LOS DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES Y LA DEMOCRACIA

Regional councils were established with a limited task-span in 1989, with a strong environmental focus, reflecting existing catchment management and pest control functions they inherited from the catchment boards and noxious plants and animal pests boards, and in anticipation of the Resource Management Act that was predicated on regional administration. They had also inherited public transport and civil defence management functions from united councils. Individual regional councils had other functions reflecting existing regional functions; Wellington was responsible for water supply while Auckland inherited a network of regional parks and reserves. Councils remained constrained in the functions they could undertake by the 1991 Cooper review that underscored the ultravires principle (see Chapter 3). Taranaki Regional Council‘s effort to rate for and build a regional sports stadium required special legislation and was atypical. The LGA 2002 largely removed the vires constraint and gave, subject to conditions, powers of general competence to regional councils.

So far regional councils have largely sought to confirm their environmental management functional primacy. Wellington Regional Council‘s regional economic initiative in 2006 can be seen as unusual, rather it appears that many councils have determined to ‗stick to the knitting‘. Hawke's Bay Regional Council, for example, distinguishes the differences between regional and territorial authorities:

the Regional Council concentrates on the 'natural environment' - water, air, land, coastal - with a long-term view to make sure these are used sustainably, and are just as available and just as good (if not better) in the future as they are today. City and district councils concentrate on the 'built environment' and deliver services – such as drinking water, sewage disposal, rubbish disposal, roading networks, swimming pools, libraries and parks - to their local communities (HBRC, 2007).

This environmental focus is evidenced both in their organisational mission statements and also in the brand-names many have adopted. A survey of all the 16 councils‘ mission statements shows that four explicitly identify environmental management and improvement, while another four identify natural resource management as their organisations‘ missions. Another two emphasise sustainable management (Table 6-8). These reflect a focus given by the RMA that promotes sustainable natural and physical resource management. Only four take a broader ‗local government‘ stance, recognising a wider social cultural and economic wellbeing under the LGA 2002. Three of these are unitary authorities, which, as territorial authorities have always had a wider focus (chapter 3). The other, Auckland Regional Council, is alone in making well-being explicit, though the other urban councils, with their sustainable development missions are also consistent with the LGA 2002.

Table 6-8: Council mission statements

Theme Council Mission Statement (core element)

Environment Northland to manage and enhance its environment in a sustainable manner

Bay of Plenty working with our communities for a better environment Manawatu-

Wanganui

enhance environmental heritage while fostering economic opportunities and meeting social and cultural aspirations

West Coast sustainably manage the environment

Natural resource management

Waikato manage the sustainable use of our region‘s resources

Taranaki natural resources are sustainably managed

Otago sustainable development and enhancement of Otago‘s resources

Southland managing our natural resources

Community wellbeing

Auckland to achieve social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being

Gisborne manage and enhance the district‘s physical, social, cultural and

economic wellbeing

Tasman To enhance community wellbeing and quality of life

Marlborough Enabling social and economic development in balance with

environmental and community needs Sustainable

Development

Wellington a sustainable region

Canterbury sustainable environment and sustainable communities

No statement Nelson

Hawke's Bay vision is for a region that develops and prospers within a clean and

healthy environment

Source: Councils‘ 2006 LTCCPs and websites.

Half of the regional councils have chosen to adopt brand-names (Table 6-9), led by the Waikato Regional Council in 1993. Their adoption was largely intended to distance themselves from the negative connotations associated with ‗council‘ that they had identified in their public opinion surveys and to reduce confusion with the district councils. Also, the council saw the need to ‗explain the regional council‘s role to its customers, the ratepayers‘

(horizons.mw, 1999:39). Wellington Regional Council‘s brand-name, like Manawatu- Wanganui Regional Council‘s, was to widen the otherwise specific geographic connotations of the names in order to appeal to its wider regional community.

