Hands off our knitting

With the appointment of a new minister to the local government portfolio with what appears to be a slimmed-down view of local government's role it is timely, I believe to consider just what the appropriate role of local government should be, writes Tracy Hicks this week.

The minister has suggested that councils should "stick to their knitting", which is, he says, their core services. The real challenge begins when a definition of core services is sought, and just who should define it is it for local communities to decide or is it a role for central government?

The role of local government, as defined by Parliaments' expectations laid out in statute is relatively small when compared to other western nations. However, community expectation has resulted in local government providing services outside those boundaries such as libraries, cultural and social facilities, pools and recreational areas, which I believe both central government and local communities would define as core to the healthy functioning of a community.

Local government's provision of services has been an evolving process, with expectations of core services in the past including such things as abattoirs, ports, airports and fire brigades.

It appears to me that the word "core" is a word that in this context should be fluid and able to move with community needs and expectations.

Communities are different, and the wants and needs of a city as compared to a rural authority are quite divergent. Yes, the basic essentials required for safety and health may well be very similar but once those bases are covered then the expectations of those communities come into play, which in turn recognises that diversity. This is why rural councils may find their meetings focused on the challenges of rural roading, funded by property taxes, while urban based councils tackle issues such as economic development and city promotion. Both are responding to the expectations of their communities at the time.

I hold the view that a list of core services defined nationally has the real potential for a loss of local character and flair, with each community looking and feeling very much like one another up and down the country. From a pure accounting perspective this would be the route to take. It's simple to administer and monitor but with the greatest respect to the accounting profession, it's also boring and sterile, reflecting little of the way New Zealand has developed during the past century.

Currently local government politicians have the ability to make a difference, for better or worse, and then their respective communities make the choice on a three-yearly cycle whether indeed their contribution has been for better or worse at the ballot box.

The starting point of any journey toward change must be the clear and concise definition of what the problem you hope to fix is. I am sure we are all aware of the challenge surrounding Auckland, but I am less clear about what, if any, the problem is across the rest of the country.

Some time ago we at the Gore District Council invited the minister to visit, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss some of these issues when he comes in early August.

There is an old adage in life that I think applies in this instance if it isn't broken don't fix it. Sure it can be refined and developed but in my mind the essence of core services for councils should focus on meeting community expectations at an affordable cost. It's not an easy balance to achieve but another old adage about babies and bath water comes to mind. I think we need to proceed with caution towards a tight definition of core services.

» Tracy Hicks is the Gore district mayor.

- © Fairfax NZ News