Andrea Vance

Online voting and a giant inflatable poo. Politicians have been scratching their heads for ways to encourage people to vote in local body elections, but with ideas as anemic as those, it’s no wonder almost two-thirds of voters didn’t bother.

A combination of mediocrity, irrelevance and lack of accountability is what is putting voters off.

Voters are disgusted with secret deals, pet projects, inadequate transport links, ageing infrastructure, high rates bills and councils floundering to grapple with population pressures, environmental problems and climate change.

It’s no wonder turnout has been on the slide since the 1980s.

Councils have a considerable impact on the economy, owning fixed assets worth around $123 billion and with a yearly operating expenditure of $10.3bn and an operating income of $9.9bn. They employ just over 25,000 people.

They spend a lot of our money – nearly half their revenue comes from rates – and are responsible for the small things that bug people (parking, rubbish collection) and the big things too (like whether your city has a stadium or functioning bus services). Yet, we routinely expect inertia or incompetence from our local councils. And as their reputation nosedives, the calibre of those willing to step up to serve, declines.

Not all of this is the fault of councils. Compared with other developed countries, local government in New Zealand has little power as health services and education are funded centrally while councils take responsibility for community amenities, regulating land use, investing in essential infrastructure for transport, drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.

Councils also spend less than in other countries. Here, central government expenditure is almost 90 per cent of total government expenditure. The OECD average is 46 per cent, and in Switzerland, it’s less than 20 per cent.

And under the current model significant authority (and considerable salaries) are vested in chief executives and their managers. Elected members are constrained by debt and a corporate board model.

In an effort to take back some of that power, local authorities are embracing ‘‘localism’’, a philosophy that essentially means devolving power away from central government.

Some argue it’s a push back against globalisation. Others say it’s just populism at a local level. But in theory, ‘‘localism’’ could mean faster, more tailored solutions and direct accountability. Perhaps communities struggling with tourism pressures could keep a bigger slice of the revenue. There could be congestion charging, or local fuel or bed taxes – even a local income tax.

But it also presents problems. Keeping revenue could widen inequality with some areas getting richer while others grow poorer.

Would there be national standards across all regions? And could it lead to more bureaucracy and a duplication of services?

There’s also no guarantee of competence – and what would stop corruption?

It’s been 30 years since the last major reforms to local democracy.

Localism might not be the answer.

But with more and more people feeling alienated from the political process, it’s a much better idea than a blow-up turd.

There could be congestion charging, or local fuel or bed taxes – even a local income tax.