|
Topic
|
Local Board
Feedback
|
|
Revitalising
citizen-lead democracy
|
|
|
Recommendations
1. That local government adopts greater use of
deliberative and participatory democracy in local decision-making.
|
· The board supports increased use of participatory and
deliberative democracy in local decision-making.
|
|
2. That local government, supported by central
government, reviews the legislative provisions relating to engagement,
consultation, and decision-making to ensure they provide a comprehensive,
meaningful, and flexible platform for revitalising community participation
and engagement.
|
· The board supports undertaking this review, on the basis that
any additional costs to local government because of changes to legislated
engagement and consultation requirements should come with increased funding
from central Government.
|
|
3. That central government leads a comprehensive
review of requirements for engaging with Māori
across local government-related legislation,
considering opportunities to streamline or align those requirements.
|
· It is important that this is a three-way conversation between
central Government, local government and Māori
to agree what works best.
· Funding may be required to allow iwi to have time and capacity
to contribute.
· Different iwi groups have different levels of capacity to
undertake engagement with local government. For this reason, a
one-size-fits-all approach may not work.
· Any legislative requirements will also need to take into account
the differences between urban and rural iwi, and the overlapping interests
of iwi in some areas.
· The review should identify approaches that are already working
and ensure that these are not undermined by any new legislative
requirements.
· Iwi are best placed to advise the best ways to engage that works
for them.
|
|
4. That councils develop and invest in their
internal systems for managing and promoting good quality engagement with
Māori.
|
· The board supports councils developing and investing in their
internal systems for managing and promoting quality engagement with
Māori.
|
|
5. That central government provides a statutory
obligation for councils to give due consideration to an agreed, local
expression of tikanga whakahaere (rituals and practices) in their standing
orders and engagement practices, and for chief executives to be required to
promote the incorporation of tikanga in organisations systems.
|
· The board does not support taking a blanket approach to this,
and is therefore not supportive of making this a statutory obligation.
· Consideration should be given to the level of Māori representation and
involvement in each area when deciding the appropriateness of incorporating
tikanga whakahaere. For Auckland Council, this might need to be decided on
the level of each local board.
· If there is to be a statutory process to agree on appropriate
tikanga whakahaere, it should include timeframes for iwi to respond, and
for the parties to reach agreement.
· There would also need to be processes for iwi to decide which
iwi is/are consulted and how conflicts should be resolved where multiple
iwi have an interest in an area.
|
|
Question
a. What might we do more of to
increase community understanding about the role of local government, and
therefore lead to greater civic participation?
|
· Civics and citizenship education should be
compulsory as a part of the social studies curriculum in schools. This
should include components on local government, as well as central
Government. This could include running mock elections. Age-appropriate
civics education should be included in the primary curriculum.
· Look at ways to simplify the voting process,
and to make the voting process between central and local government
elections as similar as possible.
· A potential unintended consequence of
increasing civic participation could be that if the number of candidates in
local body elections increases, the cost of campaigning may also increase.
· Engagement with target communities to
increase participation needs to be ongoing, not undertaken only in the
lead-up to elections.
· Working with community groups is an
important method of increasing community understanding of local government.
· Engagement programmes needs to be funded
appropriately by central Government in order to be effective.
|
|
Tiriti-based partnership between Māori and local
government
|
|
|
Recommendations
6. That
central government leads an inclusive process to develop a new legislative
framework for Tiriti-related provisions in the Local Government Act that
drives a genuine partnership in the exercise of kāwanatanga and
rangatiratanga in a local context and explicitly recognises te ao
Māori values and conceptions of wellbeing.
|
· If such a framework is to be developed, the board would prefer a
co-design process with central Government, local government, Māori and
community that includes local boards.
· A framework that provides guidelines would be preferred to a
prescriptive approach in legislation.
· The framework should not duplicate, replace, or undermine the
existing monitoring and reporting function of the Independent Māori
Statutory Board in relation to Auckland Council
|
|
7. That
councils develop with hapū/iwi and significant Māori
organisations within a local authority area, a partnership framework that
complements existing co-governance arrangements by ensuring all groups in a
council area are involved in local governance in a meaningful way.
|
· The board supports this proposal, provided that existing
processes and structures that are deemed to be working well are able to
remain in place, such as Ara Kōtui (a joint mana whenua iwi and
southern local boards initiative, established in 2015 to explore and
support opportunities for improving iwi Māori involvement in local
board decision-making).
