Central government is for nation-building and local government is for community-building, but successive central governments have failed at respecting this, Greater Auckland’s Connor Sharp writes
An unidentified National party spokesperson said just last year, local government has an important role to play, but too often, councils are an after-thought for central government.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has also said centralism over localism does not work. He described centralisation as “a robbery of power and control from local communities” and reiterated it at Waitangi this year, saying, “we, like you, believe in localism and devolution, not centralisation and control.”
You might naturally assume, based on these comments, that the government Luxon leads would be all for councils having more power, more control, more resources, over what happens in their communities.
Instead, it appears that this government’s alternative to councils being “an after-thought for central government”, is to premeditatedly accept an invitation to stand in front of them… and spit directly into their face.
Not content with merely waging war on Auckland, Luxon has now decided to enact total war on local government, in a fury-provoking address to the Local Government NZ conference.
After saying he was going to be “blunt”, he proceeded to call the building they were gathered in a waste of money – to audible gasps and anger from the crowd –then rattled off a spiel about how sure, we will give you more money – but only if you do what we want and focus on “core” spending, and not vague notions of nice to haves. His speech went on and on about requiring more constraints on councils, in order for them to get more support. They needed to “tighten their belts”, he said; “rights and responsibilities”, he said.
The same lines he then went back to again and again when defending himself from journalists asking questions on why this government was suddenly imposing their paternalistic will on councils after previously claiming to support localism.
Fair to say the speech did not land well with the audience. Wellington Regional Councillor Thomas Nash described it as “one of the most mana diminishing, paternalistic and visionless speeches to a group of people I have ever heard”, adding:
He did not acknowledge Wellington’s Mayor or Chair or mana whenua who had welcomed him and others into the whare and then went on to insult the whare he had been welcomed into. Just astonishing for the Prime Minister of New Zealand in 2024.
He offered no positive vision whatsoever for the future of the country or for local government, simply talking down to the hundreds of people elected by their local communities with “I know best” criticism punctuated by vague references to regional deals and revenue tools.
He announced his plan to introduce performance targets for councils seemingly without realising that council LTP processes already do that job and are far more stringent and transparent on asset management, financial strategy, etc than anything central government agencies have.
And he said as part of his “back to basics” agenda that he is removing the four wellbeings from the local government act, taking social, environmental and cultural considerations out of councils’ mandates as if council decisions can ever be separated from “the basics”. So bad.
Auckland Councillor Richard HIlls drew out some of the implications of the speech:
Govt will limit councils’ ability to fund nice-to-haves? What does that even mean? The overwhelming majority of our budget already goes on infrastructure & govt requirements. Basic services. Do they want us to close our libraries? Stop events? Sell our parks? Stop pest control?
The government’s first action was to remove $1.2billion of funding we had allocated to major infrastructure. So we had to cancel projects and raise rates and borrow more instead.
Underlying the speech, and every other time Luxon or Simeon Brown talk about local government, is an assumption that local government has been wildly spending money on fanciful things. Councils spend the vast, vast majority of their expenditure on core services like water, parks, transport, and community facilities. Yes, things are not perfect, there haven been issues, and a minority of councils have made poor choices. But on the whole they are incredibly constrained for resources and it’s clear that local government has been in dire need of reform for a long time.
Yet if helping local government and enacting reform is supposedly on this government’s agenda, why did they throw out the Future for Local Government report, which details all the issues and reforms needed? The Minister for Local Government Simeon Brown even had the audacity to blame the report’s existence on Three Waters – which National opposed for years because it thought it was undermining the localism principle.
Why ignore what Federated Farmers so eloquently said, as quoted in the Future for Local Government report:
“While trust is expressed by central government in the responsibilities delegated to local, the lack of support financially and logistically suggests local government has facilitated the transfer of many functions and costs from taxpayer to ratepayer.” – Federated Farmers
Why ignore the fact that local government has essentially not received any more significant taxation income, despite being required by central government to perform more and more functions?
Why ignore that those “core” things councils should be spending on have been increasing year after year?
Why ignore the entire point of Auckland’s amalgamation – to become a “super city” with better resourcing and efficiency and a wider mandate?
Why ignore the fact that councils, unlike central government, are legally obliged to balance their budgets?
Why ignore that councils, all over the country, whether right or left or in between, are all raising their rates to pay for “core” costs?
