|
Resolution
number KT/2023/28
MOVED by Member P Gillon, seconded by Chairperson J
Gillon:
That
the Kaipātiki Local Board:
a)
provide the following
feedback on the Draft Future for Local Government Report to inform the
council’s draft submission:
i)
we welcome the review into
Local Government Reform.
Revitalising Citizen-led
Democracy
ii)
we agree with the aim of revitalising
citizen-led democracy and putting community wellbeing at the heart of Local
Government. This is something that the Kaipātiki Local Board has been
doing since inception and we fully support this approach. However, it must be
acknowledged that Local Government’s primary role of providing services
such as infrastructure, waste services, maintaining parks, reserves and
public spaces, such as libraries and leisure centres, are a priority. While
we welcome the emphasis on community wellbeing (and believe we are in an
ideal position to accomplish these goals), we believe that community
wellbeing initiatives should be fully funded by central government in order
for Local Government to carry out this important task.
iii)
we support greater civics education
in schools, to increase community understanding about the role of local
government.
iv)
we agree that community should be at
the heart of decision-making; however, we have noticed that communities are
losing trust in local government in part due to the ever-diminishing powers
of local representatives to help them. Government policy continuously moves
powers from elected representatives to employed staff (for example, Three
Waters legislation, the new Spatial Planning Bill and the creation of Council
Controlled Organisations). This shift in control over decision-making often
means there are no repercussions for bad or unpopular decisions, rendering
the voting process almost unnecessary. We believe that this is a main driver
for lack of engagement in the democratic process.
v)
we believe that there is not only a
feeling of being ‘over consulted’ by the public, but that their
consultation responses will often have no impact on decision-making due to
predetermination or narrow options provided in consultations. Often
councils’ own internal bureaucracy means that it is difficult to
implement new ideas or pivot towards a new way of thinking, which gives the
impression that engaging in local government consultation is a pointless
exercise. Making councils more able to pivot or change direction depending
upon election results would lead to an increase in voter turnout and
engagement with consultation processes.
Tiriti-based Partnership
between Māori and Local
Government
vi)
we have previously supported having
directly elected Māori representation at Local Board level. Due to the
large population of Maata Waka in our community, we would prefer this to be
through a specific elected seat on the Local Board.
Allocating Roles and
Functions in a way that enhances wellbeing
vii)
in order to provide a clarity of
decision-making (leading to greater community input), the Kaipātiki
Local Board believes that roles and services should be identified in a binary
manner (central government and local government) to avoid confusion, noting
that:
A)
Often there is confusion in the
community over central and local government responsibilities, resulting in
difficulty getting issues addressed;
B)
Future social housing should remain a
central government responsibility with input from local government on
infrastructure services to meet those needs;
C)
Government departments need to work
closely with Local Government to ensure that community wellbeing is put
first, for example, Council should work with the Ministry of Education on the
provision of local green space and on the impacts of climate change prior to
creating more impervious surfaces on their land;
D)
While Local Government may at times
be in a position to assist services working within the health sector (for
example, mental health providers), their main source of funding and support
should remain with the Ministry of Health.
viii)
suggest that when considering the
allocation of roles, the capacity of local government to deliver a newly
allocated function, and the required lead-in time to prepare to be able to
deliver, must be taken into consideration, and devolution of roles or
functions to local government need to be accompanied by an appropriate
funding allocation.
ix)
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
x)
since inception, the Kaipātiki
Local Board has been a champion and activator of community wellbeing. We have
acted as leaders and facilitators in achieving greater social, economic,
cultural, and environmental wellbeing outcomes through partnering and
supporting community organisations. However:
A)
With budget constraints, we are
finding it difficult to continue in this role to the level that we would like
and that our community expects;
B)
In times of crisis and budget cuts,
when community organisations need additional support, local government
instead tends to focus on core service provision.
xi)
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
xii)
we welcome the chance to enhance
relationships with central government. We suggest that in order to do this:
A)
Co-investment in local outcomes needs
to have both funding and trust;
B)
There needs to be far more
communication between government departments and Local Boards on developments
and plans within the Local Board area. This communication should include
collaboration and genuine consultation with both elected members and the
community;
C)
Some Government Departments have
treated questions from Local Board members as Official Information Act
requests. This implies a lack of trust from the Government and delays the
relaying of information. Instead, there needs to be a willingness to share
information, ideas and plans;
D)
Government departments need to value
and appreciate the local knowledge of elected members and take advice and
input as being genuine.
Replenishing
and building on representative democracy
xiii)
we agree that the Electoral
Commission should be responsible for overseeing the administration of local
body elections.
xiv)
we believe that individual local
authorities should decide whether elections are STV or FPP. While more
democratically responsive, STV is a very complicated system and has the
potential to put people off from voting, particularly in areas where it is
unfamiliar.
xv)
we have mixed views on lowering the
voting age to 16, but note that there should be consistency of voting age at
both central and local government level in order to reduce confusion and
create true equity. If it is inconsistent, then it could appear as though one
election is more important than the other or that a different level of
maturity is required for each election.
xvi)
we support the move to a 4-year term,
however we do not support aligning central and local government elections as
we believe that would detract attention from the local government election
processes.
xvii)
we support the development of an
independent mandatory professional development and support programme for
elected members.
xviii)
we do not agree that there should be
further appointments to local democracy, particularly ‘capability based
appointments’. This could leave the way open for Mayors or Chairs to
appoint representatives who support their policy platforms and will
essentially ‘buy’ a vote around the table. Currently councils
purchase advice as and when necessary (through employing experts or
contracting consultants) and this is what should continue. Appointing experts
could lead to accusations of corruption or further erosion of trust in the
democratic system.
Equitable Funding and
Finance
xix)
we believe that with an extension of
local government oversight into community wellbeing, that central government
should provide the funds for local government to adequately fulfil the
increased obligations.
xx)
we support the recommendation that
central government expands its regulatory impact statement assessments to
include the impacts on local government.
xxi)
we support the recommendation that
central government reviews relevant legislation to enable councils to
introduce new funding mechanisms, noting that communities and individuals are
already paying at the top end for council rates and services and there is not
an appetite to increase revenue through charging our residents more.
xxii)
we suggest that the devolution of
roles or functions to local government should always be accompanied by an
appropriate funding allocation from central government.
xxiii)
we support the recommendation that
central government agencies pay local government rates and charges on all
properties and suggest that full development contributions are also paid.
xxiv)
we 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.
xxv)
we suggest that some or all GST paid
on rates should be returned to local bodies as funding.
xxvi)
we request that legislation is
introduced to 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, in practice 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 local boards.
System Design
xxvii) we
believe that Local Boards should be fully involved in any future system
design, and that Local Board input is given as much emphasis as Auckland
Council input. The system should be agreed by all Local Government
authorities prior to involving Central Government, and if there is not full
agreement then there should be no changes.
xxviii) we are sceptical of a need for an overarching system
design, and believe that it is best left to each local authority to determine
the needs of their communities and the system that works for them. We are
concerned that this proposal is introducing more unnecessary bureaucracy.
xxix) we are concerned about the additional cost burden of
investing in a program that identifies and implements the opportunities for
greater shared services collaboration, and are unsure whether the benefits
will outweigh the costs.
CARRIED
|
