Local government politics is becoming a sexy topic again. In the last couple of years there has been a renewed focus on the importance of local governance, especially with the creation of the Auckland supercity, rising local government debts, and now the rebuild of Christchurch (and the associated focus on the performance of the council, mayor and CEO). [Continue reading my DScene newspaper column below]
Here in Dunedin, we might expect this nationwide revival to make next year’s local body elections more interesting than usual. But at the moment, Dunedin politics suffers from a significant form of ‘democratic deficit’. Participation at the last local authority election was about 50%, and very few citizens are involved in other forms of participation and consultation at a local level. Probably only a minority of Dunedin citizens would be able to tell you who is on the City Council, or even who the Mayor is. Similarly, who knows what the Council Chief Executive does? Throughout New Zealand there is increasing scrutiny of the role of high-level behind-the-scenes bureaucrats, their influence, and the very high salaries they command.
Discussion of these issues is healthy and timely, because the new Minister of Local Government, Nick Smith has indicated that major reform is coming to our local authorities. There is talk of cutting back the second-tier of local government, meaning that the Otago Regional Council will be abolished.
The Government has also indicated that it believes that local authorities are extending themselves too far beyond their ‘core activities’. There is no doubt that successive governments have loaded costs and responsibilities onto local bodies, mostly of the bureaucratic kind.
But central government should be wary of telling local authorities what to do, as councillors are elected and there is nothing to stop voters electing a council that wants to cut debt and concentrate on ‘rats, roads and rubbish’. There is a fundamental principle that if ratepayers want their council to help with recreation, culture and economic development with their own money, why shouldn't they? Often there is an ideological element to this as the ‘extras’ that conservatives always try to restrict are usually aimed at reducing poverty and inequality - e.g. housing, youth services, diversity and ethnic facilities and support etc. Councils are largely funded by property taxes so there is a clear incentive for the propertied class to try and restrict council expenditure. Clearly the debate about such activities needs to occur locally, but that will require a significantly more inclusive and participatory local politics.
