Rodney Hide "proactively" releases his local government ideas....

Last week I was provided a copy of a confidential cabinet "minute of decision", relating to the work of the Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee (CEG&IC) for the period ended 17th April 2009. Each page of it is emblazoned with the words: "Proactively Released by the Minister of Local Government"....

You can get your copy by emailing me.
I can forward you the whole thing - 15 pages or so.
The key decision that is minuted in the document says this:

"...The CEG&IC noted that to implement the government's priorities outlined in the Speech from the Throne in local government, work will be undertaken on:
1) Auckland governanance;
2) A clearer process to determine the allocation of functions and costs between central and local government;
3) Local authority decision-making, transparency and accountability..."

The heart of the cabinet paper, which appears to have been written by Department of Internal Affairs officials while being signed by Rodney Hide, deals with the third of these work streams. It seeks agreement from Cabinet for a review of the Local Government Act 2002 to improve the transparency, accountability and fiscal management of local government. I have quoted key extracts of the report that follows - with my take on what these extracts appear to mean.....

"....In the speech from the Throne, the Government outlined three priority areas for its work:
* growing the economy;
* a reduction in government bureaucracy and a focus on investing in frontline services;
* reducing regulatory and compliance demands that get in the way of productivity growth.
These priorities are underpinned by a belief in individual freedom and a belief in the capacity and right of individuals to shape and improve their own lives. Work in the local government portfolio needs to align with these priorities..."

My take: Emphasis on economic growth and productivity. No mention of four wellbeings. Typical policy statement advocating for free market approach.

"I propose to .... reduce bureaucracy and focus on frontline service .... applying a similar approach to local government would encourage a focus on core activities ... roading, footpaths, and public transport; water supply, sewage treatment, stormwater and flood protection; refuse collection and regulation of nuisances...."

My take: Back to basics. No mention of community development, environmental education, community services, cultural activities, arts .... This approach is a throwback to the sort of local government that existed in Britain after the Industrial Revolution. It is unsophisticated, and runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the Local Government Act 2002, which is a modern piece of legislation typical of local government legislation in modern European democracies.

"...With concerns I have about growth in rates and council funding decisions, I have received numerous complaints about excessive rates rises. The Public Finance Act 1989 encourages central government to take a top down approach to budgeting, by first establishing limits on expenditure and then setting priorities... I therefore consider that work should be guided by the following principles: local government should operate within a defined fiscal envelope; councils should focus on core activities..."

My take: Fiscal envelope is code language for rate capping. This is a famous Thatcherite policy of restructuring Council activities, by legislating to restrict their independent ability to raise and set rates. While rate cuts will have some public appeal, rates cuts come at a community cost.

"...Councils can be pressured to expand their services by providing services that benefit a limited number of people but for whaich the whole community is required to pay. This raise equity issues as some beneficiaries of the service 'free ride' on other ratepayers. This leads to the principle that costs should be distributed as closely as possible to benefits received..."

My take: This is code language for user pays. Another famous Thatcherite policy. The services commonly cited are: libraries and swimming pools. But many others also fit: sports fields, community buildings, bowling clubs, help the aged meals on wheels... Hide appears to want user pays for these services. The context for this Hide thought has nothing to do with the concept of developer levies, where, for example, developers are required to pay for 'benefits received'.....

"...More transparent and accountable local government will provide ratepayers and citizens better means to control council costs and activities... there are a number of weaknesses in the present system that limited the ability of ratepayers and citizens to exercise that control:
* local authority elections rarely focus on spending issues. Reasons for this include the rarity of party organisation and that most candidates stand on the basis of their personal attributes to serve the community;
* media scrutiny of local government is weak...."

My take: This where we see Rodney's true colours. He does not respect councillors who 'stand on the basis of their personal attributes to serve the community'. He wants political parties to stand for local government. My experience has been that voters do not want party politics in local government. They don't want tickets. They vote against tickets given the opportunity. They want good quality independent candidates who stand on issues, including rates and spending...

"...More proactive tools for engaging ratepayers and citizens to ensure they can guide or determine council's decisions should be explored. In particular, I wish to consider circumstances in which polls and referenda could be required for certain decisions..."

My take: First thought - how about looking in the mirror Rodney, and applying this thought to your own actions? The present situation requires councils to consult heavily with ratepayers before making significant decisions. How much money does Rodney want Councils to spend on consultation?

So. This is Rodney's agenda. I have been asking for it - through this blog. And now we have it.

The cabinet report notes that: 'a bid has been made to include a Local Government Bill in the 2009 legislation programme' and that: 'to implement changes before the 2010 local authority elections would require a tight timetable....' and that: 'no public discussion document is proposed on these proposals as public views are well known...'

Dramatic changes to the Local Government Act 2002 are in the wind. They are draconian and backward in my view. But at least something is on the table. You do wonder why this stuff is out now, after the proposed changes to Auckland Governance. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Very poor policy process. Opportunist and knee-jerk...

Auckland Governance: Risks to Transparency, Implementation, Cost

Auckland is revolting. Whole communities and populations are mobilising against Government’s “Making Auckland Greater” proposals for local government. At the heart of these concerns are: the lack of transparency and honesty in the Government approach; risks that proposed reforms will threaten the implementation and delivery of Auckland projects and the Rugby World Cup; burgeoning costs of the new structure.

