A recent survey of mayors, councillors, and council chief executives, captured in my forthcoming report The Pulse of Local Government, has shed light on this sentiment. The results paint a clear picture: local government leaders see localism as a means to better serve and service their communities.
The push for localism is not about wresting complete control from Wellington. Rather, it is about striking a balance that allows for more nuanced, locally responsive governance. It is about establishing a partnership that works, both for communities and for the country as a whole.
But what is driving this support for localism? The answer lies in the challenges facing our communities: housing development costs, infrastructure development, environmental protection, and economic growth. These issues all have unique local elements that are not well addressed by one-size-fits-all mandates from central Government.
It is promising to see the coalition Government exploring several flagship localist policies.
One is the city or regional deals that have captured headlines. Our vision for these agreements is that councils would examine which central Government policies do not meet local needs. They would then approach Wellington with a proposal for a regulatory carveout, a local approach to a national policy, or for devolution of services delivery. In return, Wellington would establish indicators to keep tabs on the success of the devolved powers.
Another localist policy receiving coverage in recent headlines for its inclusion in the Government’s coalition agreement is GST sharing. The concept is straightforward: allow councils to retain a portion of the GST generated from new housing developments. Providing councils with funds directly tied to new builds would encourage councils to facilitate and accelerate housing development.
The new data in our survey show these policies enjoy widespread support across local bodies. A large majority of respondents think city deals would be beneficial for their communities. Likewise, they believe GST would make the cost of new developments more affordable.
Our survey also asked about a localist policy not currently on the coalition’s agenda, ratepayer referendums. Throughout the country, relationships between the ratepaying base and the rate-spending councils are often tense.
One solution would be to allow councils to hold ‘ratepayer referenda’ on large spending projects. This would require councils to go to ratepayers and ask them to sign off on a specific levy for a project, complete with spending rules. While this policy was contentious among respondents, it was heartening to see it receive the support it did.
In fact, it was heartening to see that across-the-board local government is supportive of localism, seeing in it the potential for more efficiency, accountability, innovation, and civic participation.
Unfortunately, there is an elephant in the room concerning the future of localism. When asked what the largest obstacles were to a more localist system, the answer from respondents was resounding – central Government. Councils are ready to go and are aware of where they will have to put in the extra work to come up to the standard set by Wellington. However, they remain largely cynical about its ability to relinquish power.
This is understandable. New Zealand’s incredibly centralised Government has a long record of forcing its mandates upon councils. One of the flagship policies of the previous Government was the foisting of the controversial Three Waters programme onto every council in the country. Wellington will have to work hard to show that it is willing to come to the table as a good-faith partner.
The path forward toward a localist system requires courage and commitment from both local and central Government. For councils, it means investing in capacity building and improving governance structures. It means being prepared to be held accountable for decisions that were previously the domain of central Government.
For Wellington, the challenge is perhaps even greater. Devolving power requires trust – trust in local decision-makers and trust in communities to hold their local representatives accountable. It requires an ethos of partnership long absent from the beehive.
