Reader Michael says that although this is about Rotorua, it can easily apply here in Kapiti.
by Reynold Macpherson on Rotorua Daily Post
Rotorua ratepayers should be cautious when told that 90 days is too short for councils to consult ratepayers and begin reform proposals.
The problem is not the deadline. Successive councils in Rotorua have had years to confront hard facts and failed. They had time to reform a deficit-based financial strategy, restrain debt, restore public confidence, and make policy processes open, disciplined and democratic. Instead, ratepayers have watched debt rise, rates climb, projects drift and costs shift on to households and businesses facing an affordability crisis. In my view the Government’s deadline is a response to accumulated failure.
Rotorua’s problem is also democratic. After the Attorney-General’s 2022 finding against the proposed Rotorua local electoral arrangements, one might have expected a reset. The proposal was found inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination.
Yet the deeper habit did not disappear. Influence moved upstream.
Formal co-governance was stopped in one form. But unelected influence continued through committees, forums, advisory structures, workshops, officials’ papers, partnership processes and pre-decision settings. That is where problems are framed, options narrowed, and preferred solutions shaped before the public sees a final agenda.
This is not an argument against iwi engagement, Treaty relationships, or cultural advice. It is an argument for democratic visibility. If iwi representatives, officials, consultants or advisory groups shape policy, that influence should be visible, authorised, contestable and accountable. Local democracy is not protected because councillors cast the final vote. If decisive work is done upstream, upstream influence must be open to scrutiny.
That is why the chief executive’s assurance that the council will “take direction” from elected officials to me rings hollow. In my view, it is fatuous to promise to follow elected members when they are often marginalised from upstream policy work. By the time matters reach them, assumptions may be built in, options filtered, risks framed and conclusions embedded. The public is then offered late consultation on managed options after real choices have been narrowed. This is administrative theatre.
Ratepayers are entitled to know who shaped the proposal, who influenced the advice, what alternatives were rejected and why. They are entitled to know whether elected members led the process or endorsed what had been prepared.
Ratepayers have low expectations that elected members will now campaign for fundamental reform. Some are constrained by the mayoral award structure of roles, appointments and differentiated salaries. Others have weakened their standing through performative politics. The result is a council table poorly placed to challenge the system that feeds it.
Reynold Macpherson is a retired professor, ex-councillor and commentator on ethics, democracy and educative leadership, based in Rotorua. He may be contacted at reynold@reynoldmacpherson.ac.nz