Peter Hodder

Measuring the Effectiveness of New Zealand’s

Taken together, these results reveal Local Government an emphasis on assessing managerial activity, with less attention being paid to Abstract effective engagement with ratepayers. A reorientation of the programme to better Local Government New Zealand’s recently introduced CouncilMARK™ meet current expectations of central scheme assesses local councils’ effective management of finance government and ratepayers for improved and resources, their leadership and their responsiveness to their community well-being is suggested. communities, and enables them to be compared and the prospect Setting the scene for a quality enhancement for collaboration towards improved performance explored. Other regime Local governments in New Zealand own measures of reputation and ratepayer participation suggest that $119 billion in fixed assets, employ 25,000 CouncilMARK may be over-emphasising managerial capability staff and spend annually nearly $10 billion relative to stakeholder engagement, which may have implications (Productivity Commission, 2018, p.4). Seventy-eight local authorities, which vary for the scheme’s value if community well-being is introduced as a considerably in size, deliver about 10% of prominent measure of performance. total public services. A small proportion of spending is locally allocated compared to Keywords local government, quality enhancement, stakeholder most OECD countries, but many central engagement, reputation, localism government services rely strongly on local authorities for delivery. In response to its ocal Government New Zealand management, service delivery and asset reputation research (discussed later in this (LGNZ) has established a voluntary management, and stakeholder engagement. article), Local Government New Zealand Lquality enhancement programme – This article compares the results of developed a ‘Local Government Excellence CouncilMARK – for local authorities in this assessment for the participating Programme’, of which CouncilMARK is a New Zealand. The programme assesses councils and also discusses the results of component. councils’ comparative performance another instrument that makes an overall On its website, LGNZ previously in aspects of governance, financial judgement on the sector’s reputation. identified three issues that needed attention: ‘Residents, ratepayers, businesses

Peter Hodder is an Advisor, Accreditation and Projects in the School of Government at Victoria and central government all expect the best University of Wellington and a Director at HodderBalog Social and Scientific Research, Wellington. services and value from councils, but most

Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 – Page 75 Measuring the Effectiveness of New Zealand’s Local Government

Table 1: Priorities and performance indicators for CouncilMARK* Priority areas

Priority 1: Governance, leadership Priority 2: Financial decision- Priority 3: Service delivery and Priority 4: Communicating and and strategy† making and asset management‡ engaging with the transparency‡ public and business†

Performance indicators Performance indicators Performance indicators Performance indicators for Priority 1§ for Priority 2§ for Priority 3§ for Priority 4§

• Vision, goals and strategy • Financial strategy • Aligning services with strategy • Communication and • Professional development for • Financial data • Environmental monitoring and engagement strategy elected members • Risk and control function reporting • Digital engagement • Performance of elected • Budgeting • Determining, monitoring and • Reputation members • Financial control of councils assessing service levels • Media • Relationship/culture between • Transparency • Service delivery models • Engagement with iwi/Mäori elected members and the Chief • Service delivery capability and • Engagement with diverse Executive capacity communities • Health and Safety Framework • Service delivery quality – asset • Engagement with the general • Management management public • Audit and Risk Committee • Service delivery quality – • Civil defence and crisis • Information and Advice breakdown of individual communications services and infrastructure • Engagement with business and • Policy planning/spatial key stakeholders¶ planning • Compliance with regulatory requirements • Accountability reporting • Capital investment decisions and delivery • Operational risk management

