Local governance for community wellbeing: Challenges and opportunities
Local government in Aotearoa is at the forefront of achieving positive wellbeing outcomes for all New Zealanders. The purpose of local government as articulated in the Local Government Act 2002, for example, is to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future. In this instalment of our wellbeing series, we take a look at how a selection of councils across the country are planning for wellbeing. We then provide our view on opportunities and challenges for local government in the wellbeing arena. As noted in our previous article on building for wellbeing, there has never been a better time, as we navigate a path through the recent global pandemic, to pursue a deeper understanding of wellbeing, what it means for our communities, and how it can be achieved.
Excerpt from the Local Government Act 2002
Planning for wellbeing
Planning for wellbeing is not a new concept for local government in Aotearoa New Zealand. Historically, the purpose of local government provided for the promotion of the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities through the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This wellbeing focus was removed by amendments to the LGA in 2012, but reintroduced last year through the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Act.
Exactly how local government promotes wellbeing is multi-faceted. As noted by the NZ Productivity Commission (2019), ‘local government promotes community wellbeing through regulating land use (managing the activities of people and businesses so they do not negatively impact on others or the natural environment), choosing and funding local amenities, and planning and investing in essential infrastructure’.
So how are councils planning for wellbeing, in practice?
At a strategic level, Masterton District Council adopted the My Masterton Our People, Our Land Strategy: He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua (Wellbeing Strategy) in February 2018. This set out the long-term strategic direction for Masterton across four development areas (social, cultural, environmