Local Government New Zealand Conference

Michael Fowler Centre - Wellington

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to open this conference.

Undoubtedly, the annual conference of Local Government New Zealand is the key event in every Minister of Local Government's calendar. This is a particularly special one for me because it is my first.

The last seven months, since becoming a Minister, have flown by. Much of my time has been spent on talking to key players on the local government scene, dealing with issues that have needed immediate attention, such as dangerous dogs, and thinking about other issues that will have to be dealt with in the future. I will give you my thoughts on these in a moment.

Local Government is a technical portfolio. I do not need to tell you this. The Act is enormous and there is a daunting amount of information to get to grips with.

But, of course, the local government portfolio couldn't be anything else but complex. After all, we are talking about the provision of a complete framework for local governance.

The learning curve has been steep but thanks to your good selves and a little bit of late night reading on my part - the journey so far has been very satisfying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Local leadership, national voice'' is a challenging conference theme.

I fully support the advocacy role of local government.

It would be a foolish and irresponsible government that did not recognise the value of local government input into the public policy process.

At its best, local government works with and understands the needs and desires of its communities and where possible responds to those needs.

You, just about more than anyone, are in a position to know when things are not quite right in your communities. Who could deny that you have a responsibility to do everything you can to improve the lot of those in your cities, districts and regions?

Your insight and advice is a valuable resource which can only enhance key government decisions on matters affecting our communities.

However before you completely embrace your advocacy role, you must first ensure that local government is truly participative and that you are indeed reflecting the values of your community.

In my brief time as Minister of Local Government, I have talked with hundreds of local electors and read hundreds of letters from residents and ratepayers on the subject of their local council.

Some letters simply seek information while most complain about council activity or inactivity as the case may be. It seems to be human nature to write letters of complaint rather than letters of praise so perhaps this is not surprising. Even the Government receives letters of complaint...from time to time.

Nonetheless, the thing that worries me most is not the actual complaints about local authorities as such - although they do of course need to be taken very seriously. These people are, after all, your customers and are ultimately the reason we are here today. We should never forget that.

What worries me most is the apparent lack of understanding that electors have of the actual role and purpose of local government.

I am not convinced that a satisfactory number of electors know what local government does, the impact it has, or the role they have to play in the decision-making process.

Local government impacts on the daily lives of all those in your communities. More so than central government I feel. It is not just the long held adage of roads, rates and rubbish and electors need to understand that.

A voter turnout of around 50 per cent may be a vast improvement on the days before postal voting but we still have some way to go.

I know many councils are trying innovative ways to increase elector participation in council affairs and your efforts are to be commended. Don't be disheartened over slow progress but keep at it. Think of yourselves as local government evangelists taking a message to the people.

As I am sure you will all agree, the advocacy role of local government will be well strengthened with the improved participation of its communities in the local democratic process. This is a crucial first step.

Putting on my Minister of Women's Affairs hat for a moment, one area of major success is the increase in the numbers of women that are now representing their communities at the local level. 30 percent of all elected council representatives are now women compared with only 11 percent in 1977.

I appreciate that these figures do not approach any sort of gender balance and further work needs to be done particularly to develop the roles women play once elected. Nonetheless, the rapid growth of women in local government is a real cause for celebration and something to be proud of. Well done.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to read Jean Drage's research paper about women political leaders in local government. It makes informative and interesting reading. I think it was an excellent idea by Local Government New Zealand to publish it to allow it to reach a wider audience.

One obstacle identified by Ms Drage for women in local government was the level of elected members remuneration. I will return to this topic later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my first address as Minister of Local Government in April, I stated that my primary interest is in the functions of local government rather than the structures used to deliver results. My interest has not waned.

Of particular interest to me is the role of local government in delivering social services and the interface with central government.

I was pleased to read the conference programme and see that the link between local communities and national well-being is the subject of discussion.

The author of the programme puts it simply and effectively: Safety, welfare and community provide challenges but who's job are they?

Who's job indeed. At this point in time I struggle to think of a more fundamental question for local government to ask itself. Surprisingly, it seems to be one that has received less attention than it deserves over the last 10 years.

Possibly we have all been too busy dealing with what have effectively been successive waves of reforms to give it enough thought. Well, I'm sure local government is just as busy as it ever was but now the issue is well and truly in the spotlight as it should be. I want to take a good look at it and I have asked my officials to begin some preliminary work.

It seems to me that there is a perception that local government is increasingly becoming involved in social service activity. Some would argue this is more appropriately the preserve of Central Government.

You will all of heard of the debate over Christchurch City Council's proposal to boost its spending on social services and to send Government a one million dollar bill for their social spending. The rationale, as one Councillor explained, was that the provision of social services is a role of central government and central government was being let off the hook.

If central government is abdicating it's responsibilities then it is hard not to have some sympathy with the views expressed by Christchurch.

But is this happening? Perception may not be reality and, in the interests of policy development, it is crucial that we move beyond perception into facts. The only way to do this is by focused research.

Finding out exactly what social service functions local government is currently undertaking is a relatively easy task. A survey of local authorities may answer this.

The more difficult questions are what local government should and shouldn't be doing in the social services area and how to define what is a community service and what is a social service - the boundary is not clear.

Personally, I see a distinction between the provision of ``social services'' to ensure minimum standards of living by central government, and the development and provision of community services by local government as its communities desires.

The former is part of the essential values that characterise New Zealand, and is therefore primarily the responsibility of central Government. Action for, and on behalf of, local communities on the other hand, is the proper jurisdiction and responsibility of local government.

I am not suggesting that legitimate community services provided by local authorities should be abandoned. What I am saying is that we must start thinking about where the responsibility for the provision of social services and community services lies.

I appreciate this is a big issue but it is one that will not go away.

It may be possible to address these questions within the context of the ``Strategic Directions for Local Government to 2010'' project. As you will know, this is a joint project embarked on by my predecessor, Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers.

I note that the question ``what will local government be like in 2010'' is a specific question for discussion in a focus group.

At this stage this project is about ensuring that the local government sector is in a position to contribute positively to our economic growth and community prosperity in the year 2010... and beyond.

Key areas to be addressed are:

the relationship between central and local government
local government functions - where should decisions lie - prescriptive legislation or community participation
future capability of councils to perform
funding and accountability
addressing local government and the Treaty of Waitangi
establishing a flexible and enabling legislative framework
ensuring robust community participation
The project will:

provide a framework for achieving better local government over the next decade and beyond;
provide a direction and timetable to achieve a policy and legislative framework that will enable local government to succeed consistently together with central government in the governance of New Zealand communities;
establish clarity between the roles and relationships of central and local government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another important initiative that is in keeping with the 2010 project is the review of the Rating Powers Act.

I have taken on board sector comments that this legislation is proving inadequate and inappropriate to local government with its new accountability processes.

The new funding policies under the Local Government Amendment Act No.3 1996 will see councils looking to more accurately allocate costs. We need to look at whether councils have the tools needed to do that. Also many of the processes set out in the Rating Powers Act are unduly restrictive.

I should say at this point, however, that I do not envisage a move away from property rates as councils' primary revenue raising tool.

I will be discussing the scope and timetable of the Review with my Cabinet colleagues over the next few weeks. I then hope to release a Discussion Document, for consultation with councils and other interested parties, covering the principles and issues to be addressed in the Review.

There is a real interest in this project, not just from the local government sector but also from the business sector.

The completion of this review, along with the 2010 work, will mean that we can then get on with the business of overhauling the Local Government Act. Something I am sure you will all agree is long overdue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The inadequacy of key legislation is only one of the problems facing local government at present. Ask any council what are the key areas of public concern within their communities, and the issue of dog control is bound to be raised.

The issue of dangerous dogs, prompted by the tragic fatal mauling in the Bay of Plenty, has caused widespread public concern. I have recently received the report of the Working Party of MPs, representing five political parties, which, as you will be aware, I convened to look at ways of dealing with dangerous dog breeds.

I asked the Working Party to look at ways in which we could achieve the phased elimination of Pit Bull Terriers under existing laws, and whether we should take steps to deal with other breeds.

Briefly, the Working Party has recommended that we deal with Pit Bulls already in the country by requiring neutering, muzzling, secure fencing and other restrictions. At the same time, they have recommended we place an import ban on more Pit Bulls coming into the country, as well as three other breeds of fighting dog.

I am pleased by the Working Party's report, and by the multi-party support these proposals enjoy. Nonetheless, there is a considerable amount of detailed investigation and consultation required to ensure that any measures we put in place will actually work.

Prominent in this, is the need for detailed consultation with the local government sector which will, of course, be faced with the responsibility for enforcing any new dog control regulations.

I have written to Local Government New Zealand seeking their initial views on the Working Party's recommendations, and I look forward to constructive and ongoing dialogue with the sector on this.

Dog control is a deceptively difficult subject. It is one area where there are no quick fix solutions. Those who think there are, are quickly disappointed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another topical issue, I know there is a lot of debate both within and outside of the sector about local government's role in providing infrastructure. Make sure you get active in these discussions.

