Garth George: Elected amateurs in local Govt

For years I have suggested that the whole mechanism of local government should be reviewed, particularly the way it is financed. So it was with pleasure I learned this week that the Government was about to ring changes on the sector, including legislation to redefine its role.

Announcing the proposed changes, erstwhile Local Government Minister Nick Smith said councils' focus should be on local services rather than ones that should be provided by central government. The plan made that clear.

He announced that legislation would be introduced to Parliament in May to amend the Local Government Act to replace references to the "social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities" in the purpose clause and rewritten to make councils' new purpose "providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business".

Not before time. I have always seen Dr Smith as a bit of a twit - and his resignation in disgrace from the Cabinet this week tends to prove it - but in moving to reform local government he was right on the money.

Prime Minister John Key says it is not a local body's job to fund projects the Government has decided not to. I would go further: it is not a local body's job to fund projects that are best left to private enterprise, or that private enterprise has decided not to.

I agreed wholeheartedly with Dr Smith when he said: "Having local government with about four per cent of GDP involved in every possible area is not that efficient or effective; we're better to have them focused on things that only they can do and doing them really well."

Councils would now have a new purpose of "providing good-quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible costs to households and business". Amen to that.

It gets even better when we find that one of the biggest changes will be Government-imposed regulations on council debt, which has increased from $2 billion to $8 billion over the past 10 years.

The eight-point programme will be implemented in two stages. The first four points of redefining the purpose of local government, tighter fiscal controls, stronger governance and making it easier for councils to merge will be introduced to Parliament in May and is expected to be passed by September.

The next four points of reviewing the extensive planning documents required of councils, clarifying central and local government regulatory roles, exploring better ways to provide water, roads and other infrastructure and reviewing the use of development contributions will be covered by a second bill next year.

In all that, the only concern I have is in making it easier for councils to merge. Mergers have never been anything but expensive and inefficient failures, the latest of which is the massive - and massively expensive - Auckland super city.

What the reforms do not address is that local bodies are invariably run by mostly dull, pedestrian and often puffed up mayors and councillors and administered by boring, rigid and unimaginative bureaucrats of varying degrees of authority.

I wonder if the tradition of electing fellow citizens to operate the parish pump for us hasn't had its day. Perhaps in these times of increasing complexity we should consider doing away with elected amateurs and appointing, by some means, a board of commissioners, for instance, to run our cities and districts for us.

These would be proven professionals in management, finance, engineering, law (unfortunately) and so on who would be paid whatever the private-sector going rate is to get the job done with maximum efficiency and minimum cost, which is what business is all about, surely.

Remove the politics from local authorities and the efficiency rate would rocket all by itself.

Email: garth.george@hotmail.com