Future for Local Government submission March 2023.PDF.pdf

03 941 8999
53 Hereford Street
1 March 2023
Christchurch 8013
PO Box 73013
Christchurch 8154

ccc.govt.nz
The Future for Local Government Independent Panel

Department of Internal Affairs
WELLINGTON

[email address]

Christchurch City Council submission to the Future for Local Government
Independent Panel

Introduction
Christchurch City Council (the Council) commends the Future for Local Government Panel (the Panel)
for the extensive work undertaken to prepare your draft report “He mata whāriki, he matawhānui”.
The information presented in the report is comprehensive and provides a basis to inform decisions
moving forward.
We are entering a period of extraordinary change for local government in an increasingly uncertain
world. The work the Panel is doing must, by necessity, chart a path to a very different future for local
government and for the communities we serve.  We sincerely hope the final report does that in a
compelling way.
The Council thanks the Panel for the opportunity to provide feedback on the report. We stand at a
significant and unique juncture in the evolution of local governance in New Zealand. It is important
that all parties work collaboratively and positively and with courage to ensure a new model of local
governance is nurtured to support the amazing communities of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Key Points
The Council believes the Panel’s final report must clearly spell out the following:
1.  We need a new integrated model of government for New Zealand. This review cannot simply
be about local government, local governance or local democracy.
2.  An integrated wellbeing approach is already embedded in local government legislation and
guides everything we do. Local government’s contribution and potential needs to be
understood and acknowledged by central government and integrated with national systems
and services.
3.  The Crown must clarify local government’s role(s) in the national Te Tiriti partnership.
4.  It’s time to completely re-think council funding and financing. Councils need to be able to
develop new funding approaches tailored to their communities.
5.  The review must settle on a single preferred local government structure. Our strong
preference is for a unitary council model with the flexibility to be adapted to local needs and
preferences.

6.  We need a framework to guide the next steps in the change process. This needs to empower
local government to move quickly to identify a preferred future governance model with
central government funding and support available to facilitate this. The new government
needs to be able to move quickly following the 2023 general election to begin to implement
the changes required.

Submission
We need a new integrated model of government for New Zealand. This
review cannot simply be about local government, local governance or local
democracy.
1.  The report makes a strong case for the need for a new integrated model of government that
reaches beyond just local government and governance. The new model must be grounded in a
joined-up governance system that brings together local and central government, iwi/ hapū and
communities and be based on partnership and reciprocity. This requires 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, capacity and
accountabilities are best located.
2.  Currently we see little evidence of partnering being hard-wired into government planning and
delivery processes. The Government’s Social Sector Commissioning 2022–2028 Action Plan, is
aimed at “Transforming the way social supports and services are commissioned so that they best
support people, families and whānau to live the lives they value”1. It details how the Government
will work with iwi/ whānau, NGOs and communities to deliver better social services and
outcomes. The document refers to local government just once, with “local council” as being
identified as an “other party”2. In the context of this review this is alarming.
3.  Councils and their communities have a shared sense of place – tūrangawaewae – that is essential
to building thriving local communities. A well-functioning democracy cannot exist without this
strong sense of place and feeling of belonging that drives social cohesion and engagement in
civic and national processes. It enables us to transcend an increasingly virtual world and ground
our sense of community in the reality of our people. This needs to inform decisions about
wellbeing and service delivery tailored to individual communities.
4.  Councils provide meaningful opportunities for participation in decision-making in local and
regional contexts. This enables citizens 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. The importance of this has been highlighted in our community’s
response and ongoing recovery from the impacts of devastating earthquakes in partnership with
central government agencies, councils in Greater Christchurch and our many community
organisations.
5.  This whole-of-community approach will not be achieved without a major paradigm shift. To
drive that shift we believe the final report must recommend statutory recognition of councils as

1 Social Sector Commissioning 2022-2028 Action Plan (msd.govt.nz)
2 Social Sector Commissioning 2022-2028 Action Plan (msd.govt.nz) Pg. 8.
2

government partners. Legislation needs to embed the roles of mayors and councillors as elected
community leaders and representatives in an integrated government framework that enables
inclusive and responsive decision-making.

An  integrated  wellbeing  approach  is  embedded  in  local  government
legislation and  guides everything we do. Local government’s  contribution
and  potential  needs  to  be  better  understood  and  acknowledged  and
integrated with national systems and services.
6.  Local and central government, iwi/ hapū/ Māori agencies and community organisations are
already all in the business of improving community wellbeing. We need to work together better,
with appropriate funding mechanisms, to maximise our collective impact and efficiency.
7.  The purpose of local government as stated in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) includes to
“…promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the
present and for the future”.  Wellbeing sits at the centre of our strategic direction-setting and
service delivery.
8.  No single organisation or sector has the ability to deal with the complex issues inherent in
today’s world. Partnership and collaboration is vital to bring together the full range of resources
and expertise required to address issues such as poverty, housing, community health and safety,
community resilience and climate change.
9.  Integrated approaches to deal with complex issues take time and resources to develop and
require the total commitment and confidence of all parties towards supporting partnership and
collaboration. Engendering this level of commitment must be a key priority of the Panel.
10.  Councils already offer a range of programmes and resources that facilitate community action.
For example, this council’s parks partnership programme supports better environmental
outcomes as well as enabling community members to connect and develop as leaders. Just one
of these projects, working towards a Healthy Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River, involves over 100
schools and early education centres. We have many other similar examples of working with our
communities to achieve common goals
11.  The draft report provides excellent examples of the work some councils are doing but also
implies that this level of community collaboration is the exception. We believe most councils are
engaged with their communities in similar ways already. The final report must be clear about
this and the opportunities this work, appropriately aligned with and supported by central
government, presents for developing more integrated approaches to delivering wellbeing.
12.  Council facilities present opportunities to leverage broader wellbeing dividends. Aquatic
centres, sports fields, gyms, cycleways and parks all promote active, healthy communities.
Central government could leverage this by partnering with local government to provide facilities
and promote the use of those facilities through initiatives like Green Prescription. We encourage
the Panel to clearly articulate the potential for partnership to deliver better community health
and wellbeing outcomes leveraging what is already provided.
3