What started as a strategy of strengthening regional government under the Labour Government has been transformed into a program of local government abolition by the incoming National Government. Plans to streamline the Resource Management Act are now being extended to Auckland itself. But the Government desire to streamline Auckland governance carries huge risks. And the sleeping giant of Auckland is slowly waking up to this.

When “Making Auckland Greater” was announced just weeks ago it had the appearance of being a Government response to the Royal Commission’s recommendations. But I now understand that Department of Internal Affairs officials had been working closely with incoming Government Ministers for months before its strategy for Auckland was revealed.

Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, fronted government decisions on NZ Herald’s perspectives page (29 April), stating: “Auckland cannot become a world-class city without change.”

These words are sophistry because as many letters to ththe NZ Herald have atested, Auckland is already world-class, sharing top-rankings in several world-class city surveys despite issues that led to the Royal Commission.

Many of these issues focussed on the Auckland Regional Council. Most City Councils opposed the ARC’s commitment to the Metropolitan Urban Limit claiming there was a shortage of land. This opposition has persisted despite evidence of land banking by developers and support for the Regional Growth Strategy to limit sprawl and promote selective intensification. Others criticised the ARC for not being tough enough on city councils, and not using its statutory powers to require District Plan changes that would lead to progressive redevelopment of specific urban areas. And there has been continuous lobbying by those calling for institutional changes that will enable faster development of motorways and public transport systems.

Early morning at Mangawhai Heads. I go here to escape Auckland and the disappointment and concern I feel about Government's poorly conceived plans for Auckland.

During my eleven years serving the public as a local government representative I have witnessed considerable improvement and change. Exemplary regeneration projects in the past few years include Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; FlatBush development at Manukau managed by that council’s professional land development CCO; and North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.

There is room for improvement in Auckland governance arrangements. We can do better, but these exemplars are projects of scale that could not be delivered by a Community Board. Yet they are local projects. Each embodies significant character elements and connections that are locally authentic. Future projects like these will become impossible to implement without appropriate local government arrangements.

The Government has neither explained nor justified the fundamentals that lie behind its plan for Auckland, and big questions are being asked.

Questions like: Who, with the Rugby World Cup event coming in 2011, would knowingly abolish on the 30th of October 2010 almost all public organisations responsible for its successful delivery, and invite Rugby World Cup event service managers to re-apply for their jobs?

Rodney Hide writes: “Instead of eight rating authorities, eight long-term council plans, eight data systems, eight local transport entities, eight water and wastewater providers, there will be one of each. Instead of seven district plans there will be one. Instead of 109 councillors there will be 20.” However in fire-fighting criticisms over the loss of local democracy, Government is now facing pressure to establish 30 Borough-Council-strength Community Boards, each with its own plan and budget, and requiring the election of around 200 Community Board members on significantly higher remuneration than now.

Does Government really want to take Auckland back to that future? I don't think so.

Nobody speaks of savings now. The Prime Minister and the Royal Commission have been careful to down-play the likelihood of significant savings. This is not surprising because what is emerging are stories of increasing costs: new data systems; increased water charges and huge staff layoffs; re-organisation costs.

Government should front up to Auckland with a proper explanation of what its strategy actually is, what policy assumptions underpin that strategy, what its Auckland vision actually looks like, and how it will be implemented in practice. Auckland does not need another strategy that fails to recognise the implementation imperative. Auckland needs to get things done. And it needs to be allowed to develop as a multi-cultural city, with diverse places to live, work, play and grow up. It does not need the blandness that is a significant risk of excessive centralisation and institutional destruction.

Auckland needs the institutional tools and structure to get on with the job of city building and place shaping. Auckland has already grown in diversity and difference over the past twenty years.

Parts of Manukau provide places of choice for many Polynesian peoples. Some may criticise those communities, but speak to the locals, look at their tidy properties, local schools, and markets, and recognise it is their choice. Same for West Auckland. There is a distinctly West-Auckland character in the development and feel of Henderson and environs that is enshrined in Outrageous Fortune on TV. And North Shore, with its cleaned up beaches and emphasis on recreation and elite sporting provision is Auckland’s “Life Style City”.

Auckland has grown up in the past decade of development. Its communities have been shaped by the governance structures that have been in place.

And the future shape of Auckland will continue to be determined by the shape of its governance. Auckland needs some fixing. But don’t fix what ain’t broken.

Auckland Restructure - where's the "thought leadership"...?

I am struggling to find any “thought-leadership” that supports Government restructuring proposals for Auckland local governance. That makes it very hard to accept, and difficult to engage with.

The “Making Auckland Greater” document which accompanied Cabinet decisions two or three weeks ago, had been worked on for a good while longer than appearances suggested. It looked as if Cabinet had cooked up its “response” to the Royal Commission’s reports in a week. But now I hear through the grapevine that senior officials in the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) had working on a Government response for much longer.

