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