13.  The panel’s final report needs to highlight the opportunities available to build local government
knowledge, skills and networks into integrated community responses.  This will in our view
require a refocus change within central government agencies as well as in local government.
The Crown must clarify local government’s role in the Treaty partnership
14.  We are in a period of evolution with respect to the role of local government in the Treaty
partnership with council roles increasingly being positioned within the core partnership rather
than on the periphery or as an optional inclusion. Councils are a creature of statute and
therefore legislation must be clear about the status and role of local government in the Tiriti
partnership.
15.  While the LGA requires councils to provide ways for Māori to participate in decision-making there
is no context as to the desired outcome of this participation. Words currently used in the Act,
such as ‘providing opportunities’, ‘taking into account’ and ‘considering’ do not provide the
clarity needed to require appropriate relationship building with Tiriti partners.
16.  We agree that Tiriti partnerships need more resourcing and capability 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 the importance of
conversations happening kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face). Local government’s place-based
role and connection to community needs to be leveraged to strengthen the overall partnership.
This will require central government investment in building hapū/ iwi/Māori and council
capacity and capability to enable the Treaty partnership to continue to evolve in ways that
benefit all parties.
17.  This council supports mana whenua/Māori representation as part of an inclusive, community-
focused decision-making approach. This needs to be able to be adapted to suit local needs and
preferences and particularly those of mana whenua.
It’s time to completely re-think council funding and financing. Councils must
have access to sustainable funding approaches
18.  We agree we have reached “peak rates” and that alternative funding mechanisms need to be
enabled to supplement rates revenue. This is particularly important if councils are to deliver
community wellbeing via transformational rather than transactional approaches.
19.  Councils need to be able to work with their communities to tailor funding approaches to the
needs and preferences of their communities. We agree with the opportunities the Panel has
identified to strengthen the future funding system.
20.  We agree with the Panel’s key finding that “The absence of a sustainable and equitable co-
investment model is undermining the potential for central and local government and iwi to
partner for better community outcomes”. We would go a step further and say such partnering
simply can’t and won’t happen without new sustainable and equitable co-investment.
21.  A new collaborative local governance model needs to have co-funding at its foundation from the
outset. Co-investment mechanisms need to be flexible enough to evolve over time – they must
be able to be bespoke if that’s what is needed for effective partnership arrangements to develop
and more generic across councils and services where this can promote efficiency.
4

22.  We support the Government providing funding to councils via the return of GST paid on rates.
Work needs to be done to optimise how this can reach communities in a fair and equitable way,
which is likely to include weighting based on need or deprivation.
23.  The Council also believes central government funding should reward councils for facilitating
sustainable growth. Currently councils bear much of the costs of development through the
required investment in infrastructure to support growth, while central government reaps much
of the rewards through increased taxation. If councils were incentivised to promote sustainable
growth by way of central government funding assistance this would provide significant benefits
to both parties and the country as a whole. A New Zealand Inc. approach is needed if we are to
grow sustainably as a nation.
24.  The report picks up on the issue of unfunded mandates and we strongly support the need for
these to stop and for regulatory impact statement to be required to detail impacts (particularly
costs) on local government. The recent requirement issued by the Director General of Health for
councils to fluoridate water supplies and to fund this themselves (without having budgeted for
it) is the latest example of this. A more collaborative approach to decision-making and funding is
needed.
25.  We welcome the panel’s recommendation to establish a central government intergenerational
climate fund. However we urge the panel to provide more direction in their recommendations, in
particular on how much funding is required, when it is needed, and how it should made
available, noting the uneven distribution of climate change impacts across councils, and the
need for funding certainty to enable local adaptation.
26.  The Council believes sections 8 and 9 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (which
prescribe what land is non-rateable and part-rateable) should be repealed. Councils should be
empowered to make these decisions in consultation with their communities.
27.  Finally, following on from the point above, the Council strongly believes the Crown, government
agencies and organisations like Water Service Entities should pay all relevant rates and council
charges. This has been raised in previous reviews (such as by the Productivity Commission) and
should be addressed with urgency.
The review must put forward a single preferred local government structure.
Our strong preference is for that to be a unitary council model with flexibility
to adapt to local needs and preferences.
28.  The three waters and environmental management reforms will shift significant local authority
functions and budgets to new entities including assets currently held in CCOs and CCTOs. This
will affect the viability of all councils and it is reasonable to expect that many will not be able to
function as they currently do in future. This major risk to community wellbeing, local democracy
and institutional capability needs to be clearly articulated in the final report as does the
resulting need for change. If reforms continue as currently planned then local government must
change – there is no way to avoid this.
29.  We must move as quickly as possible to a local government structure that responds to the
impacts of three waters and environmental management reforms, and is flexible enough to
enable local representation preferences to be incorporated and have the potential to be scaled
up as councils seek economies of scope in the future.
5

30.  The unitary council model offers that functional flexibility as well as enabling the scaling of
representation to fit all communities through the use of wards, and local or community boards
to provide local representation and service provision. This Council is proposing a model rather
than specific geographic boundaries, as these would need to be informed by a range of design
principles agreed with local government. These principles could potentially include some or all
of the following:

