Death by neglect: the end of local democracy?

The present government has launched what is the most comprehensive attack on local democracy which New Zealand has ever seen. Local water done well as a program for centralised control of three waters with the entire cost of bringing infrastructure up to an optimal standard being borne by individual communities effectively draining the capital investment capability of many councils. Councils to be prohibited from spending money on ‘nice to haves’ regardless of their importance to their communities. The local government act to be amended to impose further and substantial restrictions on council decision-making intended to keep councils focused on government’s view on what are ‘need to haves’.

It’s an attack which should have councils not only very seriously concerned about the future for themselves and their communities, but also absolutely focused on ensuring their communities understand what the government is doing, and the full implications.

This is not only plain common sense; it is also implicit in the primary purpose of local government which is expressed as “to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities”. This must mean councils ensuring their communities understand both what is happening to the ability of their councils to act on their behalf, and what additional costs are being imposed on them. This is especially when they are as extreme as the additional levies resulting from local water done well which many councils already know will be substantial and well beyond what their communities currently expect. There is already anecdotal evidence many residential ratepayers are finding the current level of rates (including water service charges) is increasingly unaffordable if affordability is understood as being able to pay rates without compromising on the payment of other essential but non-compulsory items such as insurance, healthcare costs et cetera.

So what is actually happening? Councils are conscientiously following the program and timetable laid down by central government for implementing local water done well, including what that timetable means for consultation.

There seems to be absolutely no awareness that the real impact of central government’s cumulative interventions with local government is going to fall not so much on councils, which are simply intermediaries, but on the communities councils serve. Councils are the community’s primary mechanism through which they can hope to influence what happens in their place. Government, in attacking councils, is effectively attacking the most significant means available to communities to help shape their futures.

Why aren’t councils living up to their statutory obligation which clearly includes protecting the right and opportunity for communities to undertake local democratic decision-making and action? Perhaps it’s because too often the term community is treated primarily as a pejorative, effectively downplaying the role communities should have in shaping their own future.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Perhaps it’s because New Zealand councils have typically seen working with communities as a cost rather than an investment despite the evidence from experience elsewhere demonstrating working with communities more than pays for itself when councils know what they are doing.

Another possible reason is that it’s become too common for significant interest groups, including much of business, to denigrate local government utterly failing to understand how important it is for their own members especially those whose success is closely intertwined with the strength of the communities in which they are based.

Does this mean that local democracy is simply going to die by neglect? Councils not bringing their communities into the loop to understand what’s happening, communities themselves currently not trusting their councils, the business sector unaware of what genuine collaboration in local governance can achieve both for them and for the wider community, councils themselves ending up as the trussed turkeys current government policy will almost certainly make them.

Alternatively does it mean we are at a tipping point at which at least some councils and communities, and other stakeholders such as business and iwi/hapu, may actually realise what central government is doing in time to defend local democracy?

The tentative answer is yes. Some councils, typically smaller ones, are moving to ensure their communities, including their business sectors, have the chance to understand the implications of what government is doing and work with them on how to mitigate the impact.

These councils are understanding that preserving local democracy means strengthening local governance and in turn strengthening local governance means understanding the inherent nature of governance which includes recognising local governance is about the systems and processes through which communities decide on and pursue their preferred futures.

As pioneering councils in the UK are demonstrating, councils are only one, although usually the most significant, player in local governance. Other key local institutions ranging from philanthropic trusts to significant local businesses through to major public institutions such as schools and hospitals, iwi/hapu and major NGOs all in their own way play a part in shaping the future of the communities in which they are based.

Importantly, this is not about pushing back against central government. It is about illustrating how important strong communities and strong local governance are for enabling the productivity growth our government is so keen to encourage (they are also of course about other desirable outcomes including reducing inequality and strengthening social cohesion). Indeed, looking at the experience of initiatives such as the anchor institutions approach, it’s tempting to argue New Zealand’s chances of significantly growing its productivity without strengthening local governance are very limited.

?What’s likely to happen?

It’s extremely unlikely sector leadership will show the way. If it were capable of doing so, that should already have happened.

Instead it’s going to be a few councils pioneering what to do, which means empowering strong communities, and then hopefully others coming in behind quickly enough so that their communities have a chance to understand the implications of government policies before they are fully implemented. Fortunately, there is a wealth of research, evidence and good practice from offshore on which to draw, and people prepared to help New Zealand councils understand the opportunities. It ranges from the experience of councils such as Portland Oregon in enabling and supporting self-identifying communities, to the work of Preston City Council and others in community wealth building and anchor institutions, to the very promising developments in areas such as local place planning and participatory budgeting (now adopted by something like 7000 councils worldwide).

Implementing a mix of these approaches will not only strengthen local governance and local democracy; it should also improve the effectiveness and efficiency of council operations themselves, as well as those others who work with councils in achieving better local governance.

There is good evidence for this. Preston City Council which has been pursuing the anchor institutions strategy for some years now is not only attracting praise from the labour left; it’s also been named the best city to live and work in the North West in the Demos-PWC 2022 Good Growth for Cities Index. Not many councils can say that they satisfy performance criteria set both by the left on the one hand and the right on the other!

So, to conclude, who’s going to step up and take the lead?