- Ele Ludemann writes –
The last six years have shown only to well that centralised decision making isn’t good for regions:
. . . The New Zealand Initiative chief economist Dr Eric Crampton said decisions were being made in Wellington with little understanding of the regions, meaning “they often get things wrong at a local level”.
He points to winter grazing and minimum wage regulations as examples.
“These things have to come from the regions. Policy is way too inflexible when it comes to meeting the needs of different regions.”
For decentralisation to work though, Crampton said local communities needed to be able to tell their councils what they needed, and the councils could in turn negotiate with central government.
Councils needed funding for long term infrastructure projects for climate change strengthening, Crampton said.
Some 60 years ago, farmers would be able to set themselves up as a board and vote to build flood banks, for example, by way of levies – collected by the council – to pay off financing debt.
“It really enabled communities to figure out what works for them.”
We had far more local decision making, control and power in the past, and it worked far better than the increased centralisation and levels of bureaucracy we’ve been saddled with by Labour.
Financing worked in such a way that councils would have to pay off any debt in a limited time – the equivalent of trying to pay a mortgage off in three years – which meant they either had to raise rates extraordinarily high over a short period, or they had to put the work off, Crampton explained.
“Bureaucrats tend to think local councils are a bunch of muppets and roll their eyes,” he said, so they didn’t give councils the tools to prove them wrong.
“You get this sense of helplessness.”
This is partly why some councils have been unable to upgrade water infrastructure, Crampton said, as these bigger projects triggered debt limits.
Three Waters is supposed to create larger lending capabilities and bulk discounts, but Crampton isn’t convinced it’ll produce the efficiencies the government says it will.
Of course it won’t. There is no way so many extra layers of bureaucracy and so much less local input can be more efficient and less expensive.
“You’re not going to get economies of scale in water pipes as you would in other council services.”
A highly leveraged new entity with a new, convoluted governance structure was economically risky, he said.
He believed a stronger water quality regulator and flexibility around regulations – stock water doesn’t have to meet human standards, for example – would allow councils to do what works in their environment, as long as the water is safe.
The regulator should set the standards and ensure they are met but leave how to do it up to councils themselves or in partnership with neighbours if that works better for them.
When deciding who to vote for, Crampton said regional voters should be looking for sympathy for regional variation and policies that allow councils to pick up more responsibilities. . .
There are only two parties that will do that – National and Act.
It’s not just Three Waters where increased centralisation has made matters worse.
Restructuring of the health system and polytechnics have been expensive failures that have increased the bureaucracies at the cost of the people who provide and use the services.
Labour’s answer to problems has been more centralisation, more bureaucrats at a much higher cost.
We need to change the government to give people more local power and control which is what most prefer.
———————————
This post by Ele Ludemann was first published on her Homepaddock blog (HERE).
Point of Order 