-  relevant scale for efficient and effective service delivery to community need;
-  Geography/catchment;
-  History and sense of identity;
-  Iwi rohe considerations;
-  Central government service delivery models e.g. health, education, civil defence.
31.  In essence unitary councils would assume responsibility for functions currently provided by
regional councils as well as the residual functions of local authorities. Functions currently
undertaken by central government that could ideally be delegated to unitary authorities over
time, could include (for example) elements of housing, education, community and public health,
climate adaptation and community safety.
32.  The unitary authorities would need to be sufficiently large to provide economies of both scale
and scope but not so large that representation and decision-making is perceived as remote and
lacking local knowledge and context. Decisions on the geographic size and governance design
(such as the inclusion or not of local boards or community boards) should be driven to the extent
possible by local communities.
33.  Local government reorganisation has in the past proved contentious. Communities are often
deeply attached to what they have and can be reluctant to change their representation
arrangements. There needs to be a decision-making framework based on sound principles that
enables communities to have the right conversations and find the solution that suits them best.
Central government needs to support the change process and be prepared to facilitate
movement if required.
34.  The report needs to be clear that the current representation arrangements are not possible
following three waters and resource management reform and that change is required.
A  clear  implementation  plan  is  required  with  funding  and  appropriate
structural proposals that empower local government
35.  Three waters and resource management reform and the new climate change legislation will
fundamentally change the roles and functions of local government. The draft report does not
provide a compelling case for change to be pursued with urgency - it needs to.
36.  Currently the suite of reforms are being progressed piecemeal creating uncertainty and
hindering the ability of local government to engage meaningfully in consultation or to plan
appropriately for implementation. We need a roadmap to show how the reforms fit together and
how the processes are working together to create vibrant and engaged communities focused on
promoting collective wellbeing. The current uncoordinated approach has high risk and is having
the opposite effect.
6

37.  At times these reforms cross reference each other, implying outstanding matters will be
addressed by other processes. For example, the National Adaptation Plan suggests the Future
for Local Government review will clarify the role and function of local government in adaptation,
which it can’t do in isolation. This risks unintended consequences and policy gaps. Local
government will be at the coal face responding to these issues and we are concerned with the
current lack of clarity and cohesion. The current approach will certainly not deliver
government’s desired outcomes in housing, wellbeing, climate resilience and other critical
areas.
38.  At a minimum the Panel’s final report must provide a realistic pathway for local government to
engage with central government on the future of the sector. This means presenting an approach
for structural change (which may vary across regions), and recommendations to address funding
and financing issues urgently. Recommendations should be situated within the context of the
overall reform programme and enable a conversation between local and central government on
the best way forward. The final report must also clearly set out the consequences of failing to
implement necessary changes.

We understand the enormity of the challenge the panel faces to put forward a blueprint for the
future for local government at a time of unprecedented change. However the panel can’t shy away
from putting forward a compelling case for specific change that can and must be implemented with
urgency.
We look forward to the government being willing to act decisively to work with local government to
make changes and to partner to create better communities.
Our feedback on the report recommendations and the questions raised is attached.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feedback. For any clarification on points raised please
contact David Griffiths, Head of Strategic Policy and Resilience. [email address].

Yours sincerely

Phil Mauger
Mayor of Christchurch

7

Future for Local Government – Draft Report Recommendations and Questions

Recommendations and Questions
Response
Chapter 2 (pg. 40-61) - REVITALISING CITIZEN-LED DEMOCRACY
1.  That local government adopts greater use of deliberative and
  Councils could do this now subject to resourcing – which to do
participatory democracy in local decision-making.
well could be significant
  This is best suited to big complex issues/ decisions and may not
be so suitable for the many less complex and significant decisions
councils make on a regular basis.
  It could be challenging to incorporate Māori/ mana whenua
participation appropriately. Processes are likely to emerge that
are unique to Aotearoa/ New Zealand to achieve this.
  Need to avoid the usual suspects dominating participation.
  Plenty of examples/ lessons learned from New Zealand and
around the world using a variety of mechanisms addressing a
variety of issues.
  Would central government agencies partner with councils in
deliberative and participatory decision-making processes where
central government will participate in and resource resulting
initiatives?
2.  That local government, supported by central government, reviews
  The legislation is already less prescriptive than it was and
the legislative provisions relating to engagement, consultation, and
councils can largely decide for themselves how they engage with
decision-making to ensure they provide a comprehensive,
their communities.
meaningful, and flexible platform for revitalising community
  Councils may need to use their Significance and Engagement
participation and engagement.
Policy more effectively to provide better opportunities for
innovative/ effective engagement.
  Any change to legislation would need to integrate seamlessly
with deliberative democracy imperatives referred to above.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  But do residents real y want to participate in decision-making
(more)? Or are they happy leaving councils to make decisions and
“get on with it”?
3.  That central government leads a comprehensive review of
  The Council agrees this work needs to be done to set a consistent
requirements for engaging with Māori across local government
platform for engagement with Māori across the country.
related legislation, considering opportunities to streamline or align
  The process will need to also enable local solutions to be
those requirements.
developed locally in consultation with mana whenua.

4.  That councils develop and invest in their internal systems for
  Most councils would agree this is important.
managing and promoting good quality engagement with Māori.
  Councils generally do this now, subject to resourcing – which to
do wel  could be significant.
  Requires central government funding to resource both councils
and iwi/ hapū to build mutual understanding and effective
relationships.
  CCC and Ngai Tahu Papatipu rūnanga have established
governance arrangements to promote good quality engagement
between Council and mana whenua. This includes:
-  Te Hononga – Council/ Papatipu rūnanga committee
-  Te Kāhui Kahukura - Representative Papatipu rūnanga body
with authority to exercise decision making powers on behalf
of Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga with a focus on environmental
management and regulatory decision-making.

