Rich tapestry of dysfunction

Will local government reforms finally rid us of councils' appetite for short-term projects?

- Danyl McLauchlan

In Emily Perkins' novel Lioness, the story turns on an allegation of cronyism and conflicts of interest between a property developer and a Wellington city councillor - a plot that makes sense in nearly every democracy in the world except New Zealand. We like to do things differently, ie, badly, and our local government dysfunction runs in the opposite direction. Our councillors don't have enough power to be crooked. They have little-to-no say about the operational decisions made by the agencies they allegedly govern. Their officials are largely autonomous; what meagre authority mayors and councillors wield can be overruled by central government at a whim. Now the Prime Minister is musing about abolishing regional councils entirely.

This is an election year for local bodies. Nominations open in mid-July. If you relish a career with minimal influence but considerable responsibility; if you'd like to spend your evenings being yelled at by residents furious about late buses, contaminated drinking water and rising rates, then patronised and ignored by the officials who deliver these services - or, increasingly, don't - then life as a local body politician may be for you. At least the pay is terrible. Mayors, chairs and councils in large cities are generally paid full time, albeit far less than their council executives. For most of the rest the remuneration is part-time or an honorarium.

Voter turnout for local body elections has been drifting downwards for 30 years, with various culprits suggested: postal voting? disenfranchised youth? the death of local media? The most persuasive argument is the poor design of the system.