In an in depth interview by Oli Lewis in BusinessDesk (to whom I am grateful to have these quotes) Lianne Dalziel reported her thoughts on the relationships between central and local government Yes, minister: Lianne Dalziel on the ‘terrible’ central-local govt relationship | BusinessDesk
Speaking first about central government bureaucracies Lianne observed:
…government departments and other organisations too often take a siloed approach. To address intractable issues like climate change or child poverty – what former prime minister Bill English would call “wicked problems” – policymakers need to take a more holistic view, learn to work collaboratively, and consider the impact of policy choices beyond their portfolio area.
To which I would say “amen”. Just think about how all the disputes between various government departments were brought to Christchurch after the earthquakes. They just transported their differences and imposed them on this city.
Lianne then went on to say:
They also need to pay more consideration to local government, she says. Dalziel doesn’t think policymakers in central government pay adequate attention to the needs of local government. Nor do they work collaboratively with their local counterparts.
‘They don’t even know we exist’
From a new housing intensification law to the three waters reform, the normally placid world of local government has become a political hot topic this term. Faced with a government determined to push through solutions to various thorny infrastructure problems, councils around the country have reacted with barely suppressed fury at what they see as consultation shortcomings and a loss of control.
Asked to describe the relationship between central and local government, Dalziel is typically forthright: “Terrible,” she says. “They don’t even know we exist … “We’re part of the governance of the country.”
One source of tension between local and central government is the “unfunded mandate” – parliament passing a law without adequately resourcing local authorities to implement it. She wants to see regulatory impact statements better assess the impact on local government. More than that, though, Dalziel wants to see a broader conversation about where responsibility should lie. “Collectively we should be looking at the future of government together.”
Instead of just looking at local government, any governance review should take a much wider perspective, Dalziel believes. Consideration should be given to which layer of government – central, regional or local – is best placed to deliver particular services and how they should be funded and consulted on.
This article has wonderful comments by Lianne Dalziel. A former Labour cabinet minister. A life member of the party (the highest honour the party gives to an activist). Saying of her party “they don’t even know we exist”. If I were still a Labour Party member, I would be pushing buttons all over the place saying that this is a red button article. Ignore it at your peril.
Or are they too preoccupied with their agenda to care. That could be fatal. They should remember the old maxim that governments are not voted in. The old ones are voted out. When a party activist who is still a life member puts up a flag, as Lianne has, then ignore this at your peril Labour Party leaders.
Sorry to say it, but our local government leader who has schemed to send our artesian water to China in plastic bottles, to cut off Linwood from the city center on Worcester Street, and to build the senseless stadium in the heart of the city has lost some credibility in my eyes, life member of the Labour Party or not.
I think you are ascribing far too much power to the mayor. Everyone of the things you mention are out of her control
I would counsel the government to ignore the local politicians in deciding the reforms that make sense. Councillors have a track record of attacking just about everything that comes out of the government, well after all there is no surprise really, local politicians tend to have an inflated sense of their own self worth. You may see Lianne as a good mayor but the other view is she was a failed central government politician who saw an opportunity at local level that she would never have got in the government – she never would have been at such a high level of the government comparable with her role as the mayor. The Labour mayors spend a lot of time attacking other local government entities trying to get them abolished or taken over by themselves, or put it another way Christchurch City Council is more important than any other local government region in Canterbury – or as I like to put it, CCC wants Christchurch to be the capital of the South Island – the move by the airport company into Tarras being an obvious example of this kind of thinking. As Phil mauger has said he does not understand why CCC makes submissions to Selwyn District Council opposing housing being developed there,. Another example is the Labour mayors doing their best to make sure the CBD has all the priority for development and opposing it in the suburbs, and another is the push by CCC under Lianne to consider congestion charging for people living in other territories north or south of the city. Also another pet hobby horse, lobbying central government to abolish the regional council’s role in public transport, which again Labour councillors have a consistent track record on. She even got the government to change some legislation that had no real basis and failed to wrest control of PT from the regional council after all. Public transport should have been left in the hands of the transport board, just like 3 waters should have been kept in control of the drainage board.
It is the role of central government to point out obvious failings at local level and that’s super plain in the housing market because the Council favours the wealthy suburbs over the poor every time and that is one of the biggest factors in driving housing inequality in our cities. 3 waters of course is well justified by the poor Councils record in properly maintaining the assets.