Changing Shape of Local Government

Transcription

1 Changing Shape of Local Government Christine Cheyne 1 Paper presented to the New Zealand Planning Institute Conference Blenheim 2 May School of People, Environment & Planning Massey University C.M.Cheyne@massey.ac.nz

2 Abstract The creation of a unitary council in Auckland, New Zealand, in November 2010 created the largest unit of local government in Australasia. The new Auckland Council has a unique form of local governance and, reflecting its size, potentially exercises considerable influence when engaging with the national government. For the rest of New Zealand local government, the question of the Auckland effect is now of pressing importance, with many councils embarking on reviews of structures in the wake of Auckland's governance reforms and seeking to address the 'engagement deficit' that the creation of the Auckland Council has produced for the rest of local government in New Zealand in its relationship with central government. The government s announcement on 19 March 2012 of a major review of local government is a further signal of continuing change for the local government sector. The Better Local Government reforms review aims to explore the structure, functions and funding of local government, including the usefulness of unitary authorities for metropolitan areas and the relationship between central and local government. The paper considers the changing shape of local government in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand, with particular emphasis on the implications for planning processes of changes to local democratic processes, the introduction of a statutory requirement for spatial planning and evolving central-local relations. Introduction The creation of the Auckland Council as New Zealand s first unitary council in a large urban area represents a major shift in local governance in Australasia. Together, the directly elected mayor, Len Brown, and Auckland Council govern a third of New Zealand s population, just under 1.5 million residents (compared with the 2009 estimated residential population of 1,052,458 for the City of Brisbane Local Government Area (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The new council has unique governance arrangements comprising the governing body (directly elected mayor and 20 councillors) is complemented by 21 local boards with members elected by residents of the local board area. As well, there is a statutory provision for an independent Maori advisory board and the Council has several advisory panels to provide advice regarding key constituencies and key areas of decisionmaking (Business, Disability, Ethnic Peoples, Youth, Heritage, Pacific Peoples and Rural). The intention is that the governing body and the local boards will share the decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council with the former focusing on region-wide strategic decision and local boards representing their local communities and making decisions about local issues, facilities and activities. Following the establishment of the Auckland Council throughout the country local authorities have begun to realign themselves. More recently, in mid-march the government announced a package of reforms of local government that include changes to streamline council reorganisation procedures. This paper provides an overview of current developments that are changing the nature of local government. First, attention is directed to structural change. Following this there is consideration of the implications for planning focusing on plan consolidation, changes to local democratic decision-making, and the shifting balance between local and central government in environmental planning and decision-making. The aftermath of the Auckland Council: realignment within local government The creation of a new unitary council replacing Auckland Regional Council and seven territorial authorities sparked interest both from within the local government sector and also from communities, media and business for similar reforms 1. To date, eighteen months later, no new unitary councils have been formed but it is increasingly likely that there will be new governance arrangements in several parts of New Zealand. As well, new strategic alliances have quickly formed in response to perceived opportunities and threats associated with the establishment of the Auckland Council. First, the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) was formed by a group of seven councils (including 1 For example, political commentator Colin James has mooted super-city structures for the Wellington and Canterbury regions (see (James, 2011). 1

3 Auckland) in the upper North Island 2. The Alliance covers approximately half the population of New Zealand and also half the national gross domestic product (GDP). The creation of an alliance was seen as a mechanism for more effective lobbying and for collaboration around economic development, transport, tourism, emergency preparedness, ports, waste and water. Following this, Wellington City Mayor Celia Wade-Brown initiated a meeting in mid-november 2011 of council leaders from the top of the South Island through to the central North Island at which it was agreed to create the Central New Zealand Alliance similar to the UNISA. With a population of 1.1 million and contributing 30% of New Zealand s GDP, it was felt that the region needed a united voice to engage central government in relation to regional concern. In addition, all 28 city, district and regional councils in the South Island formed the South Island Strategic Alliance to initiate shared services, standardised procedures and a combined approach with central government. Of particular importance to planners is that this includes looking for opportunities for joint procurement or shared services in relation to roading, planning, and information technology. In March 2012 then Minister of Local Government, Nick Smith, announced a new eight-point plan for reforming local government called Better Local Government (Smith, 2012). The proposals include: refocusing the purpose of local government; introducing fiscal responsibility requirements; strengthening council governance provisions; streamlining council reorganisation procedures; establishing a local government efficiency taskforce; developing a framework for central/local government regulatory roles; investigating the efficiency of local government infrastructure provision; and reviewing the use of development contributions. The government s intention is to address the first four points in legislation to be introduced to Parliament in May 2012 and passed by September to enable the Local Government Commission to consider council reorganisation proposals in time for the October 2013 local government elections. The remaining four points are intended to be encompassed in reform legislation in Clearly, it is intended that proposals for structural change will be developed during 2012 and Already, as indicated above, following the establishment of the Auckland Council, in several regions initiatives have been instigated to explore new structures. The Local Government Commission issued a reorganisation scheme for the union of Nelson City and Tasman District into a Nelson Tasman District with the first election of the Council and community boards to be held on 13 October Former Minister of Local Government Nick Smith saw this as a model for other regions with amalgamation being proposed from within the community: Communities need to start thinking about how their area can do better and what future structure of councils will best assist their regions' prosperity and growth. From the Government's perspective, we want the rest of the country as well as Auckland to be successful and want to facilitate a sensible dialogue on reform (cited in Maxwell, 2012). Amalgamation is seen as increasing efficiency which, for central government is central to its economic growth goals. Efficiency is also linked to austerity measures which may, in some parts of the country, be advocated by local government elected members and managers as well as community stakeholders. 3 Several regions are actively contemplating structural change. In Northland, Far North Mayor Wayne Brown has proposed a unitary authority with a second unitary council for other parts of Northland. In Hawkes Bay and Wellington regions, for some time momentum has been gathering for a review of structures. In 2010, a report commissioned by the Wellington Mayoral Forum proposed six alternative 2 The alliance comprises Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga City Councils, Whangarei District Council and the Bay of Plenty, Waikato and Northland Regional Councils. 3 For example, a new CEO at Thames Coromandel District Council announced a review that proposed cutting 42 positions at the council citing the economic recession as a reason for the council to reduce its costs. 2