5.  That central government provides a statutory obligation for councils
  Most councils will agree this is important.
to give due consideration to an agreed, local expression of tikanga
  Statutory requirements would provide direction and clarity for
whakahaere in their standing orders and engagement practices, and
councils. This would provide a consistent benchmark level on
for chief executives to be required to promote the incorporation of
which councils and mana whenua/ Maori can build locally
tikanga in organisational systems.
relevant approaches.
  How to monitor and evaluate any requirements on chief
executives?

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  Might requirements be better made of councils themselves?

Q. What might we do more of to increase community understanding
  Councils need to find ways to better engage with hard to reach
about the role of local government, and therefore lead to greater civic
communities. This will inevitably make community engagement
participation?
more complex and increase the resources required so it will be
important to co-design engagement with the target communities
to maximise efficiencies and value for money.
  Councils need to continue to improve at telling our stories. There
has been significant improvement in recent years but we are still
not having communities consistently understand the value
proposition of the work councils do.
  Central government must stop using councils as a whipping boy
and should instead show genuine trust and respect towards
councils. Too often councils get the blame from central
government for wicked issues. For example, central government
has blamed the housing crisis largely on council planning rules
and (lack of) infrastructure provision. This grossly oversimplifies a
complex issue. While there was clearly value for central
government in shifting perception of the cause from central to
local government on this particularly issue it has significant
longer term impacts in that it perpetuates a view in the
community of council incompetence and ambivalence – why
would the community want to engage?
If central government had instead openly worked with local
government to collaboratively find solutions it would have had a
vastly different impact on community perceptions and on
residents’ willingness to engage with both local and central
government on a broad range of issues.
Our residents need to see us as being worthy of their investment
in time in participation in decision-making.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
Chapter 3 (pg. 62-98) - TIRITI-BASED PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN MĀORI AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
6.  That central government leads an inclusive process to develop a new
  We agree that a legislative framework is likely to be useful to
legislative framework for Tiriti-related provisions in the Local
provide direction and impetus to the ongoing development and
Government Act that drives a genuine partnership in the exercise of
maintenance of relationships between local government and
kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga in a local context and explicitly
Māori.
recognises te ao Māori values and conceptions of wellbeing.
  Māori engagement in local government decision-making has
often been focused on matters affecting water and land. Three
Waters reform means decision-making regarding water and
waterways largely shifts from councils to WSEs. This doesn’t seem
to be acknowledged or addressed in the report. WSEs will need to
be key players in future local governance. Councils will lose most
of their expertise and interest in water-related matters and
associated decision-making. How will the co-governance
partnership between councils and Māori function in practice
given councils will no longer be responsible for water and water
bodies.
  Similarly decisions regarding land use will shift from councils to
regional planning and spatial planning committees. These
committees will also be key players in future local governance.
  In future Council – Māori relationships will need to be based on
matters that have until now have been peripheral to existing
relationships. What will those be?
  Iwi/ hapū may see their relationships with WSEs and regional
planning committees as a higher priority than their relationships
with councils.
7.  That councils develop with hapū/iwi and significant Māori
  Many councils will already have something like this though
organisations within a local authority area, a partnership framework
perhaps few will be considered successful by all parties.
that complements existing co-governance arrangements by
  Agree these initiatives need to be given a high priority
ensuring all groups in a council area are involved in local governance
  Agree there needs to be a greater level of direction and
in a meaningful way.
accountability within local government- Māori relationships.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  Again, effective relationship building and maintenance is
resource intensive. Would be a significant help if government
funding was available for all parties.
  Need local solutions developed locally. CCC has worked with Ngai
Tahu rūnanga to establish Te Hononga, a mana whenua- Council
committee. This enables the Council and Papatipu rūnanga to
work together to establish shared understanding of issues
important to all.
8.  That central government introduces a statutory requirement for
  This could promote a more consistent level of understanding and
local government chief executives to develop and maintain the
engagement across all councils but may be challenging to express
capacity and capability of council staff to grow understanding and
appropriately through statutory requirement.
knowledge of Te Tiriti, the whakapapa of local government, and te
  There may also be issues around establishing whether a statutory
ao Māori values.
requirement is or isn’t being given effect to and what response is
required where it is not being appropriately progressed by a chief
executive.
9.  That central government explores a stronger statutory requirement
  Agree that stronger statutory requirements are needed to ensure
on councils to foster Māori capacity to participate in local
meaningful participation at a consistent level
government.
  Needs to be developed in partnership with Iwi/ mana whenua
  Needs to be adequately resourced – which is likely to require
central government funding
  Needs to be flexible enough for local priorities to be addressed
and for local flavour/ nuances to be included

