that.

And with food kids will eat by the sounds of it.

 

[Damo]

And with food kids will eat by the sounds of it.

Kids will be fussy regardless I bet.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

So once again we're getting fucked over by these corrupt politicians in our current government (Act and National is who I'm referring to) - the people on here trumpeting the water change, it isn't the win you think it is


THIS IS FROM BERNARD HICKEY

Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s is pushing back hard at suggestions from Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Mayor Wayne Brown that carving Watercare out of Auckland Council can be done easily and cheaply without clear guarantees on the new Watercare bonds from the Government or Auckland Council.

Industry sources have told me Watercare would get a BBB+ or A- credit rating at best under the proposed structure, even with a ‘nod and a wink’ from the Crown that it would rescue Auckland’s water network if push came to shove. This means the Government and Council are loading up an extra 50 to 100 basis points in borrowing costs onto the nation’s key infrastructure provider in the economy’s growth engine.

Over many billions of dollars of borrowing, the costs would mount up to tens of millions of dollars a year and the unnecessarily low credit rating would also restrict Watercare’s ultimate scale of the borrowing because fund managers don’t have much room for BBB bonds. They will happily fund billions of AA bonds that the Council could issue, let alone the AA+ bonds the Government could sell.

To add to the financial pain, those costs are essentially unnecessary insurance premia to pay for the short-term and very political figleafs of keeping high credit ratings for the Council and Government themselves for now, and politicians being able to disavow responsibility for high water charges increases in future.

In my view, that’s an expensive and unnecessary ‘nod and a wink’ that delays and restricts the amount of house-building needed to cope with previous fast population growth, let alone likely growth. The Government and Council would be achieve a lot more in a shorter period and with much less cost by simply borrowing off their own balance sheets. At worst, Auckland might lose a notch on its credit rating and increase its borrowing costs by 5-10 basis points, which would add about $2 million a year in interest costs.

Messrs Brown and Brown are choosing political figleafs now in exchange for loading up tens of millions in extra interest costs on Auckland ratepayers, while also delaying and downsizing the amount of house-building possible in future decades. It is the exact opposite of the Government’s stated aims of controlling inflation in basic living costs and ‘Going For Growth’ on housebuilding.

(Paying subscribers can see more detail and analysis below the paywall fold and in the podcast above. We’ll open it up for public reading, listening and sharing if we get over 100 likes)

Brown figleaves to cost Aucklanders tens of millions​

The much-trumpeted deal to carve Watercare out of Auckland Council and soften this year’s water charges hike from 25.8% to 7.2% risks costing Aucklanders tens of millions of dollars a year extra in interest costs over the longer run, all to allow the Government and Council to say publicly they aren’t guaranteeing the debt and allow politicians to disavow responsibility for new and/or higher water charges.

The deeper failure is that these extra costs will have been paid unnecessarily, especially from a taxpayers’ point of view. That’s because in reality, the Government would be forced bail out Watercare anyway. As it stands, the key ratings agency Standard & Poor’s is already pushing back at the vagueness of the Government’s position behind Watercare, saying that without a proper assurance the new carved-off Watercare would have a much lower credit rating than the Council’s AA rating and the Crown’s AA+ rating.

Sources close to the process have confirmed Watercare might get a BBB+ rating or A- rating at the very best, even with a ‘nod and a wink’ from the Government. That would impose an extra borrowing cost over and above regular Government AA+ bonds or Auckland Council AA bonds of at least 50 to 100 basis points.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown trumpeted their deal on Sunday to carve Watercare’s assets out of Auckland Council as a win-win-win for ratepayers, taxpayers and the growth aspirations for Aotearoa’s biggest city and its economic (and housing) growth engine.

They said it would break the shackles on Auckland’s borrowing limits, dramatically reduce this year’s water charges increase and mean the Council and taxpayers would not have to guarantee Watercare’s bonds. It was also seen as a template for other councils to do the same thing. What’s not to like?

The trouble is that combination of lower water charges inflation, more borrowing and no formal guarantees of ratepayer or taxpayer bailouts is an impossible trinity without some sort of implicit reassurance or comfort for ratings agencies and bond investors given by the Goverment that means there is effectively a guarantee anyway.

The real problem is this ‘nod and a wink’ from minister of the day is not being clarified and won’t be clear until legislation is written later in the year.

Strategic ambiguities abound​

I asked Simeon Brown’s office, Wayne Brown’s office and Standard & Poor’s for clarity on what form the guarantee or assurance would take.

The Browns said in their announcement on Sunday that: “International credit ratings agency S&P Global Ratings has determined the model would mean Watercare’s borrowing is considered separate from Auckland Council for credit rating purposes.”

Simeon Brown went further in a news conference (bolding mine):


Really?

Sources close to Auckland Council suggested on Sunday that the lack of a formal guarantee could be replaced by type of ‘nod and wink’, described thus: “Central Government would be under no legal obligation to rescue the entity, but would be able to do so if it chose.”

What might S&P think of not having a guarantee?

I asked and they wrote back with the following (bolding mine):


So how much lower would the rating be? Sources familiar with the details of local government credit ratings said a BBB rating was likely with no assurance of Crown support, with a possible one or two extra notches to BBB+ or A- with a ‘nod and a wink.’

So was this the only choice for Auckland Council, Watercare and the Government?

There’s been a lot of chatter about how there was no way for Auckland Council or Watercare to borrow more because the Council was up against its debt ceiling of 280% of revenues. I’m told that’s not true because Watercare could have borrowed more through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), but only if Auckland Council agreed to a one-notch credit rating downgrade.

S&P made clear that such a downgrade would only increase the Council’s costs by 5-10 basis points or less than $2 million per year. In previous years council officials have warned a downgrade for Auckland Council would force a sovereign downgrade, but S&P and others have rejected that.

In eseence, Brown and Brown are choosing an option that avoids rating downgrades that might prove politically embarrassing or increase mortgage borrowing costs nationally (but only marginally). They are also able to distance themselves from decisions made by Watercare and other water providers to increase and/or impose water charges.

You mention "corrupt" and then quote an entire article that doesnt mention it once, but does carry on at length about the inner workings of council and government debt and borrowings.

Give me a TLDR on Bernards article in your opinion.

 

[MaybeTop8]

You mention "corrupt" and then quote an entire article that doesnt mention it once, but does carry on at length about the inner workings of council and government debt and borrowings.

Give me a TLDR on Bernards article in your opinion.

Cigarettes, mining, farming, real estate, the trucking and roading lobby, real estate, landlords, realestate, landlords, horse racing, gambling, privatisation, fossil fuels, tax cuts for the rich, running the public sector down deliberately and on and on and on.

Take your pick Frank