· Care needs to be taken not to place unrealistic expectations on
iwi that lack the resources to be able to participate in a meaningful way.
|
|
8. That
central government introduces a statutory requirement for local government
chief executives to develop and maintain the capacity and capability of
council staff to grow understanding and knowledge of Te Tiriti, the
whakapapa of local government, and te ao Māori values.
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
9. That
central government explores a stronger statutory requirement on councils to
foster Māori capacity to participate in local government.
|
· The board supports this proposal, provided that any funding
needed to support increasing and maintaining Māori capacity is
provided by central Government.
|
|
10. The
local government leads the development of co-ordinated organisational and
workforce development plans to enhance the capability of local government
to partner and engage with Māori.
|
· The board supports this proposal, and notes that work of this
nature is already underway at Auckland Council.
|
|
11. The
central government provides a transitional fund to subsidise the cost of
building both Māori and council capability and capacity for a
Tiriti-based partnership in local governance.
|
· The board supports this proposal, provided that funding is not
only transitional, but is available to maintain capacity as well as to
build it.
· Central government funding should meet the whole cost, of
building and maintaining capacity, not just be a subsidy.
|
|
Allocating roles and functions in a way that enhances
wellbeing
|
|
|
Recommendations
12. That
central and local government note that the allocation of the roles and
functions is not a binary decision between being delivered centrally or locally.
|
· The board agrees that allocation of these roles and functions is
not binary. It is important that where the 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 there are frequently issues with the
interface of local roads and state highways and deciding who is responsible
for undertaking work.
|
|
13. That
local and central government, in a Tiriti-consistent manner, review the
future allocations of roles and functions by applying the proposed
approach, which includes three core principles:
· the concept of subsidiarity
· local government’s capacity to influence the conditions
for wellbeing is recognised and supported
· te ao Māori values underpin decision-making.
|
· The board supports including the concept of subsidiarity as a
core principle.
· We support giving recognition and support to the role of local
government in influencing the conditions for wellbeing, so long as it is
also recognised that the is not solely or chiefly the responsibility of
local government. Wellbeing needs to start with central Government
providing education, healthcare and other basic needs.
· We support the principle that te ao Māori values should
underpin decision-making.
|
|
Questions
b. What process would need to be created to
support and agree on the allocation of roles and functions across central
government, local government, and communities?
|
· Any proposal would need to be thoroughly discussed between
central Government, local government, and communities. A co-design approach
would be preferred to a prescriptive approach.
· The capacity of local government to deliver a newly allocated
function and lead-in times to prepare to be able to deliver it should be
taken into consideration.
· Devolution of roles or functions to local government needs to be
accompanied by appropriate funding allocations.
|
|
c. What conditions will need to be in place
to ensure the flexibility of the approach proposed does not create confusion
or unnecessary uncertainty?
|
· A co-design approach is optimal – see above.
|
|
d. What additional principles, if any, need
to be considered?
|
· Decision making should be devolved as close to the local level
as possible, with appropriate funding to deliver.
|
|
Local government as champion and activator of wellbeing
|
|
|
Recommendation
14. That
local government, in partnership with central government, explores funding
and resources that enable and encourage councils to:
a) lead,
facilitate, and support innovation and experimentation in achieving greater
social, economic, cultural, and environmental wellbeing outcomes
b) build
relational, partnering, innovation, and co-design capability and capacity
across their whole organisation
c) embed
social/progressive procurement and supplier diversity as standard practice
in local government with nationally supported organisational infrastructure
and capability and capacity building
d) review their levers and assets from an equity and
wellbeing perspective and identify opportunities for strategic and
transformational initiatives
e) take
on the anchor institution role, initially through demonstration initiatives
with targeted resources and peer support
f) share
the learning and emerging practice from innovation and experimentation of
their enhanced wellbeing role.
|
· Wellbeing needs to start with central Government providing education,
healthcare and other basic needs.
· If decision making responsibilities are devolved to the local
level, then the budget needs to be devolved with it.