10.  That local government leads the development of coordinated
  This is essential for genuine change to be effected.
organisational and workforce development plans to enhance the
  This probably needs to align with any statutory requirement for
capability of local government to partner and engage with Māori.
chief executives to develop and maintain the capacity and
capability of staff around Te Tiriti, the whakapapa of local
government, and te ao Māori values.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
11.  That central government provides a transitional fund to subsidise
  Significant additional resourcing will be required for both Māori
the cost of building both Māori and council capability and capacity
and councils so this would greatly help to bring about change
for a Tiriti-based partnership in local governance.
  Could be a generic national base programme on which local
knowledge and requirements can be built
  Likely to need to be more than a transitional fund if this work is to
be ongoing. We understand that at some point it will hopefully be
simply BAU but that could take some time and ongoing
investment.
Chapter 4 (pg. 102-114) - ALLOCATING ROLES AND FUNCTIONS IN A WAY THAT ENHANCES WELLBEING
12.  That central and local government note that the allocation of the
  Agree – there will be a range of approaches involving different
roles and functions is not a binary decision between being delivered
types of partnership/ collaboration and aligned work
centrally or locally.
programmes that will evolve to meet the needs of specific
situations.
  These arrangements will take time to develop as organisations
will need to gain a shared understanding of situations and
priorities.
  The challenge is like to be how to maintain collaborative over
time as governments and councils change and key people
involved come and go.
13.  That local and central government, in a Tiriti-consistent manner,
  Agree
review the future al ocations of roles and functions by applying the
  This needs to be sufficiently fluid so as to support changes in
proposed approach, which includes three core principles:
priorities and service delivery mechanisms and expectations.
  the concept of subsidiarity
  local government’s capacity to influence the conditions for
wellbeing is recognised and supported
  te ao Māori values underpin decision-making.
Q: What process would need to be created to support and agree on the
  Local or regional wellbeing forums/ councils could be formed to
allocation of roles and functions across central government, local
enable all partners to work together to identify priorities and
government, and communities?
responses and allocate roles and functions.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  Forums may need to specialise – e.g. social forum, environmental
forum, economic forum, cultural forum. Could be a number of
ways of doing this.
  The framework proposed in the Report would provide the ability
for decisions to be made on roles and functions
  The forums could decide to establish bespoke approaches to
service delivery. E.g. it could be decided that a single service
provider is used across a region for the collection and disposal of
waste while local service providers/ solutions are used for
recycling.
  Could have a local wellbeing plan that brings all this together
Q: What conditions will need to be in place to ensure the flexibility of the
  A transparent decision-making framework for allocating roles and
approach proposed does not create confusion or unnecessary
responsibilities will go a long way towards mitigating this risk.
uncertainty?
Q: What additional principles, if any, need to be considered?
  Efficiency/ value for money. There may be situations where the
cost associated with service delivery that supports the other
principles outweighs the benefits. While this shouldn’t be the
overriding consideration it should be a principle underpinning
decision-making.

Chapter 5 (pg 115-132) LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS CHAMPION AND ACTIVATOR OF WELLBEING
14.  That local government, in partnership with central government,
  Draft report has little recognition of the work all councils already
explores funding and resources that enable and encourage councils
do in the wel being space. The report tends to present good
to:
examples as exceptions rather than the rule which probably
a.  lead, facilitate, and support innovation and
undersel s the extent of existing local government initiatives.
experimentation in achieving greater social, economic,
  Councils are already partnering with NGOs and in some cases
cultural, and environmental wel being outcomes
with central government.
b.  build relational, partnering, innovation, and co-design
  CCC has a procurement policy with community value
capability and capacity across their whole organisation
procurement at its heart. Weighting is given to community value
wellbeing outcomes.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
c.  embed social/progressive procurement and supplier
  CCC requires contractors to pay the Living Wage and to have a CC
diversity as standard practice in local government with
policy.
nationally supported organisational infrastructure and
  Councils mostly act as anchor institutions but scope to
capability and capacity building
significantly increase this.
d.  review their levers and assets from an equity and

wellbeing perspective and identify opportunities for
strategic and transformational initiatives
e.  take on the anchor institution role, initially through
demonstration initiatives with targeted resources and
peer support
f.  share the learning and emerging practice from innovation
and experimentation of their enhanced wel being role.
Q. What feedback do you have on the roles councils can play to enhance
  It depends on what local government’s roles and functions end
intergenerational wellbeing?
up being.
  Councils have strong knowledge and relationships with their
communities. This is vital to efficiently and effectively identify
what issues and opportunities are important to particular
communities and to identify who is best placed to be part of any
response.
  If central government decides councils should focus on roads,
rubbish, regulation and parks then their local knowledge and
relationships won’t be optimally utilised.
  Councils will lose a lot of their support functions horsepower
(comms, engagement, policy, legal etc) as a result of Three Water
Reform and Resource Management Reform. In some respects
there wil  need to be some immediate refocusing of work to try to
retain skilled staff.
Q. What changes would support councils to utilise their existing assets,
  More positive relationships with central government
enablers, and levers to generate more local wel being?
representatives and agencies based on mutual trust and respect.
  New sources of funding to supplement rates revenue to fund new
services.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  Whole of community collaboration in identifying and responding
to issues and priorities.
  Building increased capacity and capability in councils to enable
them to take more of a community leadership role as place-
maker, networker and coordinator and as anchor institutions.
  Working at a level and a scale that enables even small
communities to receive quality services – which is likely to require
council amalgamations and/ or shared service delivery.
Chapter 6 (pg. 134-158) A STRONGER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Q. To create a collaborative relationship between central and local
a.  the conditions for success and the barriers that are preventing
government that builds on current strengths and resources, what are:
strong relationships?
a.  the conditions for success and the barriers that are
  Needs to be mutual trust and respect, particularly from central
preventing strong relationships?
government
b.  the factors in place now that support genuine
  Need to identify opportunities to work together based on shared
partnership?
issues and the likelihood a collaborative response wil  be useful
c.  the elements needed to build and support a new system?
  We don’t see any interest in pursuing this type of approach from
d.  the best options to get there?
central government. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022
e.  potential pathways to move in that direction and where
requires Health New Zealand to consult local authorities affected
to start?
by the locality plan but doesn’t require our involvement in co-
f.  the opportunities to trial and innovate now?
designing services or initiatives or even in working in partnership
with Health New Zealand to promote community wel being.
  The Government recently produced a Social Sector
Commissioning 2022–2028 Action Plan, the purpose of which is
“Transforming the way social supports and services are
commissioned so that they best support people, families and
whanau to live the lives they value” . The document details how
the Government will work with iwi/ whanau, NGOs and
communities to deliver better social services and outcomes. The
document references local government just once with “local
council” as being an “other party”.  In the context of this review

