03 941 8999
30 June 2022
53 Hereford Street
Christchurch 8013
PO Box 73013
Christchurch 8154
The Future for Local Government Independent Panel
Department of Internal Affairs
ccc.govt.nz
WELLINGTON
[email address]
Christchurch City Council submission to the Future for Local Government Independent
Panel
Introduction
1. Christchurch City Council (the Council) thanks the Future for Local Government Panel (the
Panel) for the opportunity to provide comment on Review proposals.
2. The key points we wish to highlight are set out in this covering letter. The attachment also
includes our further specific comments on the five key shifts and associated change options
identified by the Panel.
Key Points
1. This review must be about the future of government in New Zealand. It cannot simply be
about local government, local governance or local democracy.
2. A more integrated wellbeing approach is already being embedded across the public sector
and stands at the heart of local government work. Local Government’s contribution needs
to be better understood and integrated with national systems and services.
3. This review needs to acknowledge and build on local government strengths and address
the constraints we face.
4. Local government needs to continue to build relationships with mana whenua while the
Crown must clarify local government’s role in the Treaty partnership
.
5. It’s time to completely re-think local authority funding and financing.
1.6. Finally, special attention also needs to be paid to the role of cities.
Submission
This review must be about the future of government in New Zealand. It cannot
simply be about local government, local governance or local democracy.
2.3. This review must be grounded in a new joined-up governance system based on partnership.
While roles and responsibilities are important it must focus on where, and how local
government, central government and communities can best be integrated to deliver genuine
wellbeing benefits. A genuine central and local government partnership, founded on mutual
respect and trust, is critical to this. Together we and the communities we serve, face huge
challenges in a disruptive environment. To address these challenges most effectively, we need
to understand the whole system of government and how we play to the strengths of everyone -
centrally, regionally and locally in concert with
Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Tiriti) partners.
Page 1 of 171616
3.4. Aotearoa New Zealand requires new, shared governance arrangements with nationally
integrated planning to deliver agreed outcomes with greater central recognition of the role and
importance of councils to our communities and to our place. The new arrangements must be
better placed than the status quo to accommodate and respond positively to differing
perspectives around issues of national significance – proximity to the community, to enable
local input, must be considered. This means a system design that delivers outcomes at the most
appropriate level with clear criteria, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, for
determining where decision-making, funding, service capability and capacity and
accountabilities are best located.
4.5. Local government’s place-based connection to our communities must be leveraged and
adequately resourced to strengthen the overall relationship between the Crown and
hapū/iwi/Māori under Te Tiriti. Further information relevant to this point is included below in
the discussion around the need for statutory clarity about the status and role of councils relative
to Te Tiriti partners.
5.6. All this will not be achieved without a major paradigm shift. To drive that shift we propose
statutory recognition of councils as government partners. This would involve better
recognition by central government of Mayors and Councillors as elected community leaders
and representatives; and require structural changes to make our national decision-making
more inclusive and responsive to individual and collective council views on any issue of interest
to them.
6.7. To help drive the shift, we also propose a new statutory duty for central government and
councils to cooperate in national, regional and local contexts. Central government regulatory
impact assessment requirements should also explicitly refer to the need to assess local
government impacts, including related cost implications and funding options (ie, in more
depth than is currently the case).
7.8. The optimal scope and role of the regional layer of government needs to be factored into this
review as well, instead of simply being determined by default, as a result of separate reform
processes that were instigated before this Review and which are proceeding at a far more rapid
pace.
8.9. We also recommend further examination of models such as the Public Transport Operating
Model (PTOM) which have severe limitations and have not assisted local government in
promoting active and public transport in order to meet its climate adaptation and wel being
goals. The competitive market model has not worked well in supporting local public transport.
A more integrated wellbeing approach is already being embedded across the
public sector and stands at the heart of local government work. Local
Government’s contribution needs to be better understood and integrated
with national systems and services.
9.10.