· Local government would need to have significantly increased
funding from central Government to achieve greater social, economic,
cultural and environmental wellbeing outcomes.
|
|
Questions
e. What feedback do you have on the roles
councils can play to enhance intergenerational wellbeing?
|
· The role that councils can play is highly dependent on the
funding available to resource that role.
· Local boards try to ensure an intergenerational lens is applied
across the delivery of their work programmes.
|
|
f. What changes would support
councils to utilise their existing assets, enablers, and levers to generate
more local wellbeing?
|
· The board has no formal view on this question.
|
|
A stronger relationship between central and local
government
|
|
|
Questions
As we work towards our final report, we want to
consider the merits of the different examples. We are interested in your
views as to how to rewire the system of central and local government
relationships through developing an aligned and cohesive approach to
co-investment in local outcomes.
h. To create a collaborative
relationship between central and local government that builds on current
strengths and resources, what are:
a) the conditions for success
and the barriers that are preventing strong relationships?
b) the factors in place now
that support genuine partnership?
c) the elements needed to build
and support a new system?
d) the best options to get
there?
e) potential pathways to move
in that direction and where to start?
f) the opportunities to
trial and innovate now?
|
· Thorough consultation and a co-design approach is optimal
– as above.
· If decision making responsibilities are devolved to the local
level, then the budget needs to be devolved with it.
· Maintaining consistent relationships between central and local
government when there is a change of Government is a significant barrier.
Relationships with elected officials (i.e. ministers) and with public
service officials (i.e. departmental or ministerial chief executives and
officers) both need to be maintained.
· 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.
|
|
i. How can central and
local government explore options that empower and enable a role for
hapū/iwi in local governance in partnership with local and central
government? These options should recognise the contribution of
hapū/iwi rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and other roles?
|
· As discussed above, it is important that this is a three-way
conversation between central Government, local government and Māori to explore these
issues. Iwi are best placed to advise what would work best for them.
· Funding for building and maintaining iwi capacity to take on
these roles may be needed. The onus to provide this funding should not fall
to local government.
|
|
Replenishing and building on representative democracy
|
|
|
Recommendations
15. That
the Electoral Commission be responsible for overseeing the administration
of local body elections.
|
· The board supports giving responsibility for overseeing the
administration of local body elections to the Electoral Commission. They
have a proven track record for competently running elections and it makes
sense to use this expertise for local body elections.
· It will also mean that the same body will be responsible for
enrolling voters and overseeing the election, which will simplify matters
for voters and allow for a ‘one-stop shop’ approach where voters can enrol and vote
at the same time.
· We feel that the postal voting system is no longer effective for
most voters. There should be more effective options for in-person voting in
addition to postal voting. Ways to make postal voting more secure should be
explored if it is to be retained as an option. Options to offer secure
online voting should also be explored.
· Making the voter experience in local body elections as similar
as possible to general elections would help to reduce confusion and
encourage greater turnout. Offering in-person voting and having a strongly
promoted voting period, including a final ‘election day’ should
be part of this.
· The Electoral Commission should be funded with a similar budget
as for general elections to promote local body elections and undertake
voter education campaigns.
|
|
16. That
central government undertakes a review of the legislation to:
a) adopt Single Transferrable Vote as the voting
method for council elections
b) lower the eligible voting age in local body
elections to the age of 16
c) provide for a 4-year local electoral term
d) amend the employment provisions of chief
executives to match those in the wider public sector, and include
mechanisms to assist in managing the employment relationship.
|
· The board does not support adopting the Single Transferrable
Vote (STV) voting method for all local body elections. STV complicates the
voter experience and will not encourage higher turnout. It requires voters
to take more time to fill out their ballots, and to have a high level of
knowledge of the candidate in order to be able to rank them.
· If there is going to be a change to the voting system, a more
comprehensive review of voting systems should be undertaken and options
other than STV should be explored.
· The board does not support lowering the voting age to 16.
· The board supports a 4-year electoral term. If this was also
implemented for central Government, it would allow for an electoral cycle
where electors are voting every two years, using a similar voting process.
|
|
17. That central
and local government, in conjunction with the Remuneration Authority,
review the criteria for setting elected member remuneration to recognise
the increasing complexity of the role and enable a more diverse range of
people to consider standing for election.