Recommendations and Questions
Response
this is alarming. The final report needs to call out the persistent
ignoring of local government as a key community partner and
promote a more collaborative and trusting model of local
governance.
  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.
  Clarity and certainty from the Government that there is a future
based on localism and collaboration is needed for councils to
invest in relationship building and partnering. There hasn’t been
any indication of this in the Review process to date. The standard
response has been “this is local government’s review process”.
Not helpful and not good enough.
b.  The factors in place now that support genuine partnership?
  Established relationships and shared work programmes in place
with a range of government agencies including Waka Kotahi,
Kāinga Ora, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Te
Whatu Ora
  Multidisciplinary collaboration via the Greater Christchurch
Urban Growth Partnership
  Regional strategic planning and delivery via Canterbury Mayoral
Forum and specialised subsidiary fora including strategic
planning, resource management, information and
communications technology.
c.  The elements needed to build and support a new system?
  The collective/ interdependent model proposed in the Report
offers an excellent starting point for thinking about how local and
central govern and hapū/ iwi can work together.
d.  The best options to get there?

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  While central government has a preference for engaging at the
regional level (as this is seen as efficient) this risks losing the
benefits councils bring in their knowledge of the specific needs of
communities.
  Local wellbeing plans may be needed to capture the issues and
opportunities at a local level which can then be aggregated to
regional wellbeing plans with commonalities identified and
responded to at a regional or sub-regional level and specifics
responded to at a local level often in partnership with local
communities.
e.  Potential pathways to move in that direction and where to start?
  See above
f.  The opportunities to trial and innovate now?
  There are already many examples around the country where
these approaches are being used as the basis for partnership and
to address wellbeing in communities.
  It may be a case of extending programmes already in place to
expand the scope of services provided or the geographic reach of
existing services including through councils working together to
do this.
  Further opportunities will inevitably require further resourcing to
realise them. Central government funding is likely to be key to
expanding on what already works well.
Q. How can central and local government explore options that empower
  Local or regional wellbeing forums/ councils could be formed to
and enable a role for hapū/iwi in local governance in partnership with
enable all partners to work together to identify priorities and
local and central government? These options should recognise the
responses and allocate roles and functions.
contribution of hapū/iwi rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and other roles.
  We are still engaging with Canterbury Papatipu Rūnanga on this
issue noting that we are still in the early stages of the review into
the Future for Local Government.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
Chapter 7 (pg 161-184) REPLENISHING AND BUILDING ON REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
15.  That the Electoral Commission be responsible for overseeing the
  We support an increased role for the Electoral Commission, but
administration of local body elections.
note that further consideration and research needs to be
undertaken on whether all aspects of local elections should be
run by the Commission. We have concerns that a single approach
to all aspects of a local election would remove local and/or
regional aspects of an election – one size does not fit all.  There
needs to be consideration of the different representation
arrangements across local government and an understanding of
the broad breadth of local government roles across the country.
  We are also concerned that the cost to councils for the Electoral
Commission to run an election is unknown. This risk could be
mitigated by central government funding local elections.
  We also need to better understand the value of the Electoral
Commission taking responsibility for local elections, as well as
what functions the Commission would take over and what would
be left for the councils to do.
  Legislation needs to al ow for opportunities to modernise voting
and remove barriers to voting. Enrolled electors currently receive
their voting documents by post; this this is not an enduring or
reliable way of providing voting documents. Postal delivery
services are not daily and are often subject to external factors
that have a significant impact on reliability, including but not
limited to weather, mail theft and staff availability.
16.  That central government undertakes a review of the legislation to:
  All seem intuitively reasonable/ positive but the draft report
a.  adopt Single Transferrable Vote as the voting method for
doesn’t present evidence that would make the recommended
council elections
changes compel ing
b.  lower the eligible voting age in local body elections to the
  The Council supports consideration of lowering of the voting age
age of 16
to 16, for New Zealand elections. However this must be supported
c.  provide for a 4-year local electoral term
by an increased national focus on civic awareness and education