T
he purpose of local government as currently stated in the Local Government Act 2002 (the
Local Government Act) includes “…
promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural
well-being of communities in the present and for the future”. Accordingly, wellbeing sits at the
centre of our strategic direction-setting. Council services and facilities do more than simply
‘promote’ wellbeing. By addressing a wide range of social, cultural, environmental and
economic issues we improve and protect wel being through our planning, investments and
actions – all intended to enhance the lives of people who live, learn, work and play within our
communities.
Page 2 of 171616
10.11.
I
t is increasingly well understood that no one organisation or sector alone has the ability to deal
with the “complex issues” that have emerged, and will continue to do so, in today’s complex
world. Partnership and collaboration is vital to harnessing the full range of resources and
expertise required to address issues such as poverty, housing, drugs and gang violence and
climate change. An integrated, synergistic approach to dealing with these issues takes
significant time and resources to develop to a high standard and requires the total
commitment and confidence of all parties towards supporting partnership and collaboration.
Engendering this level of commitment must be the number one priority of the Panel.
11.12.
C
ouncils stand ready to work together with Te Tiriti partners on how best to invest in delivering
equitable wel being outcomes through harnessing the knowledge, skills and passion of our
local communities. We already offer a range of programmes and resources that facilitate
community action. Our parks partnership programmes support better environmental
outcomes as well as enabling community members to connect and develop as leaders. Just
one of these projects, which is working towards a Healthy Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River, involves
over 100 schools and early education centres.
12.13.
F
or example, the Government is seeking improvements in the prevention of chronic disease,
through initiatives such as
Healthy Families NZ which operate in a limited number of
communities. We encourage the Panel to imagine the potential if the whole local government
sector was empowered to support initiatives such as this by leveraging the broad benefits
council facilities and services directly contribute to community wellbeing.
13.14.
L
ocal government can contribute to integrated, community-led prevention approaches. The
Healthy Homes initiative is another example where councils’ contribution through social
housing, education programmes and other support services could be better integrated
nationwide.
14.15.
T
o date we see little evidence of the potential value of local government in partnering with
central government being hard-wired into planning and delivery processes. The Pae Ora
(Healthy Futures) Act 2022 requires Health New Zealand to consult local authorities affected
by the locality plan but doesn’t require our involvement in co-designing services or initiatives
or even in working in partnership with Health New Zealand to promote community wellbeing.
These are, in our view, ongoing opportunities lost. This practical failure to recognise,
understand, acknowledge, promote, pursue and resource councils as essential partners in the
locality-based health reforms urgently needs to change.
15.16.
W
e want the opportunity of a meaningful partnership with the Government where we decide
together how our joint resources should be invested to drive better wellbeing outcomes. We
want central government agencies to understand and engage with us about the opportunity
to deliver a collaborative, prevention-oriented approach.
16.17.
W
hile the Government tends to operate vertically, down through agencies, councils often
engage horizontally; working across a wide range of community, private, tertiary and other
sectors. We bring convening, enabling and facilitation approaches to issues that need an
Page 3 of 171616
integrated game plan. In this way we build a ground-up view of what is driving wellbeing and
what is undermining it, in our communities.
17.18.
D
elivering wellbeing for all requires effective alignment and coordination of national and local
resources and collaboration based on strong, positive and constructive relationships,
including with hapū /iwi/Māori.
18.19.
W
e would also welcome a clear road map of how this review fits into the other, very wide-ranging
reforms also in play. This road map should take the whole-of-government approach
recommended above and clarify the envisaged role for local government as a key part of our
democracy. The resource management and three waters reforms, clearly, are going to have a
fundamental impact on our sector yet they are happening quite separately and on a different
timetable to this process. Thise substantial reform programme rolling out in a somewhat
disjointed manner is hindering the ability of local government to engage in meaningful way.
This review needs to acknowledge and build on local government strengths
and address the constraints we face.
19.20.
L
ocal authorities based around communities of interest are an essential part of New Zealand’s
democracy. The strengths of councils need to be acknowledged and used as a platform to
build the capability and capacity to better serve all our communities into the future. This will
involve central government learning to trust and empower councils to promote and protect
national interests, and to make sound decisions about matters that concern them locally.
