Local government in NZ unfit for purpose
We have an outdated system that delivers illequipped candidates, writes Andy Asquith.
Is local government in New Zealand fit for purpose? In my view, the answer is a resolute ‘‘no’’. Even without the soap opera currently playing out at Wellington City Council, it has been clear for some time that local government needs a radical examination.
I believe passionately in good local governance, and have stood for election. But what we are witnessing in Wellington simply shows that the actions seen elsewhere, predominantly in Tauranga and Invercargill, indicate something needs to be done.
The quality of governance in too many of our local authorities falls short of what we have a right to expect. This in part reflects that we have a local government system designed in a very different world – that of Rogernomics and all the accompanying baggage. We need a system which reflects the realities of 2021.
Between 1989 and 2019 respective local government ministers felt compelled to intervene in the running of councils by sending in commissioners on three occasions: in 2000 in Rodney, 2010 at Environment Canterbury, and 2012 in Kaipara. That essentially equates to once every 10 years. When we review recent local government activity, however, we can see a literal explosion of ministerial interest in the actions of a small, but growing, number of authorities.
We currently have commissioners running Tauranga, Crown observers ‘‘assisting’’ an essentially dysfunctional Invercargill City Council, and then we have WCC.
Whilst the 11th-hour attempt by mayor Andy Foster to prevent formal ministerial intervention and invite an independent reviewer to examine the machinations of the council may be seen as ‘‘brave’’ by former mayor Kerry Prendergast, some might see this as an act of a desperate man seeking to apply a sticking plaster to a broken leg. Given Foster’s history as a councillor, he ought to have been better prepared for the mayoral role.
In all three cases – and numerous others that haven’t grabbed the headlines – we have a breakdown in governance: the way in which we expect our elected representatives to perform their roles on our behalf. Hence, we have public and private spats between councillors which detract from the importance of running our cities and districts.
A significant part of the problem with this breakdown of governance is the calibre of many of those elected as either mayors or councillors. Having a higher bar for candidates to clear might be a start here. I find it incredible that, to be nominated, a candidate needs only the support of two residents on the electoral roll.
In addition, far too many people stand, and are elected, without having any idea as to what the role entails or what the legal requirements are. Evidence here abounds, with candidates standing on single-issue platforms – the most obvious of which is to cut rates – oblivious of the obligations a council has to meet. It can be argued that being a singleissue candidate – to sort out an underperforming council – was one of the driving factors in Tenby Powell’s shortlived spell as mayor of Tauranga. He simply hadn’t done his homework.
The calibre of those sitting around the council table is illustrated by Local Government New Zealand. In 2016, for the first time in its triennial census of elected representatives, it showed once again that our average councillor is male, pale and stale.
A striking addition to the information, though, was how poorly educated our councillors are – with the average councillor having a high school leaving certificate. In the 2019 census, this data is presented in a different way to deflect this – with a comparison with the general population seeking to show councillors in a better light. The bottom line, though, is that they are still poorly educated.
Once elected, councillors and mayors are not required to undertake any form of education, training and development to ensure they have the appropriate skillset to equip them for the role.
Given the scope and scale of local government, this is a remarkable systemic failure. These people are the custodians of in excess of $140 billion of our assets – yet they are not required to have skills to match the challenge. As such, we had the debacle over the wastewater system in Kaipara in 2012 and the recent implosion at Tauranga.
As unpopular as this may seem, having candidates selected and standing on explicit political party platforms may help to increase the calibre of candidates. I do appreciate, however, that we only have to look at some of those in Parliament to see the flaws in this argument. But I have seen this work in local government, and work well.
So what is the solution? I’d start with a root-and-branch examination of local government – as happened in a number of Australian states which implemented local government reform in the late 1980s.
We need a structure for the 21st century, with both appropriately skilled public servants and politicians.