Table 6-9: Regional council trading names

Trading Name Official Name

Environment Canterbury (ECAN) Environment Waikato

Environment Bay of Plenty Environment Southland Horizons Regional Council

Greater Wellington Regional Council

Canterbury Regional Council Waikato Regional Council Bay of Plenty Regional Council Southland Regional Council

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council Wellington Regional Council

Note: The Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council adopted the brand-name horizons.mw in 1999 and replaced it with Horizons Regional Council in 2004.

This has been seen as a successful move by some councils; the departing chief executive of Southland Regional Council, Lindsay McKenzie, said the decision to rebrand the Southland Regional Council as ―Environment Southland‖ had been a critical step in winning public support for the council‘s activities:

It helped us set a new, clear vision of what we should be achieving, and that in turn has enabled us to define our current strategic goal, which is to improve water quality significantly by reducing non-point source pollution by 2015 (McKenzie, 2007).

This move has clearly situated the four ―Environment‖ councils as environmental management agencies, despite all regional councils having other functions, such as emergency management and public transport (chapter 3). It has arguably also boxed them in, should they want to expand their range of functions under the LGA 2002.

Perhaps the best way to determine what regional councils do, as opposed to what they say, is to examine what they spend their money on, distinguishing between capital expenditure (Capex) and operational expenditure (Opex). Although local authorities are required to publish both annual plans and annual reports detailing their financial commitments, they are not required to follow any specific format. This makes direct comparisons difficult. Councils also differed in how they accounted for overheads and depreciation; some spread some or all of these costs across outputs, others relate them to specific outputs, while others treat them as line items. These costs however, form a relatively small component of the total budget and do not affect overall magnitudes of expenditure.

Capex is a lumpy expense and forms a very small part of regional council annual budgets, underlining their regulatory focus. This is very apparent when the budgeted Capex of regional and unitary authorities, which have territorial authority functions to provide community infrastructure, are compared (Figure 6-8). On average, regional councils budgeted $6million ($19 per person), while unitary authorities budgeted $31million ($695 per person). This reflects unitary authorities‘ territorial authority functions for providing community infrastructure, notably roading, sewerage and water supplies, and facilities such as libraries, parks and reserves.

Figure 6-8: Budgeted Capital expenditure by Region 2004-2005 (Data: DIA, 2005). A similar pattern emerges for operational expenditure (Opex) (Figure 6-9).

a) Regional councils[1] b) Territorial authorities [2]

Figure 6-9: Proportion of Regional and Territorial authority operational expenditure by activity 2005-06 (Data: Statistics New Zealand). Activity codes: 01 Roading, 02 Transport, 03 Waste Water, 04 Environmental Protection, 05 Water Supply, 06 Solid Waste; 07 Regulation planning, 08 Culture, recreation and sport, 09 Governance, 10 Emergency management, 11 Property forestry, agriculture, and other[3]_.

Notes:

[1] Corrected regional council data: Statistics New Zealand erroneously ascribes transport expenditure to roading for one council, confirmed by email from council financial manager 1 September, 2007.

[2] Includes the four unitary authorities.

[3] Does not include Auckland Regional Transport Authority (01 Roading): $335,960,000.

Regional councils accounted for $652 million (11.9%) of the total local government sector operational expenditure budget of $5.4 million in 2005-6. Nearly two thirds (63%) of regional council Opex is spent on public transport and environmental protection. By

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 Nort hlan d Auckl and Bay of Pl enty Wai kato Tara naki Haw kes Bay Mana wat u-W anga nui Wel lingt on Can terb ury West Coa st Ota go Sout hlan d Gisb orn e Nel son Tasm an Marlb oro ugh Total ($million) per capita 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

comparison, territorial authorities‘ Opex is largely spent on roading (20.7), culture, recreation and sport (19.2%) and property, forestry and other (11.2%). While culture, recreation and sport (activity 08) is a major territorial authority activity, only four regional councils committed Opex to this activity; and the major expenditure is by Auckland Regional Council which alone has an extensive regional parks portfolio, inherited from its predecessor. There is also a significant difference between the capital expenditure of the two types of council. Governance costs are however similar at 9.3% of total Opex for regional councils and 9.1% for territorial authorities.

These data show regional and territorial authorities (including unitary authorities) are markedly different in function and character.