20.21.
C
ouncils exist to enable citizens to participate in decision-making that affects them in local and
regional contexts. This enables people to influence how their personal and community needs
are met and to hold their representatives accountable for the performance of functions at the
most appropriate level.
21.22.
F
undamental y a council’s strength lies in our connections to place and the people who live or
otherwise spend time in our districts. Councils and their communities embody the sense of
place – tūurangawaewae – that is essential to building thriving local communities with the
confidence and spirit to change the world. This enables us to transcend an increasingly virtual
world and ground our sense of community in the reality of our people.
22.23.
W
e work to enable local action and a local voice. Our city-shaping efforts build a sense of
belonging and connection within and between the communities we serve. A well-functioning
democracy simply cannot exist without this strong sense of place and a feeling of belonging
that drives social cohesion and engagement in civic and national processes. The importance
of this has been highlighted in our community’s response and ongoing recovery from the
impacts of devastating earthquakes with support from central agencies, councils in Greater
Christchurch and our many community organisations.
23.24.
W
e are close to our communities and can engage with them in ways that central government
simply can’t. Local government decision-making takes place in public, and if our communities
Page 4 of 171616
aren’t happy with a decision or a likely course of action they tell us, straight away, often face-
to-face.
24.25.
T
his open decision-making format is a chal enge as well as a strength. By way of comparison,
consider the almost total confidentiality of advice given to Government Ministers, with that
advice and Cabinet papers usually only being released for public scrutiny after decisions have
been made. Central government should be cognisant of the spotlight this system often places
on local elected members, the pressure that it brings to bear on critical decisions, and the
effect the system has on public perceptions of local government. Having central government
acknowledge the environment we work in and the pressures that come with that would go a
long way towards building public confidence in local governance.
25.26.
W
e also face other challenges and constraints – including a loss of capacity and capability.
Currently, central government recruitment of high numbers of local government staff is adding
to this challenge. Public service capability must be viewed as a whole, with a national
framework for competency that also considers the resourcing required to step up the
relationship with mana whenua. The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) submission to
the Panel, released recently, provides an excel ent overview of the difficulties local
government currently faces and makes sound recommendations. We support and reiterate
these recommendations.
Local government needs to continue to build relationships with mana
whenua while the Crown must clarify local government’s role in the Treaty
partnership
.
26.27.
A
s councils are created by statute, the statute must provide clarity about the status and role of
local government alongside the Tiriti partners. From our perspective councils should be
regarded by the Crown (and recognised in statute) as equal partners in all matters affecting
the rights and interests of the communities we represent.
27.28.
T
he current provisions of the Local Government Act about relationships with hapū/iwi/Māori
are weak and so open to interpretation they become virtually meaningless. Words used in the
Act, such as ‘providing opportunities’, ‘taking into account’, ‘considering’ and ‘relevant’ do not
provide the certainty needed to underpin and ensure appropriate relationship building with
our Tiriti partners.
28.29.
C
ouncils could act on behalf of the Crown as a Treaty partner, but first the Crown must be clear
about the role councils are to play. The Government needs to provide consistent national
guidance, effective transition arrangements and adequate ongoing funding for hapū/iwi/Māori
and councils to build and maintain the necessary capabilities and capacity. That is how we
can all build and sustain an effective and mutual y beneficial partnership consistent with the
principles of the Treaty.
29.30. While the Government tends to engage at the iwi level, several councils are exploring
structures that enable engagement at a local, place-based level. In our case, this means
engaging with the Papatipu Rūnanga whoich exist to uphold the mana of their people over the
land, sea and natural resources in their area. We acknowledge this work needs more
Page 5 of 171616
resourcing and capability on our side and we recognise the pressures the constant requests
for engagement and consultation place on hapū/ iwi/Māori. Also, requests often do not
acknowledge te ao Māori approaches or, wherever possible, the importance of conversations
happening kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face).
30.31.
W
hile we clearly need to strengthen our work in this area across local government, we are well-
placed to engage with hapū, building local approaches connected to place. While Te Tiriti is
primarily a Crown responsibility, at the local level, iwi, and hapū or papatipu rūnanga are
important social, economic, environmental and political actors, with differing approaches
reflecting the perspectives of their place and their communities. Local government’s place-
based role and connection to community needs to be leveraged to strengthen the overall
partnership.
It’s time to completely re-think local authority funding and financing.
31.32.
L
ocal government investment in infrastructure goes well beyond three-waters. It underpins
local economic activity and helps catalyse local and regional growth and development. Our
infrastructure projects have direct and indirect economic effects, including economic growth
from construction and multiplier effects from remuneration flowing into both local and
national economies.
32.33.
M
ore broadly, local authorities make a direct contribution to the economy and to individual and
collective wellbeing, through our work to support resilient, sustainable, productive
communities. We make a direct contribution to the wealth of Aotearoa New Zealand – wealth
in the broadest sense as measured by the Living Standards Framework.
33.34.
W
e directly support (and invest in) a myriad of critical contributors to wellbeing such as housing,
leisure and play opportunities, the environment, places and spaces to connect with others,
community safety initiatives, knowledge and skills-building opportunities, volunteering,
community-based disaster preparedness work, and much, much more. The contribution this
investment brings to community wellbeing needs to be recognised, acknowledged and valued
in regional and national contexts. Funding models must be adjusted in ways that recognise
this direct contribution and leverage local government investment, knowledge and skil s.
34.35.
Funding models also need to recognise and better support the role of local government in
enabling a local voice, through our consultation processes.
35.36.
R
ates are an unpopular, complex and often inequitable tax. The processes councils must follow
to forecast, set and collect much of their revenue on both annual and longer-term bases are
also unduly complex, convoluted and expensive. While approaches vary, councils can literally
have several hundred different rates and charges for the services we provide.
36.37.
A
more cost-effective and fairer approach to council revenue is needed. For example, consider
a simple, progressive and modest level of local taxation that could be maintained without a
need for regular review or adjustment to generate a significant level of base revenue. Like
central government taxes, the revenue flow would occur without the need for specific, detailed
Page 6 of 171616
prior consideration of expenditure or beneficiaries or exacerbators. Straightforward facilities
could be established to manage situations where private individuals might struggle to pay.
37.38.
T
his could be complemented by centrally managed and funded ‘equalisation’ payments to
ensure that different local circumstances and cost-pressures are accounted for in the overal
funding mix. Multi-year appropriations would help to reduce the annual ‘churn’ and
community angst around ‘council rates’ in all their forms. Removing the direct association
between a rates bill and specific community facilities or pieces of infrastructure would be a big
help to us and our communities as local decision-makers.
38.39.
S
ome direct cost recovery through fees and charges for certain council services will always be
appropriate (eg, regulatory services relating to the natural and built environments). However,
there must be increased fiscal decentralisation to ensure that communities get the broader
services they (and central government) expect. These services clearly cannot be delivered if
they are only to be funded from the current sources of funding available to local government.
39.40.
A
s the LGNZ submission also notes, funding needs to follow functions to ensure an end to
unfunded mandates. Where a regulatory impact statement indicates that a legislative change
will impose new or increased costs on local government, then central government needs to
ensure that adequate funding accompanies the change (even if it is only transition funding to
support councils as they make system changes, establish required capability and capacity and
any ongoing cost recovery mechanisms provided for in the legislation). We suggest Treasury
use the Budget process to sense-check the impact that policies will have on local government,
and recommend also that the template for regulatory impact statements is amended to more
clearly cover off local government considerations.
Finally, special attention also needs to be paid to the role of cities.
40.41.
C
ities drive economic growth and connect their residents, surrounding populations and our
national community to a wider set of opportunities through a wide range of services and
facilities. As the LGNZ submission notes, they face distinct governance challenges.
41.42.
M
any cities in Aotearoa New Zealand are, due to their coastal location, uniquely vulnerable to
natural hazards. Christchurch is the most at risk community in New Zealand in terms of homes
and infrastructure likely to be affected by sea level rise and rising water tables. This is a
significant burden for our community to shoulder and the effects will impact on Canterbury
and the South Island rather than just certain parts of Christchurch. A sensible, partnership-
based approach is needed to spread the burden equitably.
42.43.
W
e also recognise that rural and provincial councils have their own sets of specific challenges.
This reflects the varying nature and location of our communities and highlights the importance
of empowering and supporting effective local democratic arrangements.
43.44.
W
ith all this in mind, the Review must deliver recommendations that will ensure a positive,
supportive, fully integrated outcomes-focused system of government consistent with
principles of subsidiarity, partnership and sustainability.
Page 7 of 171616
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. For any clarification on points within
this submission please contact David Griffiths, Head of Strategic Policy and Resilience,
[email address].
Yours sincerely
Signed by either the Mayor (Council submission) or CEO (staff submission)
Page 8 of 171616
Attachment: Specific comments on key shifts and change options
1. Strengthened Local Democracy
Comments
Shift/Outcome
o The proposed shift is achievable and desirable, but must be anchored
A governance system that is
by democratically elected bodies (councils), based around substantial
considered legitimate, where the
communities of interest
process of democracy and the o To do otherwise would fail to recognise the strengths of councils
electoral system empower citizens,
through their proximity to, and representation of their communities,
community and business to enable
and the implications for communities and central government
community outcomes to be o While it is important that all perspectives are heard and considered,
achieved and is strong enough to
some community outcomes inevitably involve trade-offs. It is
address the complexities of the
important to recognise the reality of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in some
21st century.
decision-making – it may not always be possible to achieve a win-win’
outcome
o Transparent decision-making at the ‘right’ level within clear strategic,
operational and accountability frameworks will be critical to the
success of the system
o Increased participation by well-informed citizens, in elections as well
as processes, should also be part of what the shift aims to achieve
1. Provide a mix of participatory, o A mix of tools is desirable and achievable, but care must be taken to
deliberative
and
avoid:
representative
democratic
o undue complexity
tools, and support multi-
o unreasonable costs or delays
generational representation.
o Costs should generally fall where they lie, but some Crown funding
support should be available to those with a genuine interest who might
otherwise struggle to participate
o Central government needs to work with councils, iwi/Māori and others
to confirm:
o the best available tools
o how performance monitoring and reporting will work
o Affordability for all councils operating in widely varying circumstances
is an issue that will need to be addressed in some detail
2. Enable hybrid systems to o The costs and benefits will need to be thoroughly assessed, including
complement elected members,
through consideration of lessons-learned from existing hybrid systems
including
iwi/Māori
and o A compel ing story of public value must underpin such systems
appointed experts.
o There will be substantial additional costs and there are limits to what
councils of all sizes can fund themselves
o Accountability and transparency around the roles being played wil be
essential
o Adequate funding will be needed to support transition and a
sustainable funding stream for ongoing operational costs
3. Develop systems that support o Support needs to be available to potential governance reps before they
and
sustain
governance
put themselves forward for consideration –to help them understand
representatives.
the role and what it entails (opportunities and responsibilities)
o We agree this is important, but caution against reinventing the wheel –
look at what is needed, what is already available and effective (fit-for-
purpose already or adaptable) and build on that
o There must be a complementary mix of central and local systems,
delivery mechanisms and funding that takes account of who primarily
benefits
o Ongoing assessment of relevance and effectiveness will be necessary
to ensure it evolves according to need
Page 9 of 171616
Comments
4. Enable representation from o Supporting diversity is important, but challenging due to broad scope,
minority groups e.g. create and
uncertainty about demand and what is available to build on and it
resource
clear
pathways,
being a substantial new cost
provide
ongoing
support o This will likely require central leadership and funding to establish high
programmes and mentor new
quality programmes
leaders.
o Ongoing assessment of relevance and effectiveness will be necessary
to ensure it evolves according to need
5. Explore
electoral o Exploration needs to be centrally led and funded, with strong local
administrative systems, longer
input in system design
terms and voter eligibility o The exploration needs to be undertaken with clear terms of reference
criteria (e.g. younger voters).
including the ‘problem(s)’ under consideration
o Recommendations needs to be evidence-based and supported by
sound impact and cost-benefit analysis
o There needs to be transparency around implementation risks and
trade-offs if changes are to proceed
o Any changes will require appropriate transition arrangements and
longer-term effectiveness monitoring
Page 10 of 171616
2. Stronger Focus on Wellbeing
Comments
Shift/Outcome
o There is a need to acknowledge that, while some bottom lines are
Wellbeing is at the heart of everything
obvious, the definition of success and the pathway to success may
council
delivers,
putting
differ substantially for every district and its communities
Papatūānuku and people at the heart o Central government needs to work with councils, iwi/Māori and
of what we do. All policy decisions
others to confirm how performance monitoring and reporting will
consider future generations and
work – noting that attribution will always be a challenge
actively partner with iwi and o We need improved tools for monitoring progress on wellbeing
community.
outcomes which are built into appropriate long-term planning
processes
1. Local government is a broker, bridge o The scope of the role, the contexts in which it will be enabled and
builder, connector and supporter of
how central government wil support and contribute need to be
ideas to support positive change in
clear
the community it serves, with a o There is a need to consider whether and how existing compliance
genuine focus on a coordinated
processes like long-term planning fit with an approach like this
approach to building social cohesion o Councils need to be, and be seen as, flexible, agile, responsive -
and wellbeing.
not static organisations – this will be a challenge for some due to
a history of more compliance-focused work in settings that
encourage a relatively risk averse approach
o Building capacity and capability for this role will take time and
strategic human resource plans will need to account for the shift
2. Increasing
central
and
local o There will be value in aligning and coordinating national and local
government collaborative efforts to
resources and collaborating on a range of wellbeing-related
focus on wellbeing, including health,
actions
housing, education, community o To be successful there will need to be a positive, constructive and
safety, and economic, social,
rapid re-set of the central and local government relationship
cultural
and
environmental o Without new, more flexible funding arrangements and/or funding
wellbeing.
streams councils ability to contribute and collaborate will be
limited
o Initially, the focus should be on health reforms and locality
processes – the role of councils in locality work is yet to be
explicitly recognised or explained (ie, beyond the statutory
requirement to consult with local authorities)
3. Local government functions, roles o This is effectively a statement of how the best public value can
and structures that reflect the
and should be achieved
appropriate level of subsidiarity and o It is more reflective of what the entire review should deliver –
localism, while securing needed
namely a viable and better form of local government in all these
resources and economies of scale to
respects (ie, rather than just in terms of a wellbeing focus).
ensure competent, sustainable and
resilient entities/organisations.
4. Supporting residents to change from o There is potential for a more active citizen approach to add value
being mostly passive recipients of
and improve outcomes
services to active citizens as o However, the extent that some or all residents want this in
innovators,
participators,
and
practice is uncertain (ie, some, perhaps many, may be happy to be
partners in achieving community
passive, except when personal y motivated to identify
wellbeing outcomes
‘improvement opportunities’)
o Residents’ interests in their community are diverse, often
conflicting and short and long-term interests vary widely.
Building systems and people that deal well with this will likely be
both challenging and costly
Page 11 of 171616
3. Authentic Relationship with Hapū/Iwi/Māori
Comments
Shift/Outcome
o We recognise that this means moving beyond mutual
Local government has an authentic
understanding and respect to genuine partnership (joint decision-
and effective relationship with
making) and, where relevant, empowerment (hapū/iwi/Māori
Hapū/Iwi, embodying the intentions
decide for themselves)
and principles of Te Tiriti, beyond o There is a need to recognise and respond to the value of
representation at the governance
mātauranga Māori and understand that Māori groups each have
table, to achieve equitable outcomes
their own distinct views of their rohe and part of the motu (one size
for Māori.
