New Zealand with a population of over 4.4 million people provides an interesting comparator to Ireland. Both are small open economies confronting the need to position themselves within a global market to survive. Both have had to address the need for public service reform while also addressing budgetary challenges which have brought considerable austerity for their respective populations. Unfortunately there, some might suggest, the comparison stops…New Zealand won the Rugby World Cup and its banking system has been relatively well behaved!
Nonetheless, many of the public service reforms associated with New Public Management did find favour with successive national governments in New Zealand. This includes an unambiguous application of central controls on a relatively small local government system where many of the services found in other OECD local government systems, like Ireland, are the responsibility of a national department or agency. Spending as a share of total government spending is just over 9% while the spend of GDP is in the order of 4%. This spending is self-funded to a level of approx. 88%. The system employs almost 25,000. In Ireland local government spends approx. 16% of public service expenditure, employing 30,000 people. It is approx 60% self-funded on day to day spending.
Much of the spending of both systems is based on local, commercial based, property taxes. However in New Zealand this is also supplemented by local property taxes in the order of €550-€1,100, water charges of €450 as well as other charges for local services. Road taxes are based upon a road usage rate per thousand km. A family sized vehicle might be expected to cost c€45 per thousand km.
The local and regional authorities have a broadly similar range of services to their Irish counterparts. The regional bodies broadly address environmental resource management including flood control, air and water quality public transport (in part) regional recreation and, interestingly, from an Irish perspective, in light of the move to a national utility, bulk water supply. In a country plagued by earthquakes, civil defence is also a regional rather than a local function. The local authorities provide local services such as planning and development, roads, water and sewerage, local amenities, economic development, housing and public welfare. Like Ireland, the authorities are also empowered to deliver services which their communities require to underpin their well being. This has led to a range of services beyond the traditional mandate of local government much like their Irish counterparts. The key difference is however, that as they can raise local resources, subject to public consultation, they have greater flexibility to take on such services than would be the case in their Irish counterparts.
The system itself includes 11 regional councils, 12 City Councils, 54 District Councils and 6 Unitary Councils, most notably Auckland. This particular unitary council was recently established (2010) having been formed by merging an existing regional authority and the 7 city/district councils in the Auckland region. The process did bring considerable debate about the move from more local based delivery and structures. The view of the Royal Commission reviewing the local government arrangements in Auckland did suggest, that if Auckland was to compete at an international level and maintain its already incredibly high, world top ten, city-region status, the necessity to move towards a more formalised city of scale was necessary. Auckland now has a population of some 1.2 million people and is the largest local authority in either New Zealand or Australia. It has a staff of 8,000 and a budget of some NZ$3 billion (approx. €1.7 billion.) The Auckland Mayor plays an executive role. The smallest council is for the island of Chatham with a population of 726.
The New Zealand population elect some 1,614 councillors across the local and regional authorities with regional mayors being elected from within the regional authority membership. Local mayors are directly elected for 3 year terms of office by their populations. Most mayors, unlike the Auckland Mayor are non -executive. They play a political role as leader of their council, provide community leadership and can drive policy development. More interestingly they have, what the New Zealand Local Government representative body calls, “bully-pulpit powers” Each sign off the long term development and planning strategies for their areas. As a result they play a hugely influential role in the wider economic development of their communities and can use their bully pulpit powers to move other non local government planning and business development in the direction they wish to achieve.
In addition to the above structures, the authorities are empowered to establish what are called community boards, consisting of both local elected members and others at sub authority level to take on the responsibility for services which may be delegated from the relevant local authority. It is a model which appears more advanced than that proposed under the Localism Agenda in England. Most of the authorities have established such boards and they do provide an interesting model in the context of the reform of sub county government in Ireland. Delegation applies to the provision of swimming pools, medical centres, water and sewerage treatment, local security, housing and flood management among other services. In such instances, the elected councillors play a dual role, that of elected member for the higher, district or city council and as a representative, among others, taking decisions on the board which will have a direct impact on their own immediate community.
Perhaps among the more useful lessons that can be drawn from New Zealand is that there is a clear understanding that local government and public service delivery needs to acknowledge that one system does not fit all. The fact that there is the recognition that for a city-region like Auckland completely different arrangements may be necessary to keep it in its top ten position is being applied. The Auckland Mayor is, as a result, seen as the second most powerful politician in the country after the Prime Minister, something he shares with many of his counterparts in the other top ten cities of the world.
Furthermore and in terms of the wider local government system, a considerable level of freedom is available to individual local authorities to determine service delivery levels and they seem to have greater local capacity to resource such delivery due to the local financing powers available to them. This seems to mean that there is recognition of the relationship between local taxes and levels of service. The choice rests with the local electorate and therefore the capacity to self-fund is greater than is the case in Ireland. Finally the establishment of the community boards with delegated responsibilities seems to underpin the capacity of the public sector to provide local services which are seen as a priority for said communities but which may not be within the existing budgetary priorities of the national government.
Clearly more to learn from New Zealand than just how to win World Cups!!