So. The Government’s response is not a reaction to the Royal Commission at all. It is its own decision. There have been enough statements from enough politicians to the effect that restructuring will not produce savings of any consequence. Some may still be arguing that there will be savings, but the consensus is that savings will be minimal. The consensus is also that Auckland governance restructuring will cost money. So the question has to be asked: what are we doing, and why.

Summer sunset at Timaru. I liked the triangle. And I'm fascinated how mature gum trees in silhouette can look exactly like a handful of dry weeds held closeup.

I have to assume that what is being proposed is based on Government’s strategy for Auckland. It is intended to give effect to an incoming Government’s principles.

But what are they? What is Government’s plan for Auckland?

It is always difficult to second guess this stuff, but if – as seems likely – there I serious policy work being done in the DIA – then they will have considered what is happening around the world on this. How cities need to be governed, or self-governed, to best engage with and respond to global forces.

So I had a bit of hunt through Google on this.

From this we can glean that for centuries the world economy has shaped the life and development of cities. Now we seem to be in an age where this effect is more profound than it has been. Or at least that is the case in the age of globalisation. This was the age of global flows: flows of money, flows of information, flows of technology. We can see case studies of cities that have very deliberately positioned themselves to benefit from these flows.

Dubai is an extreme example.

On the other hand, every country, and every city has its own history and its own geo-political position. Google wisdom suggests that there is a very clear need to manage these two realities. Also there is a need to recognise that local realities, or local differences, have a strategic value and add edge to what a city has to offer. The converse of this is that the city that sells its soul as it strives to be all things to all global investors, can profoundly damage that city’s future.

A couple of approaches to local government organisation:

Community Choice Political fragmentation is not an especially positive word for what others would describe as local decision-making, local accountability, democracy. Theorists describe it is as public choice. They argue that a modern metropolitan area should contain multiple political jurisdictions, and that these will enhance choice (people choosing where they live in a city based on the character and the cost of an area), and they will enhance efficiency in service delivery (because not everybody wants the same services delivered to the same quality in all areas.) There is a market of local governments where mobile ‘citizens’ shop around for ‘communities’ that best fit their preferences.

Regionalism The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to regionalism. Political theorists argue that political fragmentation of a metropolitan area makes it difficult to streamline economic development, to provide regional services, or to enable the expression of a regional voice. These theorists advocate for one single voice. Consolidationists therefore argue that regional government is the solution. That is what Government is arguing, without being clear what it’s doing and why. Getting a city on board globalisation - and the global investment trail - is often associated with moves to regionalise local government.

This is also a conversation about centralisation vs de-centralisation. Some thinkers argue that decentralisation can work as long as there is a constant dialogue across jurisdictions regarding the urban problems that affect everyone in a metropolitan area. The Government’s proposals for Auckland amount to extreme decentralisation – in the form of an all powerful Auckland Council, with a fig-leaf of local government - in the form of community boards which are actually a functional part of Auckland Council. A very big and muscular right arm, and a small and weak left arm, but both driven by one body corporate. It’s all about regionalism. It is not about local government.

The economic thinking that underpins the drive to regionalism is interesting. According to the writings of Bob Jessop – one of the thinkers about all this (my comments are in brackets) writes: “Post-war macroeconomic and microeconomic policies designed to facilitate full employment, price stability, economic growth, and the distribution of social welfare are no longer feasible through the national-state. (This fact has been intensified by the financial recession and the collapse of cheap fossil fuelled land speculation.) So, cities must increasingly use new, entrepreneurial modes of production and governance to secure competitiveness (and attract global investment). Likewise, the state must exploit the competitive advantages created by successful entrepreneurial cities, to secure an advantage internationally. This strategy can only be carried out through long-term organizational coordination coupled with effective performance assessment and accountability standards….”

He goes on to lay out the policy groundwork: “Several general trends are pivotal to the contextualization of the entrepreneurial city: 1) the de-nationalization of statehood, including the abdication of de jure sovereignty to supranational institutions and the devolution of authority to the city/regional level; 2) the transformation from government to governance in the form of partnerships between state agencies and non-governmental organizations; 3) the internationalization of the national state and a subsequent magnification of the transnational implications of domestic behaviour; …all of these processes contribute to the rise of the entrepreneurial city. The transformation of urban economics toward entrepreneurialism is driven by globalization, resulting in local activities such as new governance methods of public/private networking….”

This is all a bit disturbing. Suggesting that Government's plan for Auckland governance is driven by Auckland becoming much more entrepreneur/developer friendly. Of course we still don’t know who has actaually provided the basic policy thinking behind what Government is doing. I don’t know anyway.

But the above does give a flavour. Rings true. It is the sort of thing that might appeal to Rodney.

The problem with it all though, is that the collapse of the global property and real estate development finance industry, has destroyed much of the drive for globalisation. It was a house of cards. Look at Dubai. Fast sinking below the desert sands. And there are many other such projects. Look at the IMF - wondering where its future might best lie now.

So why should Auckland’s governance be re-shaped for a future that is no longer credible, by thinking that has passed its sell-by date?

And if there are other economic theories that underpin Governments’ project for Auckland, let us all share in their wisdom. C'mon Rodney, open that kimono, show us what you've got!