Give us more information

Democracy may be an imperfect system but it’s probably the fairest we’ve created so far. With nominations closing last week for local government elections, our democracy is in the news, on posters on our neighbours’ fences, and under review. Voting papers will arrive in our letterboxes in a few weeks.

Persistent problems continue to gnaw at the local government sector. Last week, we heard about the difficulties of attracting candidates, particularly for Mā ori seats and in rural areas. Reasons being offered were Covid-fatigue, increasing harassment, political cynicism and apathy. Before nominations closed, Local Government NZ sent out an ‘‘SOS for Local Democracy’’, calling for more people to step forward to represent their communities.

In rural areas, another reason seems to be low pay. It certainly is hard to see how councillors and community board members in small electorates can make representing their communities a viable career choice. With annual councillor salaries as little as $18,000, most rural elected members would need to have other sources of income or even work full-time to serve their communities.

But as a principal of a tiny rural school once explained to me, regardless of size, small organisations have a similar number of meetings, infrastructure needs, financial statements and policies to manage as larger entities. Scaling up does create more work, but not to the extent of the grossly low pay of rural elected councillors.

Because at the other end of the pay scale is the problem of paying councillors too much with not enough accountability. Larger cities remunerate councillors well: Auckland councillors earn as much as $137,000 a year. In Christchurch, they earn around $110,000, a salary roughly 75% above the city’s average annual wages of $63,000.

A 2018 Remuneration Authority review revealed councillors had a range of views on how they see their income in relation to how much they work.

While councillors reported working on average 20 hours a week, the authority considered the salaries of those in metropolitan areas to reflect work up to one full-time equivalent, or 40 hours a week. But in 2020, six out of 15 of my city councillors in Christchurch topped up their council jobs with other paying roles, such as running their own businesses, contract accounting, or providing financial advice.

While the majority of New Zealand’s elected officials seem incredibly hardworking, some are not, and the system is not designed to address poor performing officials until election time. There is only one realistic way to deal with lazy councillors – don’t re-elect them – because mayors, other councillors and local party members have no formal oversight over their performance.

As someone who works close to local government says, ‘‘all councillors really have to do is stay out of trouble and show up at meetings for three years’’.

Which seems to be the approach of Catherine Chu, Christchurch city councillor. She drew criticism in 2020 for attending only 40% of staff briefings while earning an income as a Canterbury DHB member and campaigning as the National Party candidate for the Banks Peninsula electorate, refusing to forgo her councillor’s salary while she did so.

Amidst grumblings of no representation from her electorate’s residents association, low visibility in her community, and an inability to even say much at city council meetings, Christchurch ratepayers have paid the 27-year-old nearly $340,000 over her term.

Councils do have codes of conduct, but these are toothless and rarely used. Maybe we should follow California’s lead for addressing electorate dissatisfaction. A state law allows voters to ‘‘recall’’ an elected official if there is widespread concern about their performance. Once a specified number of voters have petitioned for their removal from office, the petition is elevated to state officials to confirm.

But wouldn’t it be easier just to have a better understanding of who we are electing before we go through the resource-intensive business of removing them from office? We need quality information on which to base our votes, rather than the self-penned profiles in election brochures. If the Electoral Commission can’t collate comparative data on nominees’ priorities, values and likely voting patterns, local media should.

All democracies are continually trying to improve on their inherent problems. In October, a report from the Review into the Future for Local Government will explore ways our political system should adapt to our changing world. For now, we can all help make our flawed but vital democracy the best it can be by taking the time to elect people who will competently represent us.