Recommendations and Questions
Response
d.  amend the employment provisions of chief executives to
that increases understanding of the roles of both local and
match those in the wider public sector and include
national government.
mechanisms to assist in managing the employment
  Local and central government electoral terms should be aligned.
relationship.
  Initial thoughts of this council were to support a four year term
but limited support for STV and lowering the voting age. If there
are compelling reasons to do the latter two then a stronger case
needs to be made.
17.  That central and local government, in conjunction with the
  This Council has, in the past, submitted on the need to move
Remuneration Authority, review the criteria for setting elected
away from the population-based funding formula for setting
member remuneration to recognise the increasing complexity of the
Community Board remuneration. The members of our Banks
role and enable a more diverse range of people to consider standing
Peninsula community board are currently paid significantly less
for election.
than members from other boards despite needing the same skills
and putting in the same time to the role.
  The same applies to the remuneration of councillors at smaller
councils up closer to those in larger councils. The issues are often
very similar as is the time commitment required from elected
members.
18.  That local government develops a mandatory professional
  LGNZ already provides training for elected members and it would
development and support programme for elected members; and
make sense to build on this.
local and central government develop a shared executive
  Council induction programmes are, by necessity, often
professional development and secondment programme to achieve
comprehensive and time consuming.
greater integration across the two sectors.
  There should be opportunities for professional development on
top of these but some thought would need to be given as to
whether they should be mandatory.
  Many new elected members have had time on community boards
and in other governance roles so have some understanding of the
requirements and expectations.
19.  That central and local government:
  Agree councils should be supported and encouraged to
a.  support and enable councils to undertake regular health
undertake regular health checks of their democratic
checks of their democratic performance
performance. We note the CouncilMark programme provides this.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
b.  develop guidance and mechanisms to support councils
  Agree the LG Commission could develop guidance and
resolving complaints under their code of conduct and
mechanisms to resolve some issues.
explore a specific option for local government to refer
  The Ombudsman’s findings are usually a useful guide and prompt
complaints to an independent investigation process,
for councils with respect to openness and transparency. It is not
conducted and led by a national organisation
clear that amending LGOIMA would necessarily have the same
c.  subject to the findings of current relevant ombudsman’s
effect.
investigations, assess whether the provisions of the Local
  Councils need to have the ability to exclude the public in
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987,
accordance with the current provisions of LGOIMA but there are
and how it is being applied, support high standards of
inevitably many grey areas and the Ombudsman’s work helps
openness and transparency.
clarify those.
20.  That central government retain the Māori wards and constituencies
  Agree – consistent with Ecan/ Ngāi Tahu approach.
mechanism (subject to amendment in current policy processes), but
  As this Review is still in its early stages, we haven’t yet engaged
consider additional options that provide for a Tiriti-based
with Papatipu Rūnanga on this issue.
partnership at the council table
Q. How can local government enhance its capability to undertake
  The LG Commission already provide a significant amount of
representation reviews and, in particular, should the Local Government
guidance with respect to representation reviews. As part of our
Commission play a more proactive role in leading or advising councils
Council’s 2022 representation review the LG Commission
about representation reviews?
provided a number of recommendations for Council to consider
at the next representation review.
  The Commission needs the capability to advise councils on the
variety of options possible for Māori/ Mana Whenua seats/
representation.
  If changes like moving to STV voting or having Māori seats are
seen as compelling in terms of promoting democratic
participation and accountability then these should be legislated
for rather than changed through representation reviews. Need to
be careful that Commission advice isn’t seen as a way to
encourage councils to make the “right” choices about their
representation arrangements.
Q. To support a differentiated liberal citizenship, what are the essential
  Allow all councils to coat-tail on the Canterbury Regional Council
key steps, parameters, and considerations that would enable both Tiriti
(Ngāi Tahu Representation) Act 2022 to introduce appointed

Recommendations and Questions
Response
and capability-based appointments to be made to supplement elected
mana whenua seats. It is not efficient for each individual council
members?
wanting to establish appointed mana whenua seats to seek
bespoke legislation.
  Councils use expert advice in their deliberations all the time. It is
hard to see that capability-based appointments would
necessarily improve decision-making.
Chapter 8 (pg187-204) EQUITABLE FUNDING AND FINANCE
21.  That central government expands its regulatory impact statement
  Agree – this should always have been happening.
assessments to include the impacts on local government; and that it
  The example whereby the Director General of Health can require
undertakes an assessment of regulation currently in force that is
councils to fluoridate water supplies at the councils’ cost with the
likely to have significant future funding impacts for local
key beneficiary being the Ministry of Health (and some individual
government and makes funding provision to reflect the national
residents) highlights the issue of unfunded mandates clearly.
public-good benefits that accrue from those regulations.
22.  That central and local government agree on arrangements and
  Agree that if partnership/ collaborative work is to be increasingly
mechanisms for them to co-invest to meet community wellbeing
used then mechanisms will need to evolve to better enable this.
priorities, and that central government makes funding provisions
  Councils and central government currently have different
accordingly.
timelines for budget preparation and this makes so-funding
difficult. Councils have had issues with budgeting for transport
programmes when Waka Kotahi funding isn’t confirmed in time
for LTP adoption.
23.  That central government develops an intergenerational fund for
  Council sees this as absolutely necessary if councils and
climate change, with the application of the fund requiring
communities are going to be able to respond to the effects of
appropriate regional and local decision-making input.
climate change.
  In terms of acute adaptation the fund could be similar to EQC
funding.
  Proactive adaptation will need to operate under a different
approach with a decision-making framework that enables a fair
approach to prioritising investment.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
  Likely to be a run on the funding at some point. How would this
be funding be allocated if there wasn’t sufficient funding to
address all claims that arise in a short period of time – say a major
ice melt causing significant and rapid sea level rise?
  Note that this type of funding is unlikely to be appropriate for LG.
24.  That central government reviews relevant legislation to:
  Agree with this recommendation
a.  enable councils to introduce new funding mechanisms
  Suggest changing relevant legislation to enable councils to set
b.  retain rating as the principal mechanism for funding local
new rates such as road tolls, bed tax, congestion tax
government, while redesigning long-term planning and
  Suggest changing section 8 of the LG (Rating) Act to make
rating provisions to allow a more simplified and
councils responsible for deciding which land, if any is non-
streamlined process.
rateable. Obviously this would also require the removal of
Schedule 1 of the Act.
  Rates are a relatively simple and streamlined funding mechanism.
25.  That central government agencies pay local government rates and
  Agree. There is no rationale for the Crown and its agencies not to
charges on all properties.
pay rates.
  Also all charges e.g. development contributions
Q: What is the most appropriate basis and process for allocating central
  This is a complex issue that needs to be worked through and
government funding to meet community priorities?
needs to remain flexible enough to respond to changing
circumstances and priorities.
  Needs to recognise population and specific need based on
deprivation, growth, and other specific needs. Will never be
perfect so wil  need periodic review.
Chapter 9 (pg. 206-220) - SYSTEM DESIGN
26.  That central and local government explore and agree to a new Tiriti-
  Agree that central and local government should invest in a
consistent structural and system design that will give effect to the
programme to develop a consistent framework to enable Tiriti-
design principles.
consistent structural and system design with advice from iwi/
hapū.
  To the extent possible the framework needs to empower councils
and their communities to make decisions regarding structural

