The final amalgamation proposal put out by the Local Government Commission is not only exceedingly different to the draft proposal that people submitted on, but it is different to any other local government structure within New Zealand.
Auckland councils amalgamated to become a unitary authority with 21 local boards and six Council Controlled Organisations that are responsible for council investments; property; tourism, events and economic development; transport; waterfront development and regional facilities. There is also a Maori Board, and Pacific and Ethnic Advisory Panels.
While other councils and ratepayers around the country looked at this model and wondered what impact it may have on the future of their regions, the proposed model for Nelson-Tasman is different again. So how does this fit into the local government sector?
How does this fit into the Local Government Minister’s plans for a “radical change” with the imminent announcement of a “top-to-bottom reform of local authorities” and the drafting of “legislation this year that will take away a number of [local government’s] key obligations introduced in 2002” (The Listener, 23 February 2012)?
One has to question the timing of the proposed amalgamation. Despite being a proponent of the Auckland amalgamation, past Local Government Minister Rodney Hide did not consider this was necessary for other councils around the country.
“Amalgamation is risky. It’s too easy to end up with councils even more remote and more bureaucratic – losing the local in local decision making. So looking ahead I see benefits in shared services and councils working together, on both projects and plans, for the wider regions of which their communities are a part. I believe in that way we can enjoy the benefits of amalgamation while keeping the local in local government and avoiding the risks of amalgamation” (Rodney Hide’s address to LGNZ Conference, July 2011).
He also implored Councils, nervous about the size and lobby power of Auckland, to not rush into amalgamations, but to wait until Auckland had bedded in and “to learn something about what governance structures may or may not best serve our own communities.” Mr Hide's Cabinet paper, ‘Smarter Government, Stronger Communities’, released last April, was to consider the structure of local government, including the usefulness of unitary authorities, and the relationship between local and central government, including the efficiency of local government's role in regulatory systems. Consequently, he felt it inappropriate for councils to initiate ad hoc amalgamation processes. The current Local Government Minister is clearly continuing this path of local government reform.
But back to the Local Government Commission’s proposed governance model for Nelson-Tasman. While proponents of amalgamation are saying to look at the big picture, the devil is always in the detail, and this is where we need to look.
It is certainly interesting that they have not followed the Auckland model, but have come out with another untested, two-tier governance model. It is similarly interesting that Nick Smith has said that a key element of his proposed reform will be the abolition of regional councils as “we just don’t need that extra layer of bureaucracy.”
The proposal incorporates an extended council with 1 mayor and 16 councillors and then a second layer of governance comprising two community boards, a Maori Board and a Rural Advisory committee. However, a key difference with the proposed structure to other local governance models is that they will each get to have a member sit on each Council Committee (with the exclusion of the finance committee in the case of the Community Boards) with full voting rights. This is a key element of the detail I find intuitively problematic.
The advisory boards, with basically mandated personal agendas, will be able to vote on all issues whether they are relevant to them or not. Similarly, community board members are elected to represent only their Wards (not the entire District like Councillors), but they will also be entitled to vote on district-wide matters, yet they have a legal obligation to only look after their own Wards. The lack of accountability back to ratepayers and residents is a concerning aspect of detail.
And instead of reducing governance costs as has been expressed by a large number of ratepayers, the Local Government Commission are projecting increases of nearly $500,000 a year for the proposed structure.
There are a lot of other aspects of the detail that are concerning, such as the recommendation that an amalgamated Council should consider the establishment of a further six community boards. And rather than a reduction in Council plans, each community board is required to prepare and consult on their own ‘community plans’ with the potential for more, as the two advisory boards may similarly wish to consult on and prepare plans to feel that they are adequately representing their stakeholders.
This is a significant decision for Nelson and Tasman ratepayers and residents. Take the time to look at some of the detail so you know what you’re selecting. Don’t just believe the slick sales pitches, deceptive rhetoric, and fancy talk. Question, seek answers, read the facts, look at the details.
