John MacDonald: It's time we had less local councils

The Government thinks it’s getting all tough on it with local councils, but I think Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown are just tinkering around the edges and they need to go harder.  

Instead of just telling the councils what they expect of them, they should be telling councils that, for some of them, their days are numbered.    

But essentially what the Government’s doing is it’s waving the stick on behalf of ratepayers, saying that legislation changes are on the way that will force councils to focus on “the basics” as the Government likes to call them.  

Which, on the face of it, most people who pay rates will love the sound of.  

And I’m no different. I look at the ratepayer money that seems to go out the door from all these councils in all different directions and wonder what happened to all those promises about “zero rates increases if you vote for me”.  

Not that I ever fall for that cheap talk.  

And I think we know what the basics are that the Government wants these councils to focus on. It’s all the non-flashy things like making sure there’s safe water coming out of the taps, fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new ones, picking up the rubbish.   

All the stuff that doesn't make council life all that exciting but is essential for every one of us, every day.  

As for the flashy stuff —or the nice-to-haves— that’s what the Government wants councils to put the brakes on. One of the ways it’s going to make that happen is it’s going to make changes to the laws that councils operate under.  

A big change is going to be removing the need for councils to think about these so-called social, economic, environmental and cultural “pillars” – because the Government thinks they’ve got councils involved in all sorts of non-essential stuff.   

So, you know, “drop any big ideas about pouring ratepayer money into a big flash convention centre. Instead, stick in the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.”  

That’s the message from Wellington.   

Which the 2IC at the outfit that represents most councils in New Zealand —Local Government New Zealand— was sounding pretty diplomatic about it when he spoke to Newstalk ZB this morning.  

Campbell Barry’s his name. It seems to me that any concerns he does have centres around this idea the Government has of bench-marking all the councils - comparing them against each other to see which ones are doing things the way the Government wants them to and which ones aren’t.  

But all this is going to do is it’s going to create a truckload of dashboard reports, more admin and do you really think councils are going to be able to achieve what the Government wants?  

Of course they’re not, because councils being councils, they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people demanding this and demanding that, and all your local councillors care about is not brassing people off so much that they stuff their chances of getting re-elected.  

67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is sometimes portrayed as a very good thing because it means you have people sitting around the council tables who really know their communities.  

But I don’t see that as a virtue at all. In fact, I see that as an impediment. And the fact we have so many councils is something the Government should be doing something about.  

Forget about your benchmarking and dashboard reports and big sticks - we are overdue in this country for some serious amalgamations of local councils.  

Why do Napier and Hastings need their own councils? Answer: they don’t. Why does Christchurch need three councils? Answer: it doesn’t.  

In Auckland, maybe the super city model hasn’t been everything it was cracked up to be, but it looks a much better option than a truckload of tinpot councils all being corralled by central government and told to get back to basics.  

The Government needs to show some fortitude and it needs to reduce the number of local councils we have in New Zealand, because 67 is way too many.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of morning's podcast from
news Talk said, be you know, the government reckons it's
getting tough, doesn't it on it with all local councils
getting tough with the councils. But they're not impressing me
at all because I think Christoph Luxan and Sime and Brown,
I reckon they're just tinkering around the edges and they

(00:26):
need to go harder. Instead of telling councils or just
telling the councilors what they expect of them, they should
be telling councils that for some of them, their days
are numbered. More on that shortly. Essentially, just as a recap,
what the government's doing is it's waving the stick on
behalf of rate payers, saying that legislation changes are on

(00:47):
the way that will force councilors to focus on the
basics as the government likes to call them, which on
the face of it, most people who pay rates will
love the sound of and look, I'm no different, no
different like you. I look at the rate payer money
that seems to go at the door from all these
councils in all different directions, and one, you know, whatever
happened to all those promises about you know, zero rates

(01:10):
increases if you vote for me, not that I have
ever fallen for that cheap talk, And I think they
know what the basics are that the government wants these
councils to focus on. It's all the non flashy things
like making sure the safe water coming out of the taps,
fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new roads, picking
up the rubbish, all the stuff that doesn't make counsel

(01:33):
life all that exciting but is essential for every one
of us every day. As for the flashy stuff or
the nice to haves, that's what the government wants councils
to put the brakes on. And one of the ways
it's going to make it happen is it's going to
make changes to the laws that the councils operate under.
A big change is going to be removing the need

(01:55):
for councils to think about these so called social, economic,
environmental and cultural pillars, because the government thinks they've got
councils involved in all sorts of non essential stuff. So,
you know, drop any big ideas you got, That's what
the government's saying, Drop any big ideas about pouring rate
payer money into a flash convention center instead stick it

(02:17):
on the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.
That's the message from Wellington, which the two I see
at the effort that represents most councils in New Zealand.
Local Government New Zealand was sounding pretty diplomatic about when
he spoke to Heather this morning. Campbell berries his name,
it seems to me that any concerns he does have

(02:38):
centers around this idea that the government has of benchmarking
all the councils, you know, comparing them against each other
to see which ones are doing things the way the
government wants them to and which ones aren't. Here's what
he had to say about that a couple of hours ago.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
The Government's made their expectations pretty clear at the Local
Government conference of where they were hitting. We're actually supportive
of benchmarking if it's done well. If it's not done well,
then there's a real problem there. For example, if you're
comparing get per head of population or rape increases in
a growth council like Hamilton versus Central Book Stay, you
are comparing apples and oranges, so you know there is

(03:12):
some work that needs to be done to make sure
it is something that is actually effective and will make
tangible differences on the ground.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
All this is going to do, though, in my book,
is it's going to create a truckload of dashboard reports,
more admin And you really think councilors are going to
be able to achieve what the government wants. Of course
they're not. I'll tell you why, because councils being councils,
they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people
demanding this and demanding that. And let's face it, all

(03:41):
your local councils care about is not brassing people off
too much that there's stuff their chances of getting re elected.
Sixty seven councils in a country the size of New
Zealand is sometimes portrayed by some people is a very
good thing, because they say it means you have people
sitting around the tables, around the council tables who really

(04:01):
low their communities. But I don't see that as a
virtue at all. In fact, I see it as an
impediment for the reason I said just a couple of
seconds ago. They get pulled in all sorts of directions
because they just care about the people in front of
them voting for them again at the next election, which
is why I think the fact we have so many
councils is something the government should be doing something about.

(04:23):
Forget about your benchmarking, forget about your dashboard reports and
big sticks. We are overdue in this country for some
serious amalgamations of local councils. Question why do Napier and
Hastings need their own councils? Answer they don't here in
christ Church where we are. Why do we need three councils?

(04:43):
Answer we don't in Auckland. Maybe the superseding model hasn't
been everything that was cracked up to me, but I'll
tell you what. It looks a much better option than
a truckload of timpot councils all being corrabed by central
government and told to get back to basics. Because the
government is just tinkering at the edges with this one,

(05:05):
and it needs to show some fortitude, and it needs
to cut the number of local councils we have in
New Zealand because sixty seven, in my book, is way
too many. So that's how I feel about the government
so called crackdown on local councils and three words could
do better for more from carry Wood and Mornings. Listen

(05:26):
live to News Talks at B from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio