Local Government/RMA Reform
The arguments in favour of a reform of local government are still being developed but in even preliminary form have found support from many sources.
The problem is that for years those elected to Councils have had either a very limited idea of their responsibility to the whole community or taken a very narrow vested interest view. Council officers are often little better, either seeing theirs as ‘jobs for life’ or confusing their role of providing balanced professional advice with that of the elected representatives, and effectively becoming internal advocates for their own position without providing balanced professional alternatives.
If communities are to reach their potential then councils should be incentivised to improve their performances. The funding and financing framework for local government must incentivise good performance, and enable local authorities to deliver quality amenities and services that reflect the preferences and aspirations of their communities.
The Resource Management Act (RMA) has been in place since 1991. It is not at all clear whether NZ benefits from or can afford the levels of local government (within both District & Regional Councils) that have evolved around the RMA processes over the last 27 years. It is quite possible that NZ would be better off without Regional Councils or at least a scaling back of Resource Consent functions to that of enforcing centrally determined standards.
This would greatly reduce or indeed eliminate a large part of the cost of processes such as the Waikato Regional Council’s Proposed Plan Change 1 (Current costs of which are in excess of $30 million [without any appeals of the Hearings Commissioner’s decisions to the environment court], and that is before the 100’s of $millions more that will come from the costs of compliance and the write-down of capital values of land and other assets).
Why Change?
The ever rising costs of compliance with both planning rules and the RMA are seriously impeding the economic development of New Zealand. They are also having a serious detrimental effect on housing affordability for all New Zealanders. The current levels of compliance costs which are non-productive are not sustainable.
The present structure of local government is not delivering cost effective decision making that allows for the sustainable management of the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being.
There are pressing environmental issues that must be addressed nationally and the best interests of New Zealand going forward require a change now.
There is an urgent need for local government to address both infrastructure provision and renewal in a structured and strategic manner.
The objective of change is to develop a local government structure that is one easily understood, level of local government based on territorial units that clearly define and limit the functions to be performed by local government and simplify the resource management planning hierarchy.
Benefits of Change:
Reform of local government should result in a single tier of local government with clearly defined functions that are transparent and easily understood and with accountability for service delivery.
Local democracy is strengthened, and arguably enhanced, because the territorial authorities would control the functions currently performed by the regional councils.
There would be major simplification of the resource management planning hierarchy with only one planning document for a region which will dramatically reduce planning costs by simplifying and streamlining the consultation and submission process.
Residents, ratepayers, business, central government agencies, Iwi and lobby groups will only need to have input into one consolidated planning framework.
This will enable key matters such as the delivery of the infrastructure requirements of local government to be addressed in a structured and strategic manner in line with common national standards.
What are the barriers to change?
Parochialism is, and will continue to be, a major barrier to change. Any initiative that has the potential or even a perception of the potential, to diminish the power and influence of territorial authorities will be resisted.
Legislative Reform to revitalise local government will require firm action on part of central government with a need for a transition phase to implement the proposed changes.
Local government is not delivering in some key areas and there is wide spread confusion over the present two tier system of regional council & territorial authorities.
In 2015 three major amalgamation proposals failed for lack of council and community support in Greater Wellington, Northland and Hawkes Bay. These communities demonstrated that they were opposed to large-scale amalgamations, especially if they thought it would lead to erosion of local representation.
The public debate centred on perceived loss of democratic representation rather than improvements to governance and service delivery for the future. This graphically reinforced and highlighted the tension between providing for economic efficiency while, at the same time, meeting local democracy needs and expectations.
The whole approach to local government reorganisation to date has been flawed with an emphasis on one model – the unitary council approach. That assumed that councils themselves would recognise the need for change and embrace it. The reality is that any perceived threat to local democracy has been strongly resisted. It has been easy for the inherent power base of the present system to fend off change.
One of the often-stated drivers underpinning amalgamation was the perception that a larger unit of local government would achieve efficiency gains in terms of the delivery of services. Efficiency gains have yet to be proved. International research on local government efficiencies casts significant doubt on this matter.
In fact there are serious doubts around the benefits of the largest forced amalgamation (Auckland City and its surrounding districts into the super city). With all indications to date pointing to an increase in bureaucracy, staff numbers, rates bills etc. with no actual benefit to the ratepayers of the new Auckland City.
Changes Recommended.
The changes suggested in this document is, addressing the present structure of local government by reducing councils to a single tier with Environmental Standards being set nationally with compliance undertaken at a local body level.
There should be a nationally-accountable Environmental Protection Agency working directly with territorial authorities, which could offer a more promising configuration for effective, efficient and equitable use of the financial and technical resource available for territorial planning and resource management.
The time is now right to move to environmental policy being directed at the national level with the local government responsible for monitoring and compliance.
All of the present functions of regional councils should be allocated to the appropriate District Councils on the following basis:
RMA Compliance:
(i) Planning
There would be only one planning document for each region. Each region would have five years to put a new consolidated planning framework into place. Once the plan is in place there would be a mandatory requirement to review the plan on a ten-year cycle.
RMA compliance costs have been rapidly escalating and the present planning cycles at both the regional and district councils have created consultation and submission fatigue. Given the cost implications around the submission process for plans, they have become the domain of mainly lawyers and planning experts with the average ratepayer unable to either fund representation on their own behalf or to allocate the time to do so.
A move to a consolidated planning framework should potentially streamline the planning process.
(ii) Consent /Environmental Monitoring & Enforcement
The monitoring; enforcement and reporting back of environmental compliance to the Environmental Enforcement Agency would be tasked to the individual councils but the cost of environmental/consent monitoring must be borne by the consent holder.
Water resources:
There would a requirement for the individual councils to put in place a ten-year strategic plan for the water requirements (waste water and potable water) of the region.
Andy Loader
Co-Chairman P.L.U.G.