Within a
decade, local government in New Zealand could emerge as the most effective
check on privatised bodies and quangos.
Privatised utilities have proved that they answer only to
their major shareholders. Government owned organisations with appointed boards
are notoriously hard to discipline or influence.
New Zealand citizens are seeking the means to influence
central, professional decision-makers.
They want to make accountability more than just a treasured idea.
Proper advocates, working for the people, must be directly accountable
to the public and the need the support of expert analysts.
The local government sector has legitimacy acquired by
election and it is extending its capacity to analyse complex management
decisions in areas such as health, transport, education, employment, welfare
and conservation.
In the search for efficiency, competent Government
appointees replaced elected people. Efficiency in the provision of public
services improved, but New Zealanders lost their ability to influence
decisions.
Now people feel powerless at the mercy of service-providers,
and insignificant. They write, march, protest and complain but they do not have
a show against organised, modern managers.
The unelected elite is unmoved.
Jenny Shipley tried to ease this situation. She set
consultation protocols for the health sector, but consultation between unequal
partners will not satisfy the public.
Evidently, it is difficult to get health sector
organisations to co-ordinate with each other, let alone respond adequately to public
concerns.
Institutions supported with taxpayers’ money, specialist
managers and complex structures will always keep the unorganised public at bay.
If they cannot, they would indeed be incompetent.
Today, the media are the only practical check we have on
many key institutions, including hospitals, road builders and electricity
suppliers.
The public relies on the power of the press to embarrass
organisations and thus trigger policy change.
This mechanism is efficient and uneven in its application.
As a mechanism for policy change, the media depends on
citizens’ groups that ask questions, undertake research and keep pressure on
the decision-makers. Special-interest
groups have an important role as representatives of the public.
Recent privacy legislation has provided new scope for
managers to hide facts from the public.
This was also the effect of the personal information provisions in the
Official Information Act.
Equally, emphasis on the financial accountability and
financial target-setting, itself a good thing, has enabled service providers to
hide behind the “commercial sensitivity” sections of official information
legislation.
Changing policy also presents a barrier to the public.
Even when citizens gain information, few have the capacity to
analyse policy and develop coherent alternatives. Few can write and present technical submissions.
The result is that much agitation has very little impact on
the recipient organisations.
Ordinary people do not win arguments with career
professionals. Along with their
specialist knowledge the professionals also learn the tricks of the public
service – how to protect the organisation, deflect questions avoid burdens and
hide behind pompous or technical language.
So how can public concerns and needs be adequately brought
into consideration? How can we ensure that ordinary people have an effective
voice?
Accountability is achieved through representation, not
consultation. True public
accountability requires mechanisms that involve the election, and possible
re-election of people. Those who speak
for the people must be chosen by the people.
New Zealand now has only two substantial groups of elected
people: members of Parliament and local government councillors.
Our parliamentary representatives do their best work when
they challenge institutions and advocate for constituents. A smarter community would demand more
resources for members of Parliament.
The other line of defence for the hapless public is their local
government representative. There are many more local government representatives
than members of Parliament, and their community links in total may be better
than those of parliamentarians, particularly with MMP.
The role of local government is changing. The shift is from
service delivery and giving grants to contract funding and advocacy.
Since the 1989 legislative reforms there have been
spectacular gains in transparency focus, and management. Of course, there is plenty of distance still
to be travelled, but local government is on a signposted road.
Councillors agree that advocacy is an important council
function. For example, in the health
field, opinions differ on whether councils should provide, or fund, health
services.
But there is unanimity that councils should make submissions
to health authorities.
Local authorities can match the level of technical
competence of privatised bodies and quangos. They can give to the public voice
the depth of analysis needed to win an argument.
Local government has the funds to employ lawyers, engineers,
accountants, statisticians, and economists. All these specialists are necessary
if the public advocate is to match the resources of the quasi-public agencies
and argue at their level of sophistication.
Elected representatives have a legitimacy that appointed
managers can not claim. Support this
legitimacy with research, negotiation skills,and good access to the media, and
the public has a sporting chance.
*Robert Shaw JP, BSc. BA. MPhil(Hons) MPubPol is a Wellington freelance writer and a member of the Porirua City Council.