Len Brown: Communities know best what they want

The successful Find your Field of Dreams programme. Photo / Glenn Jeffrey

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is working toward changing the legislation that sets out local councils' role, functions and responsibilities. His "behind closed doors" review of the Local Government Act is well under way and is due to be reported back to Cabinet in a matter of weeks. We should all be concerned.

The minister says he introduced the latest review as a measure to "improve local government transparency, accountability and fiscal management". But its scope is much broader. At the heart of his Cabinet report is a proposal to limit local government's activities to "core services".

It remains to be seen how much rein will be given to the minister by his Cabinet colleagues. However , based on his statements and philosophy, we can expect the recipe will have some familiar ingredients - small "contracted out" government, limitations on community and economic development programmes, caps on spending irrespective of community views and priorities and privatised assets. The 1980s anyone?

I believe this review, incidentally the fourth by central government in 20 years and the fifth if you live in Auckland, has the potential to dramatically change the role of local government in New Zealand - again. For this reason we need to understand and debate the implications of the proposed changes.

The debate over what "core services" are has raged for decades, here and overseas. The 2002 Local Government Act moved away from an overly prescriptive past by giving local authorities "powers of general competence". This means local government is involved where the community wants it to be involved.

The emphasis is on local decision-making and we are required to undertake an extensive consultative process before making major decisions. What my community thinks is important might be very different from what communities want in Invercargill, Westport or Wellington.

Minister Hide expects that "core services" would include the provision of transport, water and public health and safety. But what would be excluded under this definition?

The prospect of losing a direct role in providing libraries, swimming pools and community houses is worrying enough. Might he also exclude the development of art galleries, parks and reserves? Or preclude support for Manukau's anti-graffiti campaign? Or John Walker's hugely successful Find your Field of Dreams programme?

These are services that Manukau's communities have told us they want its council to provide. We ask and we listen. This year we received over 19,000 submissions to our draft 10-year plan following a thorough consultation and engagement process. What is not transparent about that?

One of Minister Hide's supposed justifications for reform is that these consultation processes result in "submission fatigue". We do not accept this charge. And, frankly, it is a little insulting to our communities.

It is also disingenuous. On the one hand Rodney Hide says local government is riding roughshod over community interests while on the other hand he says we are spending too much time listening to our communities.

The minister's solution is to have more polls and referenda. However, the minister himself didn't think the current restructure of Auckland's governance warranted a referendum so it is hard to imagine him supporting referenda on community issues such as graffiti, youth programmes, and free use of swimming pools.

The minister proposes to drastically alter the content and form of 10-year plans. I agree that some refinements could be valuable. Long-term planning in local government has been the victim of frequent changes to the legislative landscape and we are only just fully getting to grips with the current system.

It would be a costly shame to start over yet again. The Cabinet report also recommends significant changes to the financial platforms on which 10-year plans are built. The financial transparency and accountability requirements the minister proposes to amend have only been in existence since 1998.

Regarding costs, few would argue with the minister wanting to look at ways of taking the sting out of council rates increases. But we don't need him to dictate the parameters for this - it's a debate that should rightfully be left at the level of local democracy - where people already know a great deal about how to carefully balance competing views, the current and future needs of our communities and a concern for affordability.

I, myself, am proud to be part of a legacy of good local government that through wise oversight has delivered relevant and innovative services, sound infrastructure, relatively low rates and the strongest balance sheet in the region of any rates increase.

What the minister must also not forget is that we have a legacy in the region of poor investment in infrastructure that we will be playing catch-up with for years. Again, constraint always needs to be balanced by progressive civic leadership and responsible stewardship of infrastructure and assets.

We have an obligation to future generations in this regard. Ultimately it is communities that know best what they want.

Most of us in local government understand this and listen carefully to our communities. I suggest the minister take a moment to stop and listen himself.

* Len Brown is the Mayor of Manukau City.