One intriguing idea is whether mayors should have their own staff, directly accountable to them. The rationale is to ensure that the voices of communities, represented by elected mayors, are heard more clearly within the machinery of local government.
As floated in Hon Simeon Brown’s speech to Local Government New Zealand, this could mean extending the Auckland mayoral model to the rest of New Zealand. Under that model, the mayor has an office and staff reporting to them rather than to the chief executive.
The Auckland model is explicitly legitimised by legislation. It differs from traditional structures under which council administration is firmly in the hands of chief executives. Mayors serve as councils’ public faces and chair meetings, but they cannot direct council operations.
That split between political governance and professional management is deliberate. However, it arguably results in inadequate democratic oversight and conflict between the interests of mayors and those of chief executives. Usually, tensions play out behind the scenes, but Gore District had a very messy public blow-up in 2023.
Auckland’s mayoral model seems effective. Auckland’s Watercare charges for water separately, making rates comparisons with other councils imprecise. However, Mayor Wayne Brown this year drove cost savings that enabled Auckland to impose a rates increase that, at 6.8%, is much smaller than the average of 14% for other councils.
Would it work elsewhere?
In larger cities, mayoral staff could help navigate complex issues, deal with the bureaucracy, and engage with communities. In smaller councils, however, the addition of another layer of advisors might be too costly relative to the benefits.
Many countries have ‘strong mayor’ models, including some large cities in United States and Australia. In some German states mayors are also the heads of council administrations, providing strong democratic oversight.
Whether or not mayoral powers should be strengthened depends on broader conceptions of the nature of local democracy. Should mayors, as elected representatives, have more direct control over council operations to advance their policies? Might a higher calibre of mayoral candidates be attracted if mayors were more empowered?
Or would it weaken checks on political interference and increase risk by giving too much power to low calibre mayors? And would more powers for mayors do much to resolve political dysfunction when mayors struggle to get support from majorities of councillors?
These are not easy questions, but it is encouraging the Minister is keen to consider them.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
The Auckland model is explicitly legitimised by legislation. It differs from traditional structures under which council administration is firmly in the hands of chief executives. Mayors serve as councils’ public faces and chair meetings, but they cannot direct council operations.
That split between political governance and professional management is deliberate. However, it arguably results in inadequate democratic oversight and conflict between the interests of mayors and those of chief executives. Usually, tensions play out behind the scenes, but Gore District had a very messy public blow-up in 2023.
Auckland’s mayoral model seems effective. Auckland’s Watercare charges for water separately, making rates comparisons with other councils imprecise. However, Mayor Wayne Brown this year drove cost savings that enabled Auckland to impose a rates increase that, at 6.8%, is much smaller than the average of 14% for other councils.
Would it work elsewhere?
In larger cities, mayoral staff could help navigate complex issues, deal with the bureaucracy, and engage with communities. In smaller councils, however, the addition of another layer of advisors might be too costly relative to the benefits.
Many countries have ‘strong mayor’ models, including some large cities in United States and Australia. In some German states mayors are also the heads of council administrations, providing strong democratic oversight.
Whether or not mayoral powers should be strengthened depends on broader conceptions of the nature of local democracy. Should mayors, as elected representatives, have more direct control over council operations to advance their policies? Might a higher calibre of mayoral candidates be attracted if mayors were more empowered?
Or would it weaken checks on political interference and increase risk by giving too much power to low calibre mayors? And would more powers for mayors do much to resolve political dysfunction when mayors struggle to get support from majorities of councillors?
These are not easy questions, but it is encouraging the Minister is keen to consider them.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
We certainly need a higher calibre of mayoral candidate in the Far North, heaven forbid the current incumbent be considered the voice of this community as a whole. With the backing of four Maori ward councillors along with the other Maori incumbents, he can cheerfully ignore the views of the other 50 or so percent of the populace given his strange perception of local democracy. There is clearly a delicate balancing act to be undertaken by Minister Brown in all of this. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Anon @9.18, he has shown he has an interest in only one of the many racial groups in the Far North.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.