The
Coalition’s proposed shakeup of local government is well underway, with
councils being asked to decide the shape of future mergers. But New Zealand has
been here before — and there are important lessons from the past.
In the 1980s, New Zealand had around 850 local authorities. Communities also had an effective veto over amalgamations: if 15 per cent of voters petitioned for a referendum, a proposed merger could be defeated.
Frustrated
by opposition, the Lange Labour Government removed those rights in 1988 and
gave the Local Government Commission powers to impose restructuring. The result
was the 1989 reforms, which reduced the number of local authorities to 86.
The
promised benefits were greater efficiency, less duplication and lower rates.
Instead, many communities lost local representation, professional bureaucracies
expanded, and rates and council debt increased.
Almost
forty years later, remarkably similar arguments are being made.
The
Coalition’s Head Start programme asks neighbouring councils to develop
proposals combining regional and territorial functions into fewer, larger
unitary authorities. Councils that cannot agree face a default arrangement
imposed by Government, with regional councils ultimately disappearing.
These
are potentially the most significant local government reforms since 1989. Yet
once again, the people most affected have been largely excluded.
Under
existing local government legislation, major reorganisations normally require
majority support through a binding poll. Head Start effectively bypasses
that safeguard.
The
irony is that National strongly condemned Labour for doing much the same thing
in 1988, arguing that governments had no moral authority to abolish councils,
redraw boundaries or impose new structures without securing the consent of
affected communities. National again defended local democratic rights when
Labour removed petition rights over Māori wards in 2021.
Political
urgency should not override democratic rights. There may well be a strong case
for reform. Combining regional and district functions into unitary authorities
could reduce duplication, and neighbouring councils may sometimes benefit from
merging. But what works for closely connected communities may make little sense
for geographically dispersed districts with different economies, debt levels
and priorities.
As
former Kaipara Mayor Craig Jepson argues, smaller councils can be nimble,
accessible and accountable. Kaipara’s experience with bringing roading
management back under local control demonstrates the potential benefits of
decisions being made close to the communities affected.
The
fundamental question, therefore, is not whether local government should change,
but who should decide.
The
reforms should be paused until after the election and communities given proper
information, sufficient time and the final say through binding referenda.
Ratepayers should decide whether their council retains the status quo, becomes
a unitary authority, or merges with neighbouring councils.
Any
restructuring should also ensure existing arrangements between councils and
outside interest groups do not simply transfer into larger authorities without
public scrutiny and approval.
Local
government belongs to local communities. Reshaping it without their consent
risks repeating the mistakes of 1989.
Giving
ratepayers the final say is not an obstacle to reform. It is democracy in
action.
The
full article may be seen at nzcpr.com.