does not fit all)
o Providing adequate funding and capability will be the key to
success for both councils and Māori – and to avoid overwhelming
hapū/iwi/Māori, who are exhausted by a multitude of partnering
requests
o The Crown needs to confirm in statute the place of councils
alongside hapū/iwi/Māori and the Crown as a Treaty partners, and
provide councils with funding to deliver against the responsibility
it entails
o Consistent national guidance is required for councils along with
robust transitional arrangements
o A range of metrics could be used to monitor progress, including:
o levels of partnering in strategic decision-making
o the extent that Māori values are incorporated
o levels of resourcing from all sources (including relative equity
of access to funding) and empowerment
o levels of te ao Māori capability in councils
1. Local government has a role in o Agree that councils have a role, and need to help increase the
helping the stories of the past be
visibility of such stories, including by employing, training and
told in order to move forward.
upskilling staff and accessing and supporting mana whenua
Acknowledging the past is an
capacity
important part of reconciliation
along with learning about the o Some operating costs could be borne by councils, but some Crown
history of place.
funding support wil also be needed, depending on the topic and
approach.
2. Championing, and investing in, Te o As above
Ao Māori and tikanga in the way
local government operates and
what is valued.
3. Acknowledging place and the o We agree that structures and decision-making processes need to
opportunity for Hapū/iwi/Māori to
be developed that appropriately recognise rangatiratanga
be involved in decision-making, to o There is a need to manage the risk of this approach being
be a decision maker and deliverer of
perceived as not democratic
services and activities (exercising
tino rangatiratanga).
o Capability and capacity need to be developed and Crown
guidance, support and funding to achieve this across the board is
essential given its kawanatanga role
Page 12 of 171616
Comments
o Transition and implementation need to acknowledge and account
for impacts of health, three waters and resource management
reforms, which are all driving change in hapū/iwi/ Māori
involvement in decision-making
4. Additional capacity for iwi/Māori to o Increased hapū/iwi/Māori capacity is supported, but there is a
participate in local governance
need to recognise and respond to the new pressures this puts on
systems, decision-making timeframes and elected members
o Mana whenua will also need to invest in capacity building and
providing the constructive guidance councils will need to
overcome implementation challenges
Page 13 of 171616
4. Genuine Partnership between Central Government and Local Government
Comments
Shift/Outcome
o We support this, but note the need to recognise and address
situations where community and local government views do not
A citizen and community centred
align with national (central government) objectives
local government that provides an o Need to ensure genuine partnership and a culture shift in central
integrated community view aligned
government that includes greater understanding of councils and
to support local and national
their roles
objectives.
o All parties must engage positively and constructively to develop a
truly collaborative, respectful and integrated approach
o To ensure a sustainable approach, new revenue options for
councils are needed and new/joint funding models are required
o Central government expertise and resources would need to be
deployed alongside local government expertise and local
community relationships
o Redistributing power and roles can’t happen overnight – they will
need to happen in careful steps and with active community
support
o Consider the role of community volunteers and how to engage
them in the transition.