The vision Luxon outlined to his audience was one of “we know best”. Now, despite all the talk of “responsibilities”, there is apparently no trust. The view, which Luxon decided to announce to a room filled entirely with people from local government, is that those who are most directly connected and accountable to their communities are somehow incapable of confirming and deciding that people want parks, libraries, safe roads, or literally anything that has an element of joy.
Because somehow, for Luxon and his government, roads, rubbish, and water are the only thing that matters.
Because somehow, if councils return to some mythical time where they only spend money on tarmac and pipes, our lives will magically improve and rates will instantly go down, and we would totally have better cities.
Because somehow, by removing the responsibility for councils to ensure the economic, social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing of the communities they serve, we will have a greater city.
When we unpack this beyond the words and sentiments, we can see exactly what they believe. Because although National, and Luxon, ran on and continue to allegedly support “localism”, their actions are showing they do not care about the views of local government, and local people.
National’s basic vision would suck the soul out of our urban spaces. Urban spaces are nothing without good design, without beautification, without proper infrastructure, and healthy travel options, and trees and plants, and playgrounds for children, and libraries anyone can visit and use. These are all the basic things that make our urban places where we want to go and live: they’re not ‘gold-plated’, they’re the serviceable stainless steel cutlery of everyday life. They get called “nice to have” and are slashed or value-engineered out of existence when times are tight. But they are an inextricable part of the fabric of good and healthy lives, and it’s essential to design our urban spaces for people.
You don’t need to think that local government is perfect to understand this central government take isn’t normal. This government doesn’t care about what local people think if it differs from what it thinks is best.
For the full article: The Government Declares Total War on Localism – Greater Auckland
LGNZ’s view
“New Zealanders do not want Wellington to run their lives. Instead, they’ve told us they want more decision making delegated down to the local level, where that makes sense,” LGNZ President Sam Broughton says.
“We have the evidence that localism delivers better value for ratepayers, gets better results and best meets the needs of communities. Now we have clear public support for more localism.”
A poll conducted by Curia found:
Local councils’ effectiveness:
- 31% said their council was above average,
- 39% said their council was average,
- 24% said their council was below average.
For councils to be more effective:
- 65% net increase in effectiveness for tailoring services locally
- 55% net increase in effectiveness for involving communities in decisions
- 47% net increase in effectiveness for better supporting community groups
- 38% net increase in effectiveness for delegating more decisions to communities
“In order to have a strong local democracy, we need it to be effective. Councils have an opportunity to grab localism with both hands and improve their communities.
“Around the country, there are practical examples of localism working really well, from participatory budgeting to citizens panels and provision of healthcare, but there is a clear call from communities that more should be done,” Sam Broughton says.
LGNZ has launched a practical guide for councils to support them to action more localism.
“The Government has said it has a localism agenda – and that is backed by councils and communities.
“For all areas LGNZ tested in the poll (from infrastructure to education to emergency management), the majority of respondents saw central government, local government and communities as needing to play a strong role together – rather than central government or local government leading these things alone.
“For too long, successive governments have tried to control councils and communities when the evidence shows that stops growth and delivers worse outcomes.
“The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs (MTFJ) programme is a proven example of localism in action, devolving youth unemployment solutions to the grassroots.
“Despite worsening employment conditions, the locally delivered MTFJ programme has beaten targets to get more young people into employment, with a $5.60 return for every $1 invested.
“Regional deals will be an opportunity for to work collaboratively with the Government on shared issues and deliver growth that benefits our communities,” he says.
“In May, LGNZ released a draft proposal for what city and regional deals should look like. We’re pleased to see partnership, new funding tools and a commitment to long-term planning, which were in our proposal, also included in the Government’s framework.
“The current funding system for local government is broken, and everyone can see that given rates rises this year. New funding tools are key to a more sustainable local government. It’s great to see this acknowledged.
“Overseas examples show that the best city and regional deals are done in genuine partnership and often include other structural changes within and between councils, these deals are an opportunity for this to now also occur.
“The relationship between central and local government needs to be a strong one. We both serve the same people in our communities.
“Councils already plan for 10 years so it’s encouraging to see that central government now also wants to give certainty beyond a 12-month budget cycle.
“We need to see cross-party support on these Regional Deals to ensure certainty. Too much time and money is wasted when central government changes its mind and direction.
“We want to see follow through on the Government’s promise of genuine localism,” Sam Broughton says.
