Farewell localism, we hardly knew ye
An AI-generated cartoon of a newspaper with the headline "Localism" being put through a paper shredder.
Despite having campaigned as vocal champions of localism in opposition to the previous Labour Government’s Three Waters reforms, the National-led Coalition Government has been ruthless in issuing diktats and threats at councils to reduce their independence since coming into office.
What started as the rolling back of Māori ward’s has rapidly been gathering pace. For example, in the legislation to progress the Local Water Done Well reform, the Coalition snuck in a backstop that allows central government to force councils to participate in water services council-controlled organisations regardless of whether the council wanted (or needed) to or not.
This erosion of localism was then further intensified at Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)’s SuperLocal conference. In his widely criticised speech, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon signalled (once he had finished scolding councils for the same sins central governments of all stripes make) the introduction of draconian restrictions on council spending, creating additional performance and accountability measures on top of the ones councils already develop in consultation with their communities in their long-term plans, and removing the four wellbeings from the Local Government Act.
Minister of Local Government Simeon Brown’s regional deal framework, also announced at the SuperLocal conference, also looks likely to tighten the straight jacket the Coalition seems intent on putting councils in.
In something eerily familiar from the Three Waters reform, in the high level criteria for a region to be considered for selection to be eligible for a regional deal, the regional deal framework requires local authorities to have “commitment to broader government reform objectives such as Local Water Done Well and Going for Housing Growth.” Such wording similar to what happened under Three Waters, where agreements for Better Off funding contained a clause suggesting to councils that accepting the funding should then mean they wouldn’t oppose the reform. This was never enforced and the Department of Internal Affairs had to continually issue reassurances about it, but it further poisoned public perceptions about the reform.
Likewise, many of the new funding tools being proposed in the framework are likely to be so closely dependent on funding and financing the new infrastructure in regional deals that they are unlikely to make a meaningful difference to the underlying fiscal crisis facing local government more broadly.
Even the nature of the regional deals themselves, which resemble more the laundry-lists of infrastructure and economic development projects of the Australian model, rather than the devolution approach of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, will see heavy central government oversight of the deals rather than entrusting local government with any additional independence.
Simeon Brown even went so far as to order in his media release that councils weren’t to produce “extravagant proposal documents”, despite the professionally designed regional deals framework document that he issued running to some 28 pages.
Other than some non-specific noises about reducing the regulatory burden on councils, local government could be forgiven for believing that the Coalition’s commitment to localism during last year’s General Election campaign was only ever performative at best.
