KEY POINTS:
As a councillor on a pre-amalgamation borough council in the 1970s, and now entering my fifth term as a post-amalgamation city councillor, I have a long-term perspective on the issue of low turnout in local elections.
The problem is quite complex, starting with a lack of education.
Over
recent decades the study of history and comparative government at schools and universities has been greatly reduced, including the importance of democracy, its privileges and responsibilities, and the consequences of letting it wither. Much more needs to be done to encourage students to interface with local government.
This educational decline is paralleled in the shrinkage of the public sector following the right-wing "reforms" of the eighties, with a consequent loss of public involvement, ownership and control of public assets such as ports, electricity boards and some airports.
Another reason for voter apathy lies in the local body reforms of 1989. There is no doubt that there were too many pocket boroughs and probably too many small cities, but the amalgamation was too extreme. I receive constant feedback from older voters whose experience with the old smaller local bodies tells them that amalgamation has fulfilled none of the much-touted promises, especially economies of scale, greater efficiency and a better rates regime.
Many voters have told me so-called local government is no longer local. In the old days, you could generally track down the borough engineer, for example, and talk to him. Today's council is a very large, impersonal, faceless entity that hides behind endless, lengthy and usually expensive processes.
Today's council is not usually directly in control of its construction and maintenance operations because they are contracted out to private enterprise. Accountability is smudged, elusive or missing entirely.
In sum, the remoteness, size, bureaucratisation and poor responsiveness of many of our large centralised councils are major reasons so many eligible voters shun any interest in local government. They feel powerless.
Solutions? Some countries that carried out major local body amalgamation before NZ have since allowed a certain amount of de-amalgamation in the interests of greater resident satisfaction and greater efficiencies. Smaller, highly democratic units of local government can be made more efficient simply through regional co-operation and the sharing of some major common resources, such as road construction operations.
Another reason for low voter turnout is that local determination has also been compromised by the Local Government Commission, whose members are appointed by the minister and therefore have no elected basis. They are unaccountable to the local people and roam the country handing down decisions that locals have little real chance to influence. Members of the commission do not have to live with the results of their decisions, nor do they have to pay for them. Again, where is the accountability?
Finally, why on Earth are we now contemplating further amalgamation for Auckland? Have we not learned that the 1989 amalgamation led to dis-economies of scale, huge bureaucratisation, unwieldy procedures and an erosion of local democracy that is reflected in the low voter turnout?
A high voter turnout relies on local communities engaging with their local councils. Let's bring the "local" back to local government.
* Tony Holman is a long-time North Shore City councillor with wide experience in local, regional and central government matters.
