Dialogue: Local body lobby group in disarray

By DAVID THORNTON*

Difficult days lie ahead for local government after the revelations of turmoil at Local Government New Zealand and the golden handshake given to its departing chief executive, Carol Stigley.

The fallout will be substantial, especially because it may affect the Government's plans to make significant changes to the way local bodies operate. What, then, is wrong with Local Government New Zealand?

Usually described as a lobby group speaking on behalf of all 86 local and regional councils in the country, its mission statement is to promote the national interests of local government.

In this role Local Government New Zealand has its own bureaucracy of about 20 staff who spend most of their time preparing submissions on a variety of issues to central Government ministers. Its local council members have complained that these submissions are often made without consultation with the membership.

The costs of running this organisation are met by payments from the local councils which make up the membership - those councils, of course, being funded by ratepayers.

The direction of Local Government New Zealand policy is largely determined by a national council of 14 members - mostly mayors or chairmen elected by the full membership at the annual conference. Within that national council is the supreme triumvirate of the president and two vice-presidents - known as the presidential team. It is this little group which appears to hold the real power in the organisation.

Local Government New Zealand proclaims that "local government speaks strongest when it speaks with one voice." That slogan is a nonsense. The 86 local and regional councils cannot possibly all have the same needs or priorities. The vast differences between rural and urban communities must always create divergence on many issues. And perhaps acting as though it was all things to all people is what is fundamentally wrong with Local Government New Zealand.

The latest development in the Carol Stigley saga sees Wellington Mayor Mark Blumsky leading a group of so-called metropolitan mayors in a call for a breakaway organisation to be set up to represent the interest of the country's nine biggest city councils - including all four cities in the Auckland region.

Some may regard this as a backward step, returning to the days of separate organisations, such as those representing the old county councils and the municipal corporations. But if that move would produce more effective lobby groups for councils with common aims and obligations, let it happen.

It is important that appropriate groups of councils can work together when necessary on common issues, especially when dealing with central Government.

Does any of this matter to the average ratepayer? Most people's apathy towards local body politics is well known. Yet the effect of actions by local councils on our everyday lives is arguably much greater than those of central Government.

What if we did not have elected councils? Who would "manage" our local community affairs? Who would provide our essential local services - sewage disposal, water supply, rubbish collection, parks and playing field maintenance, transport systems, roads and pavement repairs and so on?

There has to be some form of control and management, otherwise anarchy would rule. Democracy, it has been said, is not a perfect form of government, but it is the best we've got.

Some will point to Rodney District where the elected council has been replaced by a Government-appointed commissioner.

Indeed, the handling of the Rodney situation is apparently one of the issues in the Carol Stigley matter. Carol Stigley was critical of some of Local Government Minister Sandra Lee's actions in the time leading up to the appointment of the commissioner.

But would appointed commissioners be desirable for the whole country? So far there has been little news from Rodney to give any indication of problems with the new system - although the commissioner was forced to reconsider some appointments he had made.

But the Rodney situation is only temporary. Everyone knows that there will be a return to local democracy with elections next March.

Many facets of local government are being reviewed by the Government. First, there are promised changes to the Resource Management Act, the legislation which dominates the way we live by setting out the rules on how our cities and neighbourhoods are planned.

Then there is the Rating Powers Act, together with changes to funding powers in the Local Government Act, the legislation which dictates how we pay for local services.

Road funding - deciding "where costs should be carried" - is, according to Transport Minister Mark Gosche, being discussed with local government.

There are plans for increased responsibility for local councils in "social"' areas. These were announced by various Government ministers at the recent Local Government New Zealand conference.

The Local Government Act itself, long overdue for reform, will be revamped within the lifetime of this Government and is likely to include provision for a "power of general competence." This would give local councils almost free rein to engage in any activity they choose.

On all these issues, the Government will be dealing with Local Government New Zealand as the single "voice" of local government. For the organisation to be in turmoil at this moment is potentially catastrophic.

But perhaps it is also providential, offering an opportunity for local government to sort out its true place in the governance of the country. And to put in place effective lobby groups which each truly speak with one voice on behalf of their members - and ultimately on behalf of ratepayers.

* David Thornton, a former member of the North Shore City Council, is a commentator on local government.