Localism 2.0 but not as we know it
This piece was published in the 1st September 2024 edition of The Post online - the original can be found here
OPINION: “It’s localism, Jim, but not as we know it,” Spock might have said to Captain Kirk if the Starship Enterprise had beamed down to Takina – the new Wellington Convention Centre – in time to catch the PM’s address last week.
Even Spock would have been confused.
Here is the paradox:
Labour in government sent mixed messages on a programme of “Localism 1.0”.
They extended local government’s mandate by putting the Four Wellbeings (Economic, Social Environmental and Cultural) in the Local Government Act.
They backed the Provincial Growth Fund in their first term with NZ First - to put real money behind regional economic development. The Fund included a focus on the most deprived areas where the biggest relative difference could be made.
But, in their second term, Labour angered many in local government over the widely misunderstood “Affordable (Three) Water(s) Reform”, by over-centralising power into regional water entities.
More generally, Labour mistook “strong, active government” for “centralisation of governance” (Te Pukenga for polytechs, Te Whatu Ora for healthcare, etc.)
Meanwhile, the machinery of central government seemed unable, post-Covid, to deliver the promised results on time. The public saw this and lost confidence.
Labour’s answer was a tactical and late one, with the incineration of anything seemingly controversial on the pre-election policy bonfire. But late-term, small-target politics left the ship of state with half a rudder and no wind in its sails.
The electorate reacted accordingly. Enter the National-NZ First-ACT coalition.
National campaigned on Localism 2.0 – from “Local Water Done Well”, to local and regional deals in which every town could have one. Local devolution seemed like a no-brainer. It just needed a mix of practical, centrist (dare we say, “teal”) policies, appropriate resourcing, and sharper delivery at all levels. It was a low-hanging fruit, ripe for plucking.
Anticipation and expectation at last week’s Local Government NZ conference, dubbed “Superlocal 24”, were therefore riding high.
Enter the Prime Minister.
The agenda was harsh; the tone was harsher.
The venue is a “white elephant” (despite apparently stimulating a quarter of its capital cost in revenue in its first year; and being built on time and on budget).
The Four Wellbeings are to be abolished as “nice-to-haves”.
Local councils will be “performance-monitored”.
“Revenue-capping” rules could limit council expenditure on local priorities.
“Transparency obligations” will be imposed on internal local government processes.
Line-by-line spending cuts are expected by all local and regional entities.
There will be no additional central government funding (though borrowing rules through the Local Government Funding Authority will be updated).
A thousand-plus mayors, chairs, councilors and CEOs were stunned; many openly mortified.
Regional deals will proceed, but there will only be five in the first tranche. The priority will be large, fast-growing metro areas with major infrastructure projects.
Iwi have been sidelined; and te reo is suddenly “lingua non-grata”.
Speakers like Local Government NZ President Sam Broughton and WellingtonNZ CEO John Allen pushed back hard.
The Opposition took their opportunity to capitalise, promising an end to “unfunded mandateos” and restoration of the Four Wellbeings.
Subsequent ministerial speakers (Hons Chris Bishop, Shane Jones and Simon Watts) struck a more constructive tone, leaving open a pathway to a more constructive approach.
Where, then, can the win-win be found in all of this? Where is the middle ground that can release local energy without leading to rigor mortis or fiscal excess?
How can the central-local government and iwi partnership be optimised for the 21st century?
Broaden regional deals. Five won’t be enough. Incentivise win-wins and bring diverse local constituencies to a single table to partner with Government. Show that economically challenged regions matter as much as richer ones. Catalyse regional growth and enterprise with partnership funding. Bring the private sector to the table.
Put strategy back into spatial planning. There is a win-win in providing regional spatial strategies as part of the new post-Resource Management Act policy framework, because ‘what to put where’ should depend on ‘what a region is trying to achieve’.
Recognise iwi as co-investors as well as Te Tiriti partners. Following on from champions such as Sir Doug Graham, Sir Michael Cullen and Chris Finlayson KC, continue the Treaty settlement process. Find new ways to partner around shared development opportunities. Avoid a great leap backwards to division and intolerance. Honour Kiingi Tuheitia’s legacy.
We only have one planet – look after it. Pick your buzz words – from “climate change” to “unprecedented weather events” – they are going to keep coming at us. Just ask your insurers. Economic reality dictates both mitigation and adaptation.
Reinforce probity at all levels. Transparency and good process matter. Amending Fast Track to ensure more independence in decision-making and more rigour - is a step in the right direction. Advice should have fewer glossy documents and show better math.
Above all, treat local and regional government and iwi as partners. To work, Localism 2.0 must be a two-way street. It has huge political as well as economic potential.
It’s a prize that neither side of the aisle seems to have yet got right.
If we focus on the win-wins, it is not too late to be good ancestors and to build a country our grandchildren can be proud of.