The current review of local authorities' powers to deliver water and wastewater is a good opportunity.

I am comfortable for local communities to decide whether or not to franchise or contract out services such as water provision.

However, a key task in any change from in-house provision will be for the council to be able to demonstrate its capacity to fully monitor its contractors. Robust debate on key issues such as these can only assist both local and central government decision-making.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auckland's infrastructural problems tend to receive much press...at least they do in Auckland. I'm not sure whether you read much about them in the Otago Daily Times.

Not unrelated to this issue is the question of the future use of the wealth of the Auckland Regional Services Trust. The Trust was formed in 1992 to take over the management and ownership of key regional strategic and commercial assets. It was also asked to manage associated regional debt of $224 million. It did its job so well that it paid off this inherited debt 12 years earlier than expected.

Since then the Trust has been and will continue to accrue considerable surpluses into the future. By 2001 it could have surpluses of around $500 million.

The key question that arises now is, how can the Trust's resources best be used for the benefit of the region? It's an excellent time to be both Minister of Local Government and an Auckland MP.

It is hard to ignore infrastructure as a potential worthy cause.

Auckland's current population of 1 million is expected to increase to 1.6 million by 2026. The present cost of replacing the region's infrastructure and public facilities is in the vicinity of $1.3 billion.

Last month I released a discussion document to help facilitate decisions. I urge all interested local authorities to comment on the options outlined in the report. I am hopeful that some consensus for future action will quickly emerge. Given the pressing needs facing the region, there is no room for procrastination.

Well considered and sensible decisions on the future use of the Trust's resources are likely to benefit the Auckland Region for generations to come and, indirectly, the economy as a whole.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to touch on two quite unrelated issues that have received media attention recently. The first is Bob Simcock's plans to introduce a Private Members Bill to ensure local authorities can control alcohol consumption in public places. The Bill would allow bans for extended periods, for example, from Christmas to New Years.

Apparently the move comes after revelations that some liquor bans put in place by councils have breached the Local Government Act because they were not imposed for specific events.

I have some sympathy with the objectives of Mr Simcock's proposals and agree that the issue needs to be widely debated. It is no doubt an issue that Local Government New Zealand will be looking closely at.

The other issue is the Ministry of Agriculture's decision not to allow the importation of rabbit calicivirus (RCD).

For those applicant group councils and indeed all those councils affected by the devastation of this rabbit plague - you must be bitterly disappointed.

The Government shares your disappointment. The country is not only missing out on millions of dollars of agricultural production but the environmental damage is sickening.

As you will all know, the decision not to import the virus was made on the grounds that RCD may not be effective in New Zealand. Given this, we want to see how it can be effective in the future as part of a rabbit control strategy.

Agriculture Minister Dr Lockwood Smith has instructed MAF to do more work on the use of RCD to eradicate rabbits in New Zealand.

Rabbits can not rest easy yet - by no stretch of the imagination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to conclude my speech with a matter which is of direct relevance and interest to elected members, as it covers elected members' remuneration.

Local authority Mayors and councillors are generally hard working. Mayors are leaders in their communities and they, along with councillors, need to be available to their constituents on a full time basis. As such they often work long hours which can be disproportionate to the amount of remuneration received.

As Minister of Local Government, I am required from time to time to review the maximum rates of remuneration. Over the last 8 years these maximum rates have only been increased twice.

Last week I decided to increase the maximum levels by 3 percent.

I want to stress though that, as I only set the maximums, it is for you to assess the council's financial position and level of performance and not just automatically take the increase.

Unfortunately, even if you fully deserve the increase, and take it, it is likely that you will still be subject to ratepayer criticism. This really comes back to the issue of making sure those in your community understand the importance of the work you do.

I understand that there are a number of remuneration issues other than salary that concern local government, including payment for attending workshops, the times and costs of visiting constituents and attending meetings in rural areas.

Local Government New Zealand was invited to advise me of any anomalies they see with the current system of remuneration, so that they can be examined in a wider review of elected members remuneration.

To progress the issue of remuneration, I look forward to receiving Local Government New Zealand's comments and proposals.

I have already received interesting proposals from the Local Government Forum and Mayors' Forum. In essence, the Local Government Forum's proposal would reduce the number of elected members but boost the salary of these members considerably. The Forum argues that this would give regard to the important work done by elected representatives as well as to attract high quality candidates.

The Mayors' Forum suggests that, with respect to Mayors, remuneration should be decided by the Higher Salaries Commission. It is argued that this would ensure political-free public accountability.

These proposals deserve serious consideration.

Thank you for your attention this morning. I wish you all a very enjoyable and rewarding conference.

ENDS