This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
COMMENT


for a party to have an absolute majority in Parliament, no election since 1996 has left either of the two main parties – Labour or National – able to govern in its own right. Every post-1996 government has been formed by a coalition of one of the main parties supported by a number of smaller parties.


The outgoing Labour government, which lost the general election in 2008, had warned in its election campaignthat a National victory would lead to a return to the heady days of Rogernomics. Such was the success of this particular aspect of Labour’s campaign, the then National Party leader (and soon to be Prime Minister), John Key (a man who appears reminiscent of John Major) felt the need to repeat loudly and often, that under the first term of a National government there would be no sales of state assets (privatisation) and no wholesale reductions in the size of the state sector (job cuts). They key here (no pun intended) is the word first.


Upon re-election in 2011, the Government began to roll out a significant tranche of asset sales and began to focus on the size and scale of the core state sector. What is interesting to observe here is that the issue of asset sales appears to be universally unpopular – even amongst National Party voters – yet in spite of this, the Government is pressing ahead with its ‘mixed ownership’ model. Again, when you listen to the vocabulary used by government ministers, there appears to be a question as to how economical with the truth they are being. Whilst they are avoiding mention of a wholesale privatisation, there is a clear implication that in a third term National Government, this is a distinct possibility. They are slowly softening up the electorate for this event to happen.


Despite rumblings during the last Parliament about local government reform, other than the publication of a discussion paper in early 2011, little was done. However, earlier this year, the then Local Government Minister announced what is in effect a root and branch reform of


Milford Sound


local government with the publication of a snappily (and misleadingly) titled document called ‘Better Local Government’ – I am tempted to add a question mark after the word ‘government’. Central to this is the determination of the Government to remove from local authorities the power of general competency given in the Local Government Act 2002. Supporters of this reform argue that the 2002 Act gave licence to local government to broaden considerably their scope of activity. This led, they argued, to rapid increases in rates (the major source of local government funding) and councils widening their scope of activities. In reality, the increases in rates were essentially created by the need to fund infrastructure developments and inflation.


Any local government leader reading this may well be quite envious of the funding position enjoyed by their NZ counterparts. Here our local authorities are essentially self-financing via the rates system. Approximately 85% of all local government finance is raised this way, with the rest funded via charges – we are quite keen on the idea of ‘user pay’ – and a very small amount from central government. This financial autonomy, combined with the power of general competence, has placed NZ local government in a very advantageous position. However, like local democracy elsewhere, this is to a certain extent undermined by the declining level of interaction between the institutions of local government and the governed.


Bowen House and the Beehive


Despite a universal reform of local government elections to make them postal ballots only – the last four electoral rounds have seen election upon election decline in the number of Kiwis participating in local government elections. Unfortunately this trend is being covertly used to justify the need for central government action in the form of ‘Better Local Government’. The issue of local government finance here is one which is proving very tricky for national


politicians of both major political parties. The previous Labour government established an inquiry into the rating system – our very own Lyons Inquiry. Here, the examination was led by a three person panel, chaired by David Shand.


The Shand Report concluded with 96 recommendations taken from established local government financial management best practice identified across NZ. If universally implemented, these recommendations would lead to considerable efficiency savings, and provide significant amounts of funds for both service delivery and improvement, as well as for investment in infrastructure.


Despite the Shand Report being presented to government in 2007 – to date not a single recommendation has been adopted by central government. What we are left with is a piecemeal patchwork of implementation as some local authorities cherry pick recommendations from the report.


The author for one, would argue that for the National Governments since 2008 the Shand Report presented a major dilemma. On the one hand the Key administrations have a philosophical belief that the state/public sector is by definition inefficient, uneconomic and wasteful.


Yet on the other hand, they are faced with a well-researched and thoughtful report which tells them the exact opposite of their core beliefs. Hence, the best option for the Government is to place the Shand Report in the ‘too hard’ basket and hope that it will simply go away. Unfortunately, this appears to be the case, with Local Government New Zealand – the Kiwi equivalent of the Local Government Association – seemingly doing little to promote the virtues of the Shand recommendations.


Dr Andy Asquith


TELL US WHAT YOU THINK opinion@publicsectorexecutive.com


public sector executive Jul/Aug 12 | 15


© Midnighttonight


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80