For the last year or more the government has been berating councils for being poor fiscal managers, insisting they need to refocus on core services and cut out wasteful spending.
As well, there has been unhelpful and unfocused speculation about the future role of regional councils.
To add to the messy mix, last week the government announced a confusing set of restrictions on councils’ planning programmes to stop them doing work which will not align with the forthcoming laws replacing the existing Resource Management Act.
Plan reviews and changes will be stopped through an Amendment Paper to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, expected to become law next month.
There will be mixed views about whether councils are irresponsible big spenders on vanity projects or whether the majority of rates rises are the result of them finally trying to catch up with years of underspending on infrastructure.
What people believe is the truth may depend on the size of their rates increase and whether they take issue with some aspect of council spending they think is unnecessary.
It is convenient for the government to point the finger at local government for the impact rates rises are having on the cost of living. It diverts attention from other living cost pressures, among them continuing food price rises. Despite its big talk about reining in the dominant supermarkets, nothing changes.
The Regulatory Impact Statement on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill which passed its first reading in Parliament late last week made the point cost pressures on councils were being driven by capital and operating cost escalation, flowing from supply chain upheaval and a tight labour market during the pandemic and "accelerated headline inflation since".
"Infrastructure costs have long been a major cause of rate increases, with councils needing to upgrade infrastructure, especially for water and wastewater treatment plants, and invest in more infrastructure to meet growth demands.
"Around two-thirds of capital expenditure for councils is applied to core infrastructure, not including libraries and other community facilities, or parks and reserves."
What the government considers is OK for council spending and what is not has not always been clear, but the Bill attempts to shed some light on that.
It defines the core services of a local authority as network infrastructure, public transport services, waste management, civil defence emergency management, libraries, museums, reserves and other recreational facilities.
It has also tinkered with the definition of the purpose of local government to include supporting local economic growth and development.
But the purpose also states it is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities.
Many will be feeling betrayed by the failure of the National Party to live up to its promises of devolution and localism.
Local Government NZ president Sam Broughton summed up that feeling at the organisation’s conference last week, saying it felt like "every party in opposition is a localist and then as soon as they’re in power, they become a creature that draws all the more power to themselves."
Local government minister Simon Watts is still talking up plans for a rates cap, saying the government is working at pace on a model for it, despite National not seeming to have the backing of its coalition partners.
NZ First leader Winston Peters was scathing about it, quoted as saying "every other party is interfering in local government" and his party had never done this.
He suggested central government could not preach to local government when it did not have its own spending under control.
Whatever happens next, it is clear there is much to do to improve the relationship and trust between central and local government and to ensure the word local is not becoming a synonym for national. Further preaching and scolding will not achieve that.