Recommendations and Questions
Response
and system design rather than having central government or a
prescriptive framework override local decision-making.
27.  That local government, supported by central government, invests in
  Agree that there needs to be impetus given to increasing the
a programme that identifies and implements the opportunities for
investment in seeking opportunities for efficiencies and service
greater shared services collaboration.
improvements via shared services collaboration.
  Development of shared services needs to explore opportunities
for nationally consistent approaches that further provide
economies of scale beyond that possible by regional approaches
only.
  It could be that a national review framework is developed that
requires all councils to participate in assessing shared service
opportunities. There has been far too little investment made to
date in regions and it seems clear that an element of compulsion
is required.
  Could be undertaken by or commissioned by LGNZ and LG
contribution funded as a surcharge on LGNZ membership
  Central Government should contribute at least 50% of cost
28.  That local government establishes a Local Government Digital
  Agree that a digital partnership is likely to produce efficiencies.
Partnership to develop a digital transformation roadmap for local
  However, it could also stifle innovation and investment in new
government.
technologies if change needs to occur at a national level. Any
Digital Partnership would need to include investment in
innovation and trialling of new software and hardware options
among member councils.
Q. What other design principles, if any, need to be considered?
Communities of interest. It is challenging forcing some communities to
work together as part of a redesigned local government system. Some
towns and districts still haven’t resolved issues arising from the 1989 local
government reorganisation. Where possible any reorganisation needs to
be coalitions of the willing though there may need to be some coercion
required.

Recommendations and Questions
Response
Q. What feedback have you got on the structural examples presented in
Example 2 – local and regional councils (status quo with tweaks) – seems
the report?
unlikely to enable the economies of scope and scale likely to be
necessary for efficient local government service delivery with three
waters, resource management and possibly building regulation shifted
out of local authorities.

Example 1 – essentially an Auckland Council model – and Example 3 -
Local councils and a combined council with shared representation –
appear better models to deliver economies of scope and scale.

Our preference is for a unitary authority model that can be adapted to
suit local needs and preferences. This model would able to be adapted to
fit virtually any scale from a city like Christchurch to a region as we
currently know them such as Canterbury.

Combining the functions of local and regional councils provides
economies of scope and scale that the other models don’t provide as
easily.

The ability to use wards for voting and local or community boards to
promote local voice and representation are also attractive features of this
model.

Could have Tiriti-based appointments or Māori wards at the board and/
or governance body level.

What is a region? There also needs to be thought given to what a region
is. There seems no logical reason why it can only be regions as we
currently have them. Again, councils need the ability to decide what a
region might be under a new structure. A nationally consistent
assessment and decision-making as referred to above and appropriate

Recommendations and Questions
Response
community engagement should ensure decisions on structure are
appropriate to the communities concerned.

What is a district or locality? There is also no logical reason why a
district or locality follows current district council boundaries. Again, the
assessment and decision-making framework needs to allow for this.

Rohe also need to be considered. Iwi/ hapū rohe or takiwā need to be
built in to the assessment and decision-making framework. These are
traditional and not generally open to reframing so there will need to be
space for compromise to resolve possible inconsistencies within the
assessment and decision-making framework.

Form and function. The old saying that form follows function may
require an iterative process in this situation. To some extent who does
what could be determined by the structure. Where will the capacity and
capability to get things done be concentrated?
Chapter 10 (pg. 227-233) SYSTEM STEWARDSHIP AND SUPPORT
29.  That central and local government considers the best model of

stewardship and which entities are best placed to play system
stewardship roles in a revised system of local government.
Q. How can system stewardship be reimagined so that it is led across
  Bring central government responsibility for local government out
local government, hapū/iwi, and central government?
of DIA and have a standalone entity responsible that has reach
right across central government
  Resource the LGC so it can provide more advisory and training
services to promote good local government
  LGNZ and Taituarā need to be sufficiently resourced to provide
the advice and support local government (and central
government) will require through any change process. Much of

Recommendations and Questions
Response
the change will require levels of consensus among councils on
thorny issues associated with the future of local government.
Some brave decisions will need to be made that will require our
peak organisations to help councils to navigate. The alternative is
to simply wait for central government to dictate what change will
look like.
  LGNZ and Taituarā will inevitably be required to negotiate with
and work with central government on change. They need to have
the resources and the wil  to do this in ways that are supported by
councils who are fully aware of the options, trade-offs and
processes involved.
  Given the level of dissatisfaction among councils with LGNZ’s
advocacy on Three Waters Reform they will need to show councils
they are up to playing a pivotal role in the future of local
government.
Q. How do we embed Te Tiriti in local government system stewardship?
  Clarify roles and responsibilities via legislative change.
  Resource councils and iwi/ hapū to work together to identify
appropriate pathways to embedding Te Tiriti at all levels of local
government.
  Resource Te Maruata so it can provide advice and support to
councils and Māori elected members regarding Te Tiriti-based
partnership as part of a broad programme to embed te Tiriti.
Q. How should the roles and responsibilities of ‘stewardship’
  All need to be significantly better resourced they currently are to
organisations (including the Secretary of Local Government (Department
provide the breadth of analysis and advice needed to make a
of Internal Affairs), the Local Government Commission, LGNZ, and
fundamental difference.
Taituarā) evolve and change?