Northland councils speak out in New Zealand’s local government review

Local and central government were not joining the dots or taking advantage of local knowledge when it came to regions’ key social services like housing. Photo / Michael Cunningham

The disconnect between local and central government is contributing to Northland being New Zealand’s poorest region, a Te Tai Toikerau leader is warning.

Far North Kahikā (Mayor) and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) national council member Moko Tepania said this dysfunction contributed to why New Zealand’s three poorest regions - Northland, then Gisborne, then Manawatū-Whanganui - were about 40 per cent worse-off than the country’s three richest. Wellington is the country’s richest region, followed by Auckland, then Taranaki.

Tepania’s comments come as Northland’s four councils lay out their dissatisfaction with challenges they say they are facing in their local/central government relationship, in submissions on New Zealand’s major Review into the Future for Local Government (2022) draft report He mata whāriki, he matawhānui.

Submission comments from Far North District Council (FNDC), Kaipara District Council (KDC), Whangārei District Council (WDC) and Northland Regional Council (NRC) are among thousands nationally now being considered by the Future for Local Government Review Panel, ahead of a final national review report due in June.

Strengthening New Zealand’s problematic local and central government relationship is among nine key review areas on which submission feedback was sought.

Tepania said local and central government were not joining the dots or taking advantage of local knowledge when it came to regions’ key social services such as housing, healthcare or public welfare. Councils had no say in these areas.

“What we wind up with is a bunch of government departments trying to tackle them one by one in the same place, without sharing information between [each other],” Tepania said.

FNDC’s submission said New Zealand’s biggest local government review in 30 years was based on the premise that government locally rather than centrally was the problem.

“FNDC acknowledge and support the theme identified in the [draft] report that ‘we need a future of our communities, not the future of local government’, and go one step further by suggesting that this focus needs to extend to all government and stop focusing just on local government,” the council’s submission said.

“The whole report is premised on local government being ‘the problem’. It will only be when ‘government’ is acknowledged as not delivering community wellbeing outcomes, will there be a way forward to address the current dysfunction between central and local government.”

FNDC said some Government agencies appeared to deliberately undermine the council’s efforts to work with its community.

Problems with different local and central government administration styles limited positive working relationships.

“FNDC believe that one root cause of the dysfunction between central and local government is that both operate in different authorising and decision-making environments and that these core differences limit the ability of central and local government to be reliable partners, have integrity in the relationship, act with a duty of care in providing for the interests of each other and mutually deliver the outcomes sought by the community, whether national or local.”

Little consideration was given to extra costs and resourcing demands facing councils as a result of having to carry out required work for central government and meeting central government regulatory standards. Most mandates were unfunded or underfunded.

Tepania said communities, which were all different, needed to be at the centre of local democracy. Approaches applied in the Mid North’s Kaikohe could not be expected to work in Kaipara or Gore.

“We need to give councils the power to make the right decisions for our mokopuna,” Tepania said.

WDC said it not support central government’s paternalistic approach.

“Council does not agree with central government’s historic paternalistic approach to reforms of legislation with minimal resourcing and a lack of partnering with the entities responsible for implementing at pace,” the WDC submission said.

It said the reform’s lack of co-design and both governments working in silos were barriers to a collaborative approach between the two.

“WDC is very interested in partnering with local hapū partners in an effort to work together with central government,” the submission said.

It was happy to share its learnings in this area to date.

NRC’s submission said the relationship between central and local government was strained, with confidence and trust lacking in both directions.

“This is evidenced, for example, in the problematic amount of bureaucratic and unnecessary reporting associated with the allocation of central government funding to projects undertaken by local government,” NRC said.

That needed to be removed.

KDC’s submission said a meaningful connection between the two meant better valuing what communities were asking for and what local government was trying to achieve, rather than doing what central government might instead think was best.

It was paramount co-investment happened from the grassroots up.

“If communities feel truly engaged and heard, and outcomes are being delivered to benefit them, then a genuine partnership can be established.

“If communities feel that outcomes are being ‘done to them’ and are ‘what someone in Wellington thinks is best for us’, then the genuine partnership is fractured and difficult to regain,” KDC’s submission said.

Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air.