Local government reform: an alternative view

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 270, 17 January 1989, Page 13

Local government reform: an alternative view

Local government is extremely lmportant. It deals directly or indirectly with the lives of all New Zealanders.

National has always recognised the need for a strong and effective partnership between central government and local government - a partnership built o n trust and understanding. The National Party also believes that genuine reform or review is always relevant and important but should be based on important principles of change. Democracy The most important principle is democracy. The Labour government has chosen to throw out most of the current democratic processes in restructuring to achieve a unnecessarily tight party political time frame. If we want the best local government structure for the future, then it must be a structure which the people want and will support. The people have not had a say in this current structure and in many cases are quite bewildered at what is

going on. The Minister believes that people are not interested and hopes to get through his plan of change without 'waking the sleeping giant'. It should be remembered that the Labour Governpient in June this year first decided to change the law and give the members of cabinet the total power to decide the shape and future of local government throughout New Zealand. The outrageous, undemocratic nature of that decision finally convinced the Government that they should do something different. The outcome was to make the local government commission responsible for decision making which has meant that most of the 'brickbats' have been 'hurled' at the wrong target The allegation is that by reinstating the

democratic processes, changes will grind to a halt. National recognises this, but believes the perspective o n change is now more positive and that the principle of democracy is far more important than political expediency. Because the Labour Government has removed democracy from the restructuring process National will: • Restore the rights of non-resident ratepayers to vote in loan poll and triennial elections. • Repeal the undemocratic polling provisions enacted in 1986. • Reinstate the democratic process in terms of any local government restructuring. • Provide for re-es-tablishment where

forced amalgamations have occurred. Such reestablishments however, would be dependent upon compliance with strict criterion. True Local Government National believes that local government should remain what it says: truly local. Labour is clearly desirous to change the historic meaning and role of local government to something quite different. They appear to be quite happy to remove local government further away from the people as being expressed in the ward committee concept, and place disproportionate emphasis on the new mega regional concepts. Whilst the role and functions of ward committees have not been properly delin-

eated, they do represent in general terms, a diminution of local government as w e know it at the present time. For instance, they are both less in number and role than the autonomous local authorities they are about to replace. T h e i r representation is based on two or three committee members serving on the district council. A few other committee members, we understand will be appointed to augment the district representatives. The whole thing is a nonsense when you realise that ward committees in many places could represent 10,000 or more. National would therefore be interested in any further details explaining the role of these committees but would otherwise be of a mind to review the committees with the objective of restoring greater independence

and thereby the reinstatement of more truly local government. Structures Structures should be appropriate and seek to reduce costs. National believes that the local government structures should be the most appropriate for every individual region and district. I believe Labour has a mind to separate the regional government tier and give to it not only a special identity, but use it to unload all the central government

activities which it does not want! In other words, central government holds the power, but does what it is doing through the SOE's - places the responsibility on somebody else! Most accept that regions will dominate in the . grand plan of Labour for local government. Whilst education and area health boards will work within the boundaries but outside of local government, at this stage it is only a matTurnpage 14

Local government reform alternatives

From page 13 ter oi time before changes would occur. Given a few years, the regional government units u n d e r Labour would reach out their tentacles and reduce the social services and possibly the police into 'sub-committee' activities. National, on the other hand, view regional councils a s being primarily concerned with planning policy and resource allocation. The Labour philosophy as it pertains to regions will without a doubt raise enormous costs to the ratepayer. None of the current changes have had any researched economic statement to say that the ratepayers will be better off in the future. Indeed, the real squeal will come from the populous when the first rate demands occur under the new multi-tier structure! National's philosophy would bring about a totally different result with the ratepayers not having to shoulder unnecessary costs. National also rejects the criteria for the determination of regional boundaries. The water catchment area, as a single factor is a nonsense. National will broaden the formula to include community of interest, geographical features, practical considerations and water catchment areas. National also believes that structures should be truly based on a community of interest factor. Labour give lip service to the phrase 'community o f interest' but deny its historical meaning and

relevance. I believe it is high time that a court brought down a declaratory judgement on what 'community of interest' is about. I also believe that such a judgement would require the commission to'j have to radically retljink its approach to many local government units. If we go on prostituting 'community of interest', then we end up with a local government structure based on 'power blocs' instead of 'people blocs'. Representation National favours, in general terms, the direct election of representative for all local government units. Labour appears to be considering appointments to ward committees and possibly other Bodies. If democracy

still means anything, then we must allow the people to decide. It is also important for elected representatives to serve on more than one council if they so wish. Labour appear to be looking at denying that right. If there is any real problem, then the ballot box is the final determination. National also believes that local government should hold all its elections on a single year. Once again, it appears that Labour would want to have regional elections on one year, district and territorial units on the xiext year and of course, Parliamentary on the third. That is a nonsense in terms of cost and fragmentation of effort. Indeed, the only reason that the

phased election concept is attractive to Labour is because of its long held desire to fully politicise local government. The whole time frame and manner in which Labour is going about the restructuring points inexorably to a blatant politicisation of local government as the real qbjective. Six months ago I was in Great Britain studying local government as a guest of the British Government. That nation has allowed politicisation to fully infiltrate local government from the regions right down to the parish councils. That result has been to the great detriment of local government. Politicisation changes the whole priorities of local gov-

ernment focus and at the end of the day, the ratepayer is the loser. Funding Whilst both parties continue to support the land value rating provisions, it is clear that this concept is nearing the end of its day. National has said that where any requirements are made by central government on local government, such requirements would be associated with a contractual funding arrangement. That is a straight forward arrangement which allows local government to plan with certainty and ratepayers to be protected from unnecessary costs. On the other hand, Labour has not only taken away the revenue sharing concept which was worth $32 million

to local government in this current year, but now seems poised to plunge the knife into the petrol tax. The petrol tax is a supplementary income worth $18.1 million to local government at the present time. provisionally, this represents a $50 million betrayal of trust. What will Labour do in return? Until it plays its hand on the new Bill, we can only speculate that new forms of citizens' type tax will be made available to local government to raise additional revenue to carry out the job which central government has required of it. The principle of devolution is basically sound but the concept making the ratepayers pay for everything in the future, will be a blockbuster to a yet, unsuspecting public. Another very important word called 'equity' has been missing in some recent decisions. One such area is the assignment of non-port related assets of the harbour boards to the adjoining city or district. This amounts to many millions of dollars in most ports throughout the country. In the case of Auckland, it is over $200 million and it could finally amount to $500 million. National believes the present local government commission decision is wrong and nonport related assets should be equitably distributed among all those communities which make up the full constituency of the outgoing harbour board. Time Frame It is clear that the wheels are coming off the Labour Government restructuring frame which is going too fast. One such illustration was the recently introduced local government amendment No. 4 Bill which seeks to give the transition committees proper legislative authority to do their job. However, the Bill itself was thrown together in such great haste, that the necessary authority will not be available to the transition committees until the Bill actually becomes law. Indeed, the whole restructuring process is riddled with minor illegalities. Whilst that is bad enough, the real concern should be about the type of final result all this will achieve. If it is less than the best, and certainly with a time frame of July 1989 as a completion date, then it must be, then the Labour Government have done a great disservice to the nation.

Why cannot the Labour Government set aside its political intentions and give the whole process another twelve months or at least another six months to do a better job? National has said it is not going to be bound by what the Labour Government decides and this fact should be considered seriously by all parties involved.