* From: Draft performance assessment framework for regional democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf § The framework document suggests documents and other councils as at 21 December 2016. This document would of, communities’ information (including stakeholder interviews) to guide the have been used by councils participating in the CouncilMARK ‡ Consistent with the other of the dual roles of local government assessment panel reports referred to in this paper. Although this document is prescribed in the Local Government Act 2002: ‘to meet the ¶ Specifically mentioned are: ‘primary sector, industry, residents no longer publicly available, similar information is currently current and future needs of communities for good-quality and environmental organisations’; significant omissions provided in CouncilMARK (2019, pp.23-35) local infrastructure, local public services, and performance include: community organisations (other than environmental † Consistent with one of the dual roles for local government of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost effective for organisations), District Health Boards, and relevant prescribed in the Local Government Act 2002: ‘to enable households and businesses’ Government ministries, departments and agencies of these customers don’t believe this longer readily available online, these 21 councils originally committed to the happens’; ‘Most customers don’t fully aspirations have been recast recently in principles of the scheme through being understand or value what we do for them more corporate terms (CouncilMARK, ‘foundation members’; a few of these were every day’; and ‘However well some 2019). involved in a pilot scheme. Although 28 councils perform, there are strongly Cycles of continuous improvement are councils are currently participating, a negative perceptions of local government often an outcome of a quality assurance challenge for LGNZ will be to raise this performance, which affects us all.’ As system and LGNZ’s aspiration for this to participation rate: LGNZ has yet to solutions to these issues LGNZ suggested occur as a result of CouncilMARK is convince the more than 30 other potential that: ‘A continuous cycle of performance reasonable. Whether CouncilMARK can participating councils of the value of assessment and improvement ensures a lift influence the reputation of councils – CouncilMARK in demonstrating their in service and value from councils and the currently assessed through the New commitment to the continuous sector’; ‘LGNZ will provide tools, services Zealand Local Government Survey – is less improvement of their management and and share best practice to help councils lift certain. The methodologies and results of governance procedures and systems. performance’; ‘Igniting a responsive the two assessment components in the Presumably with that in mind, LGNZ culture improves engagement and Excellence Programme – CouncilMARK indicated in the position description for accountability for results, taking our and the Local Government Survey – are the programme manager of CouncilMARK customers and communities with us’; and discussed in this article. that the appointee would spearhead a ‘A new era of transparency will lift Involvement by councils in the marketing and promotion campaign. performance and reputation.’ Although no CouncilMARK scheme is voluntary, with

Page 76 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 Table 2: Ranking for priority areas for city, district and regional councils participating in CouncilMARK, arranged in order of scores

Priority areas

Leading Locally (LL) Investing Money Well (IMW) Delivering What’s Important (DWI) Listening and Responding (LAR)

Hauraki District Council Dunedin City Council Greater Wellington Greater Wellington Regional Council Regional Council 8 Waimakariri District Waikato Regional Council 8 8 7 Council Hauraki District Council Hauraki District Council Greater Wellington Environment Canterbury Regional Council Waikato Regional Council Central Hawke’s Bay District Council 7 Hastings District Council Matamata-Piako District Dunedin City Council Council Dunedin City Council Napier City Council Environment Canterbury Napier City Council Hastings District Council Central Hawke’s Bay 7 Hastings District Council District Council Rangitïkei District Council New Plymouth District Napier City Council Council Dunedin City Council Waimakariri District 6 Ruapehu District Council 7 Council Porirua City Council Greater Wellington South Taranaki District Regional Council Environment Canterbury Queenstown Lakes District Council 6 Council New Plymouth District Hastings District Council Waimakariri District Council Ruapehu District Council New Plymouth District Council Waikato Regional Council Council Waimakariri District Masterton District Council Council South Taranaki District Porirua City Council Matamata-Piako District Council Far North District Council 6 Queenstown Lakes District Council Masterton District Council Council Matamata-Piako District Nelson City Council Council Matamata-Piako District South Taranaki District New Plymouth District Council Council Napier City Council Council Porirua City Council Tararua District Council 6 Tararua District Council Rangitïkei District Council 5 Queenstown Lakes District Taupö District Council Taupö District Council Tararua District Council 5 Council Far North District Council Waikato Regional Council Taupö District Council Rangitïkei District Council Hauraki District Council Whakätane District Upper Hutt City Council Tararua District Council Council Horowhenua District Wairoa District Council Taupö District Council Council Environment Canterbury 5 Whakätane District Upper Hutt City Council Mackenzie District Council Horowhenua District Council Council Far North District Council Masterton District Council Far North District Council Mackenzie District Council Horowhenua District Whakatäne District Horowhenua District Council Council Masterton District Council Council Mackenzie District Council Central Hawke’s Bay 5 Nelson City Council 4 Mackenzie District Council 4 District Council Nelson City Council Rangitïkei District Council Porirua City Council Nelson City Council Ruapehu District Council 4 South Taranaki District Queenstown Lakes District Upper Hutt City Council Council Whakatäne District Council Council Wairoa District Council Upper Hutt City Council Central Hawke’s Bay 3 3 Wairoa District Council 3 Ruapehu District Council District Council Wairoa District Council

