Whether it is in parliament or a council chamber, the pattern can be the same. Officials prepare the advice, frame the options and recommend the path forward. The current system, with officials only loosely accountable to elected members, can result in consultation becoming a box-tick exercise and decisions feeling pre-cooked.
At the national level, one reform worth debating is who appoints the heads of government departments. If ministers are accountable to parliament and MPs are accountable to voters, then department leaders should have clear incentives to implement the elected government’s programme, rather than slow-walk it through delay, wider consultation or selective advice.
Australia provides a useful comparison. Ministers can appoint departmental secretaries under clear rules, helping align leadership with government priorities while still requiring merit. The point is not to politicise the public service, but to make accountability real.
Another sign of capture is the creep of unelected people being given seats on council committees with voting rights. Advice is valuable, but it is not a mandate. When people who have never faced voters can influence rates, debt and long-term plans, ratepayers are effectively disenfranchised.
You can see the results across the country: soaring rates, big plans and glossy strategies, while pipes leak, roads crumble, and basics slip. When accountability is blurred, everyone blames the process, and no one owns the outcome. That is when public trust evaporates.
There are sensible reforms on the table at both the local and central government levels. For councils, that means clearer executive responsibility, stronger policy capability for elected members, and an end to voting rights for unelected committee members. My members’ bill, the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill, would clarify the respective roles of mayors, councillors and chief executives so elected representatives are better able to direct the councils they were chosen to lead. At the national level, it means re-examining how department heads are appointed so accountability for delivery is clearer.
Democracy only works when elected people can actually decide.
Most councils and public servants have good people working hard. But the system should keep power where it belongs: with the people, the public elects. That means removing voting rights from unelected council committee members, publishing clearer decision trails, refocusing councils on core services, and strengthening the accountability chain between ministers, MPs and department heads.
The public does not want a lesson in governance theory. They want democratic control and competent delivery. What do you think, are elected leaders still truly in charge, or has the balance tipped too far toward the bureaucracy?
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician for the Kaikōura electorate. This article was first published HERE
At the national level, one reform worth debating is who appoints the heads of government departments. If ministers are accountable to parliament and MPs are accountable to voters, then department leaders should have clear incentives to implement the elected government’s programme, rather than slow-walk it through delay, wider consultation or selective advice.
Australia provides a useful comparison. Ministers can appoint departmental secretaries under clear rules, helping align leadership with government priorities while still requiring merit. The point is not to politicise the public service, but to make accountability real.
Another sign of capture is the creep of unelected people being given seats on council committees with voting rights. Advice is valuable, but it is not a mandate. When people who have never faced voters can influence rates, debt and long-term plans, ratepayers are effectively disenfranchised.
You can see the results across the country: soaring rates, big plans and glossy strategies, while pipes leak, roads crumble, and basics slip. When accountability is blurred, everyone blames the process, and no one owns the outcome. That is when public trust evaporates.
There are sensible reforms on the table at both the local and central government levels. For councils, that means clearer executive responsibility, stronger policy capability for elected members, and an end to voting rights for unelected committee members. My members’ bill, the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill, would clarify the respective roles of mayors, councillors and chief executives so elected representatives are better able to direct the councils they were chosen to lead. At the national level, it means re-examining how department heads are appointed so accountability for delivery is clearer.
Democracy only works when elected people can actually decide.
Most councils and public servants have good people working hard. But the system should keep power where it belongs: with the people, the public elects. That means removing voting rights from unelected council committee members, publishing clearer decision trails, refocusing councils on core services, and strengthening the accountability chain between ministers, MPs and department heads.
The public does not want a lesson in governance theory. They want democratic control and competent delivery. What do you think, are elected leaders still truly in charge, or has the balance tipped too far toward the bureaucracy?
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician for the Kaikōura electorate. This article was first published HERE
9 comments:
I doubt the reforms will be sensible.
Getting rid of Regional Councils is the wrong move. Moving to Unitary models will be a backward step.
It is the LGA that needs to be gutted and started again.
It has only just become obvious to me that this is actually a very serious problem. And I fear the current policy suggestion does not go far enough, yes it might help but it certainly wont solve the problem.
The flow of information seems to be something that needs some focus.
The reforms are not required and will not suffice as claimed for water, bridges , electricity, roads and communication for the country folk which are entirely different to sewage , rubbish removal traffic lights, car parking , sports grounds for the urban dwellers .
Have the huge Maori electorates given any real representation ?. NO, then why would huge electorates give better local body representation .
If we legislated to cutting the individual local government bureaucracy hugely and elected five upper councils in similar ratios as the 5 rugby franchises the required fiscal savings would be made with unified policy and public representation maintained .
The community boards could be removed or strengthened and the existing council structures reduced to the mayor only representing current councils at the upper council meeting to save ratepayer funds .
Queenstown needs are not Timaru ,Westport , Invercargill Christchurch, Picton or Dunedin or any of these combinations.
Butt out PM Luxon and the National coalition and stay in your lane and fix the Maori issues first.
I personally know several officials in Taranaki and New Plymouth local govt. Their views are unbendingly pro the previous govt bloc and Maori first. Their reports (treaty first, their version) are based on their beliefs in expectation central govt will change again with a flow-on effect to ''business as it was'' at local govt level. The NP council changed last election but is also up against an openly and unapologetically hostile Stuff and RNZ. The tone and slant of reports.
Quick question for anyone who thinks tidying up local government across the board is not of utmost priority: How much would YOUR house be worth if its annual rates topped $100,000? The answer in most cases would simply be ZERO (and you'll still be paying your mortgage!), and that's exactly where this is all headed, ever more quickly.
The democratic voting system that we now suffer under is so dysfunctional, as we can see from virtually any direction, that it should be put out of its misery as soon as possible. Any attempt to tinker, or restructure, seems doomed to slow and painful failure. There may be now no choice but to step aside from the giant rock that we are pushing uphill, and just let it go. Then from the wreckage, hope that our descendants can reconstruct a bearable sort of civilisation, in due course. Unfortunately, most of us will not be around to enjoy it.
Local government is not democratic at all, while those elected by the ratepayers are subservient to salaried bureaucrats. NZ must legislate to reverse this patent idiocy.
Quality of candidates is a major problem. I have repeatedly seen proven able hard working councillors voted out because they the wrong ethnic group with no support equivalen that provided by the coordinated Insurrection and propaganda centres (marae) and churches ranged against them. Another problem is that without local newspapers, with very few reading all the msm anyway, non objective or just not reporting, only the tiny few who have had direct dealings with councillors can make any reasonable assessment. Candidates and their families not compliant with current teachings and staff leanings face serious cancellation Invariably on the Auckland Council voting list there are several clearly loopy. Many of the others are of modest or at best undeterminable ability
You are absolutely correct Kay O’Lacy. National’s MP for local govt, Simon Watts is either asleep at the wheel or complicit through his inaction.
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.