o Monitoring and metrics will need to account for a phased,
transitional approach and the necessary cultural change too
1. Long-term vision and outcomes for o Local government has a key role to play in climate adaptation and
Aotearoa New Zealand enabling
communities will look to councils for local leadership
partnership between central and o Politics will inevitably result in changes in strategic alignment. A
local government
flexible partnership framework based on high levels of trust will be
able to accommodate such changes
o Central government must ensure:
o communities and the councils that represent them are
sufficiently involved in setting the vision and desired outcomes
o certainty of affordability and funding for local government to
ensure programmes continue to be delivered
2. A governance model that operates o Any new, shared governance arrangements would require greater
as strong strategic partner with
central recognition of the role and importance of councils and an
central government
increase in the power and placement of local decision-makers in
the national system
o The governance model would need to be able to accommodate
and respond positively to differing positions and perspectives
around issues of national significance
o Central government should meet the operational costs of the
model, with councils meeting their own participation costs
o As evidenced by the Greater Christchurch Plan and urban growth
partnerships, changes to local governance arrangements can
Page 14 of 171616
Comments
accommodate the needs and interests of councils of all types and
sizes
3. Deliberate
structure
for o There needs to be agreement on how to work together most
partnerships between central and
effectively - recognising value in the skills that different
local government, iwi, business and
organisations bring
communities
o Some structures, such as regional skills leadership groups, have
emerged and developed to become well-structured partnerships
that help to resolve local issues
o This needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and some
tailoring will be required to ensure the best approach for each
issue
o Structures of partnerships also need to be flexible enough to
accommodate changes in central government
o Central government should meet the operational costs of the
model, with councils meeting their own participation costs
4. Transparent
funding
and o We agree, but note that a genuine partnership cannot be based on
accountability for service delivery
one party being seen as a service delivery contractor
and local priorities
o The primary accountability must be to the affected community in
terms of outcomes and value for money
o If councils are to provide more services, there needs to be more
funding from central government commensurate with the full
transition and implementation costs
o Currently there is a lack of local government involvement in the
health reforms. If local government is to play a role in identifying
local priorities, we need to be involved across all aspects of the
reform.
Page 15 of 171616
5. More Equitable Funding
Comments
Shift/Outcome
o We agree there should be a stable and certain revenue system, but
adequacy and revenue that reflects levels of economic activity
A stable revenue system that
over time is also important (ie, to enable an effective response to
provides certainty of funding sources
fluctuating demands)
and enables central and local o Aotearoa New Zealand needs to move away from low levels of
government to be effective partners
fiscal decentralisation, unfunded mandates and a rating system
and co-investors in community
that drives less than ideal decision-making (ie, partly due to
outcomes and priorities, with local
community proximity and resistance to rates increases)
government’s
funding
policies
supporting equity-based progressive o Central government needs to be a more meaningful funder of local
taxation principles
government priorities and services to ensure that communities
get the services central government expect
o There is a need for structured partnership approaches to service
delivery funding and impact assessments that ensure no more
unfunded mandates
o Rates are a confused and complicated mix of taxes, levies and user
charges, the application of which can, despite genuine
endeavours to do otherwise, create significant inequities – we
must be able to do so much better than the status quo
1. Central and local government agree o We agree that fairness and ability to pay are important
a fair basis for funding community
considerations in agreeing a funding approach
outcomes, taking account of o There is also a need to take account of the contribution local
communities’ ability to pay
government makes to community wel being through existing
services, facilities, and infrastructure
o Consideration should be given to enabling national progressive
taxation to be applied at a local level, as well as improving and
simplifying local taxation
o There will need to be provision for regular reviews to ensure
demographic and other changes are accounted for
2. Legislation and funding policies and o Local government needs to have more ability to introduce revenue
practices support principles of
streams that best suit their local community (eg, congestion
equity/wellbeing
charging and visitor levies)
o Legislation needs to assume that local government will make the
best decisions it can for its local community and for future
sustainability, but include regulatory impact assessment
requirements to ensure this occurs
o This would be a major step forward from what appears to be a
longstanding (and wrong) central government assumption that
local government wil often make poor decisions that result in
negative net community wellbeing
o Funding options that need to be seriously considered include:
o Central government transfers to fund local government costs,
including when undertaking mandated community engagement,
Page 16 of 171616
Comments
strategic and service planning, service delivery and impact
monitoring and reporting
o Fees and charges to recover certain policy development and
implementation costs
o Local visitor levy. The ability to charge a levy on visitors via a bed
tax to fund infrastructure and services provided to meet visitor
demand and/ or level of service expectations.
o Congestion charges and road tolls
3. Making flexible general and special o We agree in principle, but each would need to be assessed on its
purpose financing tools available
merits (eg, whether it is in the community’s best interest and how
they stack up against other options)
o Councils should be able to implement new levies or taxes that can
be collected by the council itself (or on its behalf).
o Central government could approve the broad parameters for local
government-initiated levies or taxes, which would then be
implemented by local government in a manner specific to local
conditions in line with appropriate community engagement
Page 17 of 171616