Score =1 Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 4 Score = 5 Score = 6 Score = 7 Score = 8 Score = 9

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Struggling Under- Areas for Variable Competent More than Performing Standout Exemplary performing improvement competent well

Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 – Page 77 Measuring the Effectiveness of New Zealand’s Local Government

Table 3: Overall CouncilMARK scores, and type of council Overall rating* Type of council‡

RE LM SM/LP SP/RU Greater Wellington Regional Council (Y2)† • AA Waimakariri District Council (Y1) • Dunedin City Council • Hastings District Council (Y1) •

A Hauraki District Council • Napier City Council (P) • Waikato Regional Council (Y1) • Environment Canterbury (Y2) • Matamata-Piako District Council (P) • New Plymouth District Council •

BBB Porirua City Council (P) • Queenstown Lakes District Council (P) • South Taranaki District Council (Y1) • Taupö District Council (Y2) • Central Hawke’s Bay District Council (Y2) • Masterton District Council (Y1) • Nelson City Council (Y1) • Rangitïkei District Council (Y1) • BB Ruapehu District Council (P) • Tararua District Council (Y2) • Upper Hutt City Council (Y2) • Whakatäne District Council (Y1) • Far North District Council (Y1) •

B Horowhenua District Council (P) • Mackenzie District Council (Y2) •

CCC Wairoa District Council (Y1) •

*Ratings: C CC CCC B BB BBB A AA AAA

Description:

Under- Areas of Areas of Areas of Competent Some areas Some Strong Exemplary performing improvement improvement improvement of strength; areas of grades in (more than 2 (2 areas) (1 area) overall strength and most priority areas) competent leadership areas

† Council involvement in CouncilMARK: (P), council involved in pilot programme; (Y1), council ‡ LGNZ distinguishes the following types of council: RE, regional; LM, Large metro; SM/LP, Small involved in first year of implementation; (Y2), council involved in second year of implementation metro and large provincial; SP/RU, Small provincial and rural

Page 78 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 Figure 1: Stakeholder orientation score vs management orientation score for CouncilMARK participants Number of councils 8.0 1

7.5 1 1

7.0 1

6.5 1 1 1 1 Stakeholder- orientated score 6.0 2 1 1 (LL+LAR)/2 5.5 1 2 2

5.0 2 2 1

4.5 3

4.0 1

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

Management-orientated score (IMW+DWI)/2

CouncilMARK: the process ratings (e.g. Hauraki District Council: see for the 26 councils for which results were CouncilMARK is a scheme wherein a team Local Government New Zealand, 2019); available at March 2019. of external assessors rate the ability of local others less so (e.g. New Plymouth District The distribution of scores for the government councils to meet government Council: see Persico, 2019). Although there priority areas in Table 2 suggests that the compliance requirements and provide is no formal requirement to address scheme may provide opportunities for the services to the communities they serve. recommendations and suggestions made enhancement of performance through the The scheme identifies four ‘priority in the report, some councils choose to do sharing of best practice across all councils, areas’ or ‘pillars’, which are simplified on so. The overall process is typical of the considered by LGNZ to be a potential LGNZ’s website: the priority ‘Governance, traditional non-financial audits that are benefit of CouncilMARK. For IMW and leadership and strategy’ is referred to on input-driven or process-driven, rather than DWI the regional councils do score slightly the website as ‘Leading locally’ (abbreviated of more contemporary output/outcome- higher than the district councils, and so here as LL); ‘Financial decision-making focused evaluations. there might be some opportunity for the and transparency’ is referred to on the former to share experience of these areas website as ‘Investing money well’ (IMW); CouncilMARK: the results with the latter. However, for DWI such ‘Service delivery and asset management’ is The presentation of the CouncilMARK activity is likely to be constrained because referred to on the website as ‘Delivering data on LGNZ’s website is in alphabetical the matters of importance for district what’s important’ (DWI); and order of councils. While this arrangement councils are likely to be very different from ‘Communicating and engaging with the readily enables ratepayers and customers to matters of importance for regional councils. public and business’ is referred to on the look at the scores of ‘their’ council, it does No participating council is said to be website as ‘Listening and responding’ not facilitate comparison between them. If ‘underperforming’, but no council is rated (LAR). Underpinned by performance it is truly the intention of LGNZ that the ‘exemplary’ either. While Table 3 suggests indicators (Table 1), these priority areas public does ‘browse councils’ programme that the rating for overall performance has are assigned a grading during the gradings across the country’ (LGNZ, a tendency to increase for councils that assessment process, which can be graded n.d.-a), then it may have been more helpful serve larger communities, the currently and scored, as shown later in Table 2. The to have presented the information in a way small data set means that such a relationship average of the scores of these priority areas that facilitates such comparison. Examples may not be representative of all councils. defines the rating for the council’s overall of such a format are the Tertiary Education CouncilMARK was developed before performance (see Table 3). Commission’s performance ratings for the current emphasis of government on The assessment is undertaken by a educational success criteria of institutes ‘promot[ing] the social, economic, panel whose draft report is provided to the of technology (e.g. Tertiary Education environmental, and cultural well-being of council for comment, with the final report Commission, 2015), and the Ministry of communities’, proposed in the Local being reviewed and released by an Health’s portrayal of health outcomes Government (Community Well-being) ‘independent assessment board’ comprising achieved by district health boards (e.g. Amendment Bill 2018. Similar provisions a chairperson and two other members with Ministry of Health, 2011). This type of had been included in its predecessor act (the corporate management backgrounds format is used in Table 2 to display the Local Government Act 2002), but were (CouncilMARK, 2019, p.15). As expected, scores for LL, IMW, DWI and LAR, as subsequently removed by a National-led some councils have been pleased with their well as in Table 3 to show the overall score government (Grimes, 2019). Even though

Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 – Page 79 Measuring the Effectiveness of New Zealand’s Local Government

Table 4: Perceptions of public and business about importance and performance of councils

Perception of importance of council Public Business

Inferred high importance in daily life 44%* -

Inferred high importance of local government and services to business - 55%*

Inferred high importance of the collective effort of local government for the prosperity and well- 77% 85% being of New Zealand

Perception of performance of council Public Business

Improved performance over last three years 32% 31%

Steady performance/unsure over last three years 54% 50%

Worse performance over last three years 14% 19%

* A diagram in the 2017 survey report implies that these percentages can be compared; in fact, slightly different questions are asked of both groups of participants, which means that strictly speaking the results cannot be compared

Figure 2: Association of the factors for reputation index with ratings for CouncilMARK priority areas and their contributions to a ‘reputation index’

Factors for Local Government Survey’s reputation index Reputation index* Year Performance (P) Leadership (L) Communication (C)

2014 28% 26% 32% 28.9%

2017 27% 26% 30% 27.9%

61%‡ 60%‡ 68%‡ 63%‡

Competent Competent More than competent Competent

5.5† 5.4† 6.1† 5.7†

(IMW + DWI)/2 LL LAR Average for CouncilMARK Priority areas for CouncilMARK

* Calculated in the Local Government Survey as (0.38*P) + (0.32*L) + (0.31*C), where ‡ Calculated as average score *100/9; 9 is the maximum – and so far unattained – score in component P is Performance; L, Leadership; C, Communication CouncilMARK assessments, being equivalent to a rating of ‘exemplary’ † Average of score for CouncilMARK priority areas, calculated from priority areas in Table 2

‘well-being’ was not a legislative requirement 1 shows that ten councils are more participatory local government (‘localism’ at the time of the CouncilMARK assessment, stakeholder orientated than management as described in McKinlay, 2019) envisaged councils may have continued to include orientated (i.e. the data points are above in the revision of the Local Government well-being in their discussions of aspirations the dark grey band); six councils are more Act. for their city, district or region, and in their management orientated than stakeholder The ‘Listening and responding’ strategic planning processes. For these orientated (i.e. the data points are below measure is expected to be of particular councils well-being would be expected to the dark grey band; while ten councils are interest to ratepayers, and this is one be reflected in their performance assessment comparably management orientated and ‘priority area’ for which a complementary framework (LGNZ, n.d.-b) as well as the stakeholder orientated (i.e. the data points measure is available, as is discussed in the CouncilMARK assessments. are along the dark grey band). Using this next section. A way of representing the current approach, Central Hawke’s Bay District emphasis on communities and their well- Council has the highest stakeholder Reputation index from local government being in the councils participating in orientation, while Waikato Regional surveys CouncilMARK is to consider the rankings Council has the highest management Complementing CouncilMARK, LGNZ of the average of the management- orientation. It might be anticipated that contracted the market research agency orientated scores (i.e. [IMW + DWI]/2) councils with higher stakeholder Colmar Brunton to conduct a local and the average of the stakeholder- orientation scores might be more government survey in 2014 and 2017 (see orientated scores ([LL + LAR]/2). Figure amenable to the introduction of greater Local Government New Zealand, 2017),

