It isn’t that I’m a giant fan of regional councils; I couldn’t name more than a couple of my own regional councillors, and I bet most of you can’t either. It’s rather that if regional councils didn’t exist, local councils would have to at least partially re-create them.
The government’s draft proposal, released last week, does not abolish regional councils. It proposes replacing directly elected regional councillors with a Combined Territories Board of local mayors (and potentially others). And it provides those mayors with an opportunity to re-invent how regional matters are handled.
They could build something better than what we currently have.
First, though, a bit on why some things must be handled at one level up from councils.
Remember that subsidiarity – the idea that decisions should sit as close as possible to the people affected – is a basic principle of good government. Decisions and responsibility should rest with the smallest possible unit capable of handling the relevant issues.
For a lot of issues, that means individuals and families. We also have civil society: community groups, churches, businesses, clubs and benevolent societies.
Local councils are meant to deal with matters requiring stronger coordination than you might have from civil society, but whose effects are geographically limited.
Local councils charge rates for services that generally benefit those inside their boundaries, but that have little effect outside of their boundaries. Decisions about local roading in Invercargill are irrelevant to anyone in Auckland and vice versa.
And central government handles things that affect the whole country. Council-level monetary policy would not be a good idea.
But some issues cut across council boundaries without raising national-level concerns. Or, at least, so long as they’re well-managed. Central government has a tendency to step in when things go terribly wrong, which is not always the best way of encouraging good outcomes.
We can all understand the obvious cases. If Christchurch City Council and a farmer upstream in Selwyn Council both want to draw water from a common aquifer, something needs to adjudicate competing claims on the same water. One council’s decision affects the others. The same thing applies as the Waikato River winds its way across council boundaries.
Similarly, transport planning often requires coordination across councils. And pests like feral deer know not and care less about where any council or regional council boundaries might sit.
Issues spanning multiple councils are generally handled by regional councils.
The government’s draft proposes options for reforming that coordination.
One option would replace elected regional councillors with the mayors of the underlying councils. The regional council, including its staff and structures, would remain, at least for the time being. But it would be governed by a board of the region’s mayors.
Those mayors would then have two years to think about new ways of doing things and submit a regional reorganisation plan. The potential scope of that reorganisation plan seems very broad.
It is an opportunity for re-invention.
Rather than keeping one large regional council handling a wide variety of regional-level issues, regional mayors could suggest specific agencies for specific purposes.
If there were good reason for coordination among councils on roading and transport, the mayors could propose delegating those issues upward to a regional transport board.
Councils that share a river could propose a flood board for managing river levels and stop-banks, or a catchment authority for broader water management.
Nothing in this version is particularly novel. It harks back to when local boards were a common way for New Zealand’s communities to solve problems.
Prior to local government reforms in 1989, the country tallied some 453 special purpose authorities, including 17 catchment authorities, 61 pest destruction boards, and 27 land drainage boards and river boards.
How might these kinds of boards pay for works? If a proposed project benefitted a particular set of properties, the board could propose an annual levy on those properties to fund it – while seeking the approval of the levied properties’ owners. On the community’s endorsement, the relevant local councils could set the targeted rates and provide the proceeds to the relevant Board.
This would not be particularly novel either. The century-old Ngaio Town Hall in Wellington was built by the Ngaio Progressive Association after a neighbourhood ballot authorised Council to set a special levy to cover the cost over time.
Replacing directly elected regional councillors with the region’s mayors would put regional decisions at one step removed from local voters. But if regional bodies needed to seek authorisation for major projects from the owners of the properties that would be levied to pay for them, overall democratic accountability would be strengthened.
The government’s draft proposal gives regional mayors the opportunity to think creatively about ways of solving problems they have in common. I hope they take that opportunity, and that they include a few New Zealand history books in their summer reading.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
They could build something better than what we currently have.
First, though, a bit on why some things must be handled at one level up from councils.
Remember that subsidiarity – the idea that decisions should sit as close as possible to the people affected – is a basic principle of good government. Decisions and responsibility should rest with the smallest possible unit capable of handling the relevant issues.
For a lot of issues, that means individuals and families. We also have civil society: community groups, churches, businesses, clubs and benevolent societies.
Local councils are meant to deal with matters requiring stronger coordination than you might have from civil society, but whose effects are geographically limited.
Local councils charge rates for services that generally benefit those inside their boundaries, but that have little effect outside of their boundaries. Decisions about local roading in Invercargill are irrelevant to anyone in Auckland and vice versa.
And central government handles things that affect the whole country. Council-level monetary policy would not be a good idea.
But some issues cut across council boundaries without raising national-level concerns. Or, at least, so long as they’re well-managed. Central government has a tendency to step in when things go terribly wrong, which is not always the best way of encouraging good outcomes.
We can all understand the obvious cases. If Christchurch City Council and a farmer upstream in Selwyn Council both want to draw water from a common aquifer, something needs to adjudicate competing claims on the same water. One council’s decision affects the others. The same thing applies as the Waikato River winds its way across council boundaries.
Similarly, transport planning often requires coordination across councils. And pests like feral deer know not and care less about where any council or regional council boundaries might sit.
Issues spanning multiple councils are generally handled by regional councils.
The government’s draft proposes options for reforming that coordination.
One option would replace elected regional councillors with the mayors of the underlying councils. The regional council, including its staff and structures, would remain, at least for the time being. But it would be governed by a board of the region’s mayors.
Those mayors would then have two years to think about new ways of doing things and submit a regional reorganisation plan. The potential scope of that reorganisation plan seems very broad.
It is an opportunity for re-invention.
Rather than keeping one large regional council handling a wide variety of regional-level issues, regional mayors could suggest specific agencies for specific purposes.
If there were good reason for coordination among councils on roading and transport, the mayors could propose delegating those issues upward to a regional transport board.
Councils that share a river could propose a flood board for managing river levels and stop-banks, or a catchment authority for broader water management.
Nothing in this version is particularly novel. It harks back to when local boards were a common way for New Zealand’s communities to solve problems.
Prior to local government reforms in 1989, the country tallied some 453 special purpose authorities, including 17 catchment authorities, 61 pest destruction boards, and 27 land drainage boards and river boards.
How might these kinds of boards pay for works? If a proposed project benefitted a particular set of properties, the board could propose an annual levy on those properties to fund it – while seeking the approval of the levied properties’ owners. On the community’s endorsement, the relevant local councils could set the targeted rates and provide the proceeds to the relevant Board.
This would not be particularly novel either. The century-old Ngaio Town Hall in Wellington was built by the Ngaio Progressive Association after a neighbourhood ballot authorised Council to set a special levy to cover the cost over time.
Replacing directly elected regional councillors with the region’s mayors would put regional decisions at one step removed from local voters. But if regional bodies needed to seek authorisation for major projects from the owners of the properties that would be levied to pay for them, overall democratic accountability would be strengthened.
The government’s draft proposal gives regional mayors the opportunity to think creatively about ways of solving problems they have in common. I hope they take that opportunity, and that they include a few New Zealand history books in their summer reading.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.