Post
One of the biggest problems with local government in Aotearoa is that central government have devolved a whole lot of responsibilities to them, without passing on sufficient funding to fulfill them. So they either need to hike rates, increase council debt, or both. Or cut services.
A lot of this is effectively creative accounting by govts. Moving public spending and debt onto someone else's balance sheet, so their own books look healthier come election time.
(1/?)
Localism wherever the locals agree with Luxon. Centralism wherever they don't.
I have a few ideas for how we might fix this;
* half of all tax taken should be passed on to local government. Based on the residential address each taxpayer has on file at IRD
* half of all rates taken should be passed on to central govt
* devolve as many govt functions as possible to local bodies. Especially things like running schools, hospitals and other public medical services, Kāinga Ora housing, etc.
Give local people the responsibility and the necessary resources.
(2/?)
So whatever tax we pay - including rates as a land tax - is shared 50/50 between central and local government. Local govt no longer need to hike rates or cut spending to keep debt down, and have much less incentive to do so.
The people making decisions about the provision of public services are right there in the area, where local people can hold them accountable for how those services are run. Which creates a stronger incentive to participate in local body elections.
(3/?)
In my ideal Aotearoa we'd go much further, replacing the Westminster system of government with a federal model. Where local bodies are sovereign, and delegate responsibilities - for things like foreign affairs and defence - to central bodies. Rather than vice-versa.
As I understand it, this was how pre-colonisation Māori politics worked. Hapū were sovereign, and iwi were federations, which coordinated things like diplomatic relations and trade with hapū who were members of other iwi.
(4/4)
What's your take on devolution of powers to national assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? I've generally seen this as positive step towards decentralisation of governance. But I guess it could also be a way to pass down responsibilities without passing down resources.
I do know that "devolution" when used in the context of English local authorities actually means "centralisation". The spin is that central government devolves *powers* to bodies or "mayors" representing larger areas than existing councils ... but the money they spend tends to come from funds that would otherwise have gone to the smaller councils, thus in practice the money, and therefore the power, is being centralised not devolved.
That pretty much answers my question. Sounds similar to the "super city" model pushed by the hard right for local government here.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