Page 80 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 in which representatives of the public communication and interaction, although • Greater Wellington Regional Council’s and businesses across the country were neither the score for each of these factors reform of bus routes and timetables, interviewed. Although the sample size is determined nor the rationale for the compounded by new contracts with was stated as statistically valid – around weightings of the factors to obtain the bus companies and agreements with 2,500 from the public and 400–600 index is provided. Although the report unions, and exacerbated by poorly businesses, giving levels of confidence of recognises, ‘The overall reputation of local conceived and managed post- ±2% and ±4.9% respectively – the known government remains relatively low with a implementation communication with variability of local council activities casts score of 28 [out of 100]. This is consistent ratepayers (from July 2018), caused doubt on whether a single survey across with 2014 (a score of 29), and the one point chaos on the city streets and intense the country is likely to yield results difference is not meaningful. As in 2014, public opprobrium (some of which was pertinent to any particular council. This the public continues to have a better view incorrectly directed at the Wellington type of survey would be more usefully of local government compared with City Council). An independent review undertaken by individual councils, as businesses’, it does not provide any of the process drew attention to a lack indeed some councils do already. As an information to support the asserted of staff capability at the regional example, Waikato Regional Council notes difference in perceptions between council (George, 2018; LEK Consulting, that there have been ‘Poorer perceptions businesses and the public (Local 2018). of community engagement – [shown as Government New Zealand, 2017, p.16). • Radio New Zealand in August 2018 a] decrease in the percentage of Waikato The factors contributing to the reported that Auckland Council had survey respondents who agreed that the reputation index – ‘performance’, misinterpreted its own planning rules public has an influence over the decisions ‘leadership’ and ‘communication and for heritage areas, and was requiring their local Council makes (down from interaction’ – can be associated with the property owners to reapply for consents 62% in 2006 to 36% in 2018)’ (Waikato ‘priority areas’ discussed for CouncilMARK already issued for renovations and Regional Council, 2018, p.3). – ‘investing money well’ combined with development (RNZ, 2018). Both the 2014 and 2017 surveys record ‘delivering what’s important’, ‘leading that the public and businesses have locally’ and ‘listening and responding’, Conclusion different perceptions of the relative respectively, as shown in the lower part of CouncilMARK is focused on inputs and importance of the areas on which councils Figure 2. The comparison of scores and processes, with the indicators suggestive should focus, but these are unranked and calculated reputation index in Figure 2 of a tick-box approach to assessing so cannot be compared. The surveys also indicates that the CouncilMARK assessors performance. Moreover, its involvement identified that businesses recognise to a are more positive about councils’ of external stakeholders in the process greater extent than the public that councils performance than the reputation index appears limited. It could be argued that have a greater part to play in everyday life suggests would be the perception of much of priority area 2 is essentially and contribute to national prosperity and ratepayers. material routinely presented in annual well-being, although the perceptions of During 2017 and 2018 there was reports and is of less value to the objectives these groups of overall council extensive media coverage of activities in of CouncilMARK than matters which performance show little difference (Table which the performance, leadership or more directly affect ratepayers, citizens, 4). It is not possible from the information communication of local body staff and and those providing services to a council provided in the report to determine a elected councillors are likely to have been or undertaking business and community helpful measure of the satisfaction with damaging to the individual and collective functions in the area of a council’s council performance, partly because the reputation of councils, four examples of jurisdiction. report uses a ‘net satisfaction’ measure, which are given below: The distribution of scores for the calculated as the difference between the • Environment Canterbury initiated no priority areas and the overall grades suggest percentages of those satisfied and those prosecutions resulting from reported possibilities for using CouncilMARK in dissatisfied, but these percentages are not incidents of stock in waterways since sharing best practice. However, there may included in the report. 2016 (Tyson and Eppel, 2016a, 2016b), also be benefit in reviewing the individual The report of the 2017 Local but the council prosecuted itself for reports generated in the process on a Government Survey concludes by outlining pollution in March 2018 (Lee, 2018). regular basis with a view to seeking the development of a reputation index, • Hastings District Council and the common themes and issues prevailing asserting that ‘[p]ositive reputation is Hawke’s Bay Regional Council were across councils and using these as an achieved when an organisation’s leadership, both criticised in the formal insight into the future prospects for the service provision and communications government inquiry following improvement of the performance of work in unison and the organisation is seen contamination of public water supply councils. This resembles the financial to do the right things, for the right reasons, in Havelock North causing illness and management comparisons currently in the right way’. The report notes that the death in mid-2017 (Government undertaken by the Office of the Auditor- reputation index is strongly influenced by Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking General in respect of councils’ annual performance, leadership, and Water, 2017). reports (e.g. Controller and Auditor-

Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 – Page 81 Measuring the Effectiveness of New Zealand’s Local Government

General, 2018). However, in order to ensure District Council); the average submission stakeholders. Such changes are reflective of that such a process complemented rather rate is a mere 0.94%. Such a competence innovative thinking elsewhere (Needham than duplicated the work of the Office of rating in CouncilMARK ignores the lack and Mangan, 2018). They might also make the Auditor-General, the process would of publicly available information about the the scheme more relevant to the need to focus on non-financial and fate of those submissions that are made expectations of central government for engagement-related metrics. and it is not consistent with the poor New Zealand’s local government to restore Overall, CouncilMARK implies that reputation index derived from the more a focus on community well-being (Grimes, engagement with citizens – the clients and customer-focused Local Government 2019; McKinlay, 2019), for which the customers who are surely councils’ most Survey. priorities for the 2019 ‘well-being’ budget important stakeholders – is ‘more than Although the Local Government Survey (Robertson, 2018) have been declared to competent’. However, this is not consistent is targeted at two important stakeholders be: with the low public response via (the public and business), its nationwide • creating opportunities for productive submissions to annual and long-term scope is too broad for its results to be businesses, regions, iwi and others to community plans. For the 17 councils meaningful to individual councils. Rather transition to a sustainable and low- participating in the CouncilMARK scheme than continuing with this measure, LGNZ emissions economy; for which information was available as at could encourage individual councils to • supporting a thriving nation in the January 2019, on the outcomes of develop a reputation index – compiled in digital age through innovation and consultation in respect of the most recent a standardised way – which could be used social and economic opportunities; long-term council community plan, the both as a key performance indicator and • lifting Mäori and Pasifika incomes, number of submissions received by a as a complement to the CouncilMARK skills and opportunities; council ranges from 125 (to the Rangitïkei rating for ‘listening and responding’. • reducing child poverty and improving District Council) to 1,125 (to the Hastings A reorientation of the CouncilMARK child well-being, including addressing District Council); the average number of priority areas (and the key performance family violence; and submissions was 444. As a percentage of indicators that underpin them) to better • supporting mental well-being for all the population served by councils, the reflect outcomes of significance to New Zealanders, with a special focus lowest submission rate is 0.08% (to the stakeholders might enhance uptake of the on under 24-year-olds. Waikato Regional Council) and the highest scheme by councils and increase the submission rate is 1.6% (to the Ruapehu perceived value of the assessment to