4 options for the region (Cheyne, 2011). More recently, in late March, the Greater Wellington Regional Council approved the creation of an Independent Review Panel to examine governance options for the Wellington region. The Mayor of Hamilton City Council seeks a unitary council with an expanded territory for Council and abolition of the regional council. As well as these places which are actively exploring structural change, in most, if not all, parts of the country there is awareness that the status quo is unlikely to prevail. Implications for planning As the establishment of the Auckland Council demonstrates, structural change has significant implications for planning (and, by direct extension, planners). There are three key sets of impacts: (1) streamlining planning processes and, unique to Auckland at this stage, the introduction of a statutory requirement for spatial planning; (2) changes to local democratic processes, and (3) a rebalancing of central-local relations. Streamlining planning processes Consolidating plans to reduce the number of planning documents (while neither new nor precluded by existing legislation) is a key aim of the second phase of the RMA reforms. To reinforce the preference for more streamlined planning at the same time as the Auckland Council was established in late 2010 the government also released a discussion document called Building Competitive Cities (Ministry for the Environment, 2010) which highlighted the government s desire to streamline planning and recognised the potential for spatial planning to be applied more widely outside of Auckland. The complexity of the urban planning system (see Appendix 1) was the focus of critical comment in Building Competitive Cities. A key decision that is yet to be made is whether consolidation of planning and spatial planning outside Auckland is to be voluntary or mandatory. In advocating a voluntary review of local government structures, the Chair and Chief Executive of Greater Wellington Regional Council have recognised the need to consolidate plans in the forthcoming review of local government structures. They note that the region has, under the RMA, the Regional Policy Statement, six District Plans, and five regional plans. Under the Land Transport Management Act and LGA 2002 there is a Regional Land Transport Strategy, city/district transport plans and strategies, and numerous asset management plans for each council, the Wellington Regional Strategy, nine Long Term Plans, and a multitude of district/city growth strategies and neighbourhood plans (Wilde & Benham, 2012). Despite (or perhaps because of?) this plethora of plans, Wilde and Benham note there is no integrated regional spatial planning framework; while there are overlaps in some areas (e.g. coastal planning, natural hazards); duplicated processes; uncertainty for users; increased costs; delays; increased scope for litigation, including between the regional council and territorial authorities. As noted in Building Competitive Cities, Each Act, its plans and decision-making are all subject to different legal purposes, processes and criteria, and operate over different time frames. This results in duplication and lack of clarity, and demands considerable time and resourcing from all parties involved (Ministry for the Environment, 2010, pp. 9-10). Alongside consolidation and reduction of plans to minimise complexity, fragmentation and confusion, international interest in spatial planning, which was seen as a mechanism for addressing the lack of alignment between Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) planning, was reflected in the mandating of spatial planning in the legislation establishing the Auckland Council. As well as overcoming lack of alignment between RMA, LGA and LTMA plans, spatial planning is seen as a tool that can help ensure alignment of central and local government objectives. Section 79(2) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 states the purpose of the plan is to contribute to Auckland's social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being through a comprehensive and effective long-term (20- to 30-year) strategy for Auckland's growth and development. When amalgamation occurs, as seen in Auckland, the most obvious impact is the streamlining of planning with a unitary plan replacing the former suite of statutory and non-statutory regional and district plans and strategies. Spatial planning is not intended to add another layer of planning so it is 3

5 to be expected that planning activity will be redirected from some existing planning. However, Section 79(3) indicates the plan is intended to provide a high-level development strategy and provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council. The Unitary Plan and Long-Term Plan remain as planning documents that are critical to the implementation of the Auckland Plan (see Appendix 2) with each performing a particular function (the Unitary Plan being a regulatory instrument and the Long-Term Plan providing budgetary details) so further consolidation does not seem viable. Changes to local democratic processes The impacts of reform on local democracy will be of interest to planners who recognise the importance of local environmental knowledge and the importance of local action for achieving sustainability and other environmental goals. Structural change inevitably has implications for representation and participation and, indeed, the reform of Auckland s governance was accompanied by fierce debate about the implications for local democracy. The Better Local Government document states that the government supports the retention of local government s purpose to enable democratic local decision-making and the accountability of councils to their local communities. However, engagement of communities over future outcomes has already been reduced as a result of 2011 amendments to the LGA. Structural change in Auckland followed a comprehensive review by the Royal Commission that emphasised the need for shared governance. This concept was implemented, albeit in a different, inferior form from that recommended by the Royal Commission. In particular, provisions for Maori representation and participation are weaker than what the Royal Commission proposed and as anticipated by the Treaty of Waitangi. Nevertheless the independent Maori statutory board established by Part 7 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 provides a model for local government elsewhere. The establishment of other advisory panels is a weak mechanism for enhancing engagement with diverse constituencies as there is no statutory protection. Without proper statutory requirements for engaging different stakeholders, with the trend to lower turnout, structural changes that reduce the number of elected representatives and do not provide effective sub-local representation (e.g. local boards) will result in a weakened local democracy. Better Local Government seeks to strengthen council governance through giving greater power to mayors. However, the proposal to strengthen the power of mayors has been objected to by some elected members concerned that an outcome of this will be the desexing of other councillors. While the model established in Auckland, with a directly elected mayor for a much larger unit of local government has, to some extent, elevated the position this is primarily by virtue of the size of the electorate and some additional statutory powers in relation to the spatial plan. The proposal in Better Local Government needs to be more fully developed, taking into account research on local political leadership. Of particular note is the recent Warwick Commission on directly elected mayors (Warwick Commission, 2012). Rebalancing of central-local relations The imposition of local government reform exposes and symbolises a fundamental imbalance in the power between central and local government. Advocates of public involvement in environmental planning and decision-making and of strong local democracy will be concerned about any reform programme that exploits the weak constitutional status of New Zealand local government. Local government is a sphere of government that is vital to a healthy democracy. The two spheres of government, central and local, need to be recognised as complementary. Local government is better placed than central government to undertake many functions that are related to its traditional role of providing services to property. Over time, that traditional role expanded, in response to societal changes and community aspirations to include services to people often focused on improving liveability for residents and economic competitiveness of regions, cities and districts. As well as complementing central government, local government is a vital counterbalance to the weight and power of central government in a democratic society. In the area of environmental planning and decision-making the current government recognises the value of a collaborative approach. It is at the local level that collaboration can be best developed and applied to environmental challenges. 4

6 Conclusion Streamlining has been a focus of the review of the Resource Management Act (RMA) for some time. The attention is now turning to streamlining planning through reforms of local government that are intended to facilitate plan consolidation through structural and governance change. The creation of the Auckland Council giving a single voice and bringing more streamlined planning to the Auckland region has prompted other regions to consider the competitive advantage that might come from amalgamation. Throughout local government structural change is imminent if not already occurring as a result of momentum for reform and reviews being undertaken as part of austerity measures. The latter have been encouraged by central government which has indicated that councils need to exercise fiscal discipline in response to international economic conditions. It is important to ensure that robust assessment of efficiency and effectiveness gains and losses is used, rather than ideologically-driven agendas for identifying future structures of local government. The strength of our democratic fabric will be determined by the health of local government. References Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Regional Population Growth Canberra, viewed 20 October 2011, Cheyne, C. (2011). The Auckland Effect. What Next for Other Councils? In J. Drage, J. McNeill & C. Cheyne (Eds.), Along a Fault-Line. New Zealand's Changing Local Government Landscape, (pp ). Wellington: Dunmore Publishing Ltd. James, C. (2011). Too big to fail. (Too small to succeed?). In Auckland One Year On Conference). Auckland: IPANZ. Maxwell, J. (2012). Supercity merger not forced. In Kapiti Observer). Ministry for the Environment. (2010). Building competitive cities Reform of the urban and infrastructure planning system - A discussion document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Smith, N. (2012). Better Local Government. Retrieved from Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs. Warwick Commission. (2012). Elected Mayors and City Leadership. Summary report of the third Warwick COmmission. What is the role of elected mayors in providing strategic leadership to cities? Warwick: University of Warwick. 5

7 Appendix 1 New Zealand s urban planning system relationships between RMA, LGA and LTMA Source: Ministry for the Environment, 2010, p

8 Appendix 2 Auckland s Strategic Framework Source: Auckland Council, 2012, Auckland Plan Section A, 29 March Governing Body Agenda, available at odyagattsectiona-d pdf 7