Putting the ‘local’ back in local government

Josiah BrownMaxim Institute

Opinion

Local government has held the limelight recently on account of water woes, rate rises, and mayoral dramas. Councils are left scratching their heads figuring out how to keep their hole-riddled buckets full when debts need servicing and as operational costs mount.

Financial sustainability is one thing, but ultimately, trust is the legal tender in which our representatives trade — and it seems they’re running dangerously short.

A review of our history suggests that central government doesn’t trust councils to administer essential services, with successive governments stripping them of responsibility and power. These decisions, coupled with a proclivity for centralisation, mean the scope of local government in New Zealand is much smaller than in most other countries.

Local councils are responsible for the provision of libraries, parks, community and recreation centres, roads, water supply, transportation, wastewater, waste disposal, environmental protection, planning and regulation. These tangibly impact the everyday lives of citizens, so why the low voter turnout in local body elections?

Since the nationwide restructuring of local government in 1989, voter turnout has steadily declined from 56 to 42 percent.

The culprit may be how much influence the public feels it can have, which in turn may have something to do with the actual power councils wield.

Much of what local councils can do is constrained by regulation imposed by central government, limiting the scope of local decision-making and accountability.

The solution? A devolution of power, but that would require central government to relinquish control. Then there’s transparency and accountability, which, again, is hampered by the central government’s control over council decision-making.

The current arrangement tends towards finger-pointing and blame game-ing. Here’s how it is played: Ratepayers get upset by higher costs, poor outcomes, or both. The local council says it’s out of their hands. The government says the local council need to manage its affairs better. The result? Nobody wins.

Let’s take a specific example: housing. Our Resource Management Act is a classic example of legislation that restricts council activity, making it more challenging to deliver on housing and urban development.

According to data from Stats NZ, the cost of building a house has surged by 41 percent since 2019. Local councils bear a degree of responsibility, with some builders suggesting it’s easier to build a house than get building consent.

And yet, according to Auckland Council’s website, “Building and consent compliance issues are not always our responsibility.” So, whose is it? Because we want to talk to the manager.

If local government decision-making was less of a black box, housing could be cheaper, roads better, and maybe . . . just maybe, public transport would run on time.

We begin rebuilding trust in local government by clarifying its responsibilities and untangling them from central government; these are the preconditions for accountability and improved voter participation.