References Controller and Auditor-General (2007) Matters Arising from the 2006–16 the Greater Wellington Regional Council, https://www.metlink.org.nz/ Long-Term Council Community Plans, part 5, https://www.oag.govt. assets/Uploads/Implementation-Review3.pdf nz/2007/ltccp/part5.htm Local Government New Zealand (2017) We Are. Building a stronger local Controller and Auditor-General (2018) Local Government: results of the government for New Zealand: Local Government Survey 2017, https:// 2016/17 audits, Wellington: Office of the Auditor-General, https://www. www.lgnz.co.nz/our-work/publications/new-zealand-local-government- oag.govt.nz/2018/local-govt/docs/local-govt.pdf survey-2017/ CouncilMARK (2019) We Are. Making Our Communities Better: Local Government New Zealand (2019) ‘CouncilMARK delivers A to small CouncilMark prospectus year 3, Wellington: Local Government New council doing big things’, press release, 13 March, http://www.scoop. Zealand, https://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/8aa3595d5a/2019- co.nz/stories/AK1903/S00325/councilmark-delivers-a-to-small- CouncilMARK-prospectus-WEB.pdf council-doing-big-thiings.htm George, D. (2018) ‘Team responsible for launching Wellington’s new bus Local Government New Zealand (n.d.-a) ‘A measure for better community network not up to the job – report’, Stuff, 19 December, https://www. value’, http://www.lgnz.co.nz/about-councilmark/results/ stuff.co.nz/national/109480095/team-responsible-for-launching- Local Government New Zealand (n.d.-b) ‘Local Government Excellence wellingtons-new-bus-network-not-up-to-the-job--report Programme performance assessment framework’, https://www.lgnz. Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water (2017) Report of co.nz/assets/Uploads/aff6692792/Final-Local-Government-Excellence- the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry, https://www.dia.govt.nz/ Programme-PAF-11.2.17.pdf Government-Inquiry-into-Havelock-North-Drinking-Water McKinlay, P. (2019) ‘Localism: let’s do this’, Policy Quarterly, 15 (2), Grimes, A. (2019) ‘Well-being at the local level’, Policy Quarterly, 15 (2), pp.38–43 pp.44–9 Ministry of Health (2011) ‘How is your DHB performing?’, https://www. Lee, J. (2018) ‘Environment Canterbury has given an infringement notice health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/health-targets-2010-11- to itself for polluting a stream’, Press, 23 March, https://www.stuff. q3-performance.pdf co.nz/the-press/news/102487111/environment-canterbury-has-given- Needham, C. and C. Mangan (2018) The 21st Century Public Servant, an-infringement-notice-to-itself-for-polluting-a-stream Birmingham: University of Birmingham, https://21stcenturypublicserva LEK Consulting (2018) Wellington City and Hutt Valley Bus Network nt.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/21-century-report-281014.pdf Implementation Review, Sydney: LEK Consulting Australia Pty Ltd for

Page 82 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 Persico, C. (2019) ‘New Plymouth council faces “unique challenge” as Tyson, J. and E. Eppel (2016a) The Canterbury Water Management region’s economy changes’, Stuff, 8 March, www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki- Strategy: ‘smart’ management of collaborative processes (A), ANZSOG daily-news/news/111092049/new-plymouth-council-faces-unique- Case Program 2016–186.1, Australia and New Zealand School of challenge-as-regions-economy-changes Government, www.anzsog.edu.au/resource-library/case-library/ Productivity Commission (2018) Local Government Funding and Financing: canterbury-water-management-strategy-the-smart-management-of- issues paper, Wellington: New Zealand Productivity Commission collaborative-processes-a-2016-186-1 RNZ (2018) ‘Auckland Council botch-up forces hundreds to reapply for Tyson, J. and E. Eppel (2016b) The Canterbury Water Management resource consents’, RNZ, 29 August, https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/ Strategy: ‘smart’ management of collaborative processes (B), ANZSOG national/365184/auckland-council-botch-up-forces-hundreds-to- Case Program 2016-186.2, Australia and New Zealand School of reapply-for-resource-consents Government, https://www.anzsog.edu.au/resource-library/case-library/ Robertson, G. (2018) ‘Wellbeing of New Zealanders at the heart of Budget canterbury-water-management-strategy-the-smart-management-of- priorities’, media release, 13 December, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ collaborative-processes-b-2016-186-2 release/wellbeing-new-zealanders-heart-budget-priorities Waikato Regional Council (2018) ‘Waikato Progress Indicators – Tupuranga Tertiary Education Commission (2015) ‘Performance of tertiary education Waikato: summary update 2018, technical report 2018/17’, Waikato organisations: education performance indicators’, https://www.tec.govt. Regional Council nz/assets/EPI-reports-2015/d7dff6b06d/EPI-CPIT-Cohort-Based-2015. pdf Fast-track your career in the public sector with a top-level professional qualification with a: Master of Public Policy or a Master of Public Management • Try the graduate pathway professional programme for a Master’s in Public Policy or Public Management with the School of Government. • This is a one-year course after the completion of a Bachelor qualification. • Public policy and public management are School of Government examined at the postgraduate level.

for more details visit victoria.ac.nz/sog/study

Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 3 – August 2019 – Page 83