|
Resolution
number FR/2023/7
MOVED by Chairperson A Fulljames, seconded by Member A
Hopkins:
That
the Franklin Local Board:
a)
provide feedback as
follows on the draft report by the Future for Local Government Review Panel
to inform the council’s submission:
Revitalising citizen-lead
democracy
i)
note that
communities, particularly deprived and isolated communities, are increasingly
time-poor. An overemphasis on deliberative and participatory democracy could
unintentionally exacerbate inequity in communities
ii)
support a local government
led review of legislative provisions relating to engagement, consultation,
and decision-making if the cost, including consequential costs to local
government of changes, comes with increased funding from central government
iii)
note that it is
important that any government led
review of requirements for
engaging with Māori across local government-related legislation is a
three-way conversation between central government, local government and Māori to agree what works best and;
A.
in the Auckland
context local government is not restricted to the governing body of council
and therefore must include local boards
B.
central government
would need to plan to provide funding to both local government agencies and iwi
for the time and capacity to contribute
iv)
support councils
developing and investing in their internal systems for managing and promoting
quality engagement with Māori
v)
suggest that to
increase community understanding about the role of local government and
encouraging participation, civics and citizenship education be compulsory as
a part of the social studies curriculum in schools. This should include
components on local government, as well as central government, with education
on the Auckland context. Age-appropriate civics education should be included
in the primary curriculum
Tiriti-based
partnership between Māori and local government
vi)
suggest if central
government leads an inclusive process to develop a new legislative framework
for Tiriti-related provisions in the Local Government Act, that a co-design process
with central government, local government, Māori and community is
preferable, inclusive of local boards in the Auckland governance context
vii) support a transitional fund to subsidise the
cost of building both Māori and council capability and capacity for a
Tiriti-based partnership in local governance
viii) note that care needs to be taken not to place
unrealistic expectations on iwi that may lack the resources to be able to
participate in a meaningful way, or indeed on local government which operates
in increasingly constrained budgets
Allocating roles
and functions in a way that enhances wellbeing
ix)
note that it is
important that where governance roles and functions overlap, there are good
processes to ensure that the responsible organisations work together. An
example of this often not working well currently is Auckland Transport and
Waka Kotahi, where the interface between local road and state highway
responsibilities can create issues
x)
suggest that when
considering the allocation of roles, the capacity of local government to
deliver a newly allocated function and lead-in times to prepare to be able to
deliver must be taken into consideration, and devolution of roles or
functions to local government needs to be accompanied by appropriate funding allocation
xi)
suggest that
decision making should be devolved as close to the local level as possible,
with appropriate funding to deliver. In the Auckland Council context this may
mean at local board level
Local government
as champion and activator of wellbeing
xii) suggest that wellbeing needs to start with
central government providing education, healthcare and other basic needs so
that local government is not forced to use resources to intervene and
supplement these services according to local variables
xiii) note that local government would need to have
significantly increased funding from central government to achieve greater
social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing outcomes
A stronger
relationship between central and local government
xiv) note that there needs to be respect from both
parties for the other’s role. Central government needs to respect the
capacity of local authorities to make decisions and carry them out. If
decision making responsibilities are devolved to the local level, then the
budget needs to be devolved with it
Replenishing and
building on representative democracy
xv) support a mandatory professional development
and support programme for elected members; and local and central government
develop a shared executive professional development and secondment programme
to achieve greater integration across the two sectors
xvi) support the proposals to enable councils to
undertake regular health checks of their democratic performance and develop
guidance and mechanisms to support councils resolving complaints under their
code of conduct including a specific option for local government to refer
complaints to an independent investigation process, conducted and led by a
national organisation
Equitable funding
and finance
xvii)
support including impacts
on local government in regulatory impact statements
xviii)
suggest that
devolution of roles or functions to local government should always be
accompanied by appropriate funding allocation from central government
xix) support the proposal for the development of a central
government intergenerational fund for climate change, with the application of
the fund requiring appropriate regional and local decision-making input
xx) note that in the Auckland context, legislation
does not currently prescribe funding levels for local boards. Auckland
Council’s governance model is based on the concept of shared governance
between the governing body and local boards. However, there cannot be true
shared governance when one side controls the level of funding allocated to
the other side. Legislative review should extend to include aspects specific
to the Auckland environment i.e. defined minimum funding levels for boards
xxi) support the proposal that central government
agencies pay local government rates and charges on all properties
xxii) suggest that some or all GST paid on rates
should be returned to local bodies as funding
xxiii) note that aligned, cohesive and collaborative
approach to co-investment in local outcomes is currently not achieved through
the current approach to funding partnerships, particular in a complex
environment of scale such as Auckland. The Auckland ATAP process is an
example of a funding ‘partnership’ that is not successful i.e.
where a power imbalance leads to national imperatives outweighing local and
community need
System design
xxiv) agree that local government supported by
central government should invest in a programme that identifies and
implements the opportunities for greater shared services collaboration.
CARRIED
|