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
18. That
local government develops 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.
|
· The board supports this proposal, and notes that Auckland
Council’s Kura Kawana programme already fulfils some of this
function.
|
|
19. That
central and local government:
c) support
and enable councils to undertake regular health checks of their democratic
performance
b) develop guidance and mechanisms to support
councils resolving complaints under their code of conduct and explore a
specific option for local government to refer complaints to an independent
investigation process, conducted and led by a national organisation
c) subject to the findings of current relevant
ombudsman’s investigations, assess whether the provisions of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and how it is
being applied, support high standards of openness and transparency
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
20. That
central government retain the Māori wards and constituencies mechanism
(subject to amendment in current policy processes), but consider additional
options that provide for a Tiriti-based partnership at the council
table.
|
· The board supports retaining the Māori wards and
constituencies mechanism.
· Partnership options should not duplicate, replace, or undermine
the existing monitoring and reporting function of the Independent
Māori Statutory Board in relation to Auckland Council.
|
|
Questions
j. How can local government
enhance its capability to undertake representation reviews and, in
particular, should the Local Government Commission play a more proactive
role in leading or advising councils about representation reviews?
|
· The board has no formal view on this proposal.
|
|
k. To support a differentiated
liberal citizenship, what are the essential key steps, parameters, and
considerations that would enable both Tiriti- and capability-based
appointments to be made to supplement elected members?
|
· Auckland Council’s Independent Māori Statutory Board
provides a good example of a body of this type.
|
|
Equitable funding and finance
|
|
|
Recommendations
21. That
central government expands its regulatory impact statement assessments to
include the impacts on local government; and that it undertakes an
assessment of regulation currently in force that is likely to have
significant future funding impacts for local government and makes funding
provision to reflect the national public-good benefits that accrue from
those regulations.
|
· The board supports including impacts on local government in
regulatory impact statements.
· Devolution of roles or functions to local government should
always be accompanied by appropriate funding allocation from central
Government.
|
|
22. That
central and local government agree on arrangements and mechanisms for them
to co-invest to meet community wellbeing priorities, and that central
government makes funding provisions accordingly
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
23. That
central government develops an intergenerational fund for climate change,
with the application of the fund requiring appropriate regional and local
decision-making input.
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
24. That central government reviews relevant legislation
to:
a) enable councils to introduce new funding
mechanisms
b) retain rating as the principal mechanism
for funding local government, while redesigning long-term planning and
rating provisions to allow a more simplified and streamlined process.
|
· The board supports enabling councils to introduce new funding
mechanisms.
· We question whether rating is still ‘the principal
mechanism for funding local government’ in Auckland. Rates revenue
only forms 40 per cent of Auckland Council’s funding streams. This
indicates that there is an urgent need to consider what alternatives there
are to fund larger local bodies.
· 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. We would like to see the
legislation reviewed with a view to including defined minimum funding
levels for boards.
|
|
25. That
central government agencies pay local government rates and charges on all
properties.
|
· The board supports this proposal.
· Some or all GST on paid on rates should be returned to local
bodies as funding.
|
|
Question
l. What is the most appropriate
basis and process for allocating central government funding to meet
community priorities?
|
· Local government is best placed to understand and deliver on
community priorities.
· In the Auckland context, local boards play a significant role in
ascertaining and delivering on community priorities.
|
|
System design
|
|
|
Recommendations
26. That
central and local government explore and agree to a new Tiriti-consistent
structural and system design that will give effect to the design
principles.
· local
· subsidiarity
· resourced
· partnership
· economies of scope
|
· The board has no formal view on this proposal.
|
|
27. That
local government, supported by central government, invests in a programme
that identifies and implements the opportunities for greater shared
services collaboration.
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
28. That
local government establishes a Local Government Digital Partnership to
develop a digital transformation roadmap for local government.
|
· The board supports this proposal.
|
|
System stewardship and support
|
|
|
Recommendations
29. That
central and local government considers the best model of stewardship and
which entities are best placed to play system stewardship roles in a revised
system of local government.
|
· As noted above, maintaining consistent relationships between
central and local government when there is a change of Government is a
significant challenge. Any model of stewardship should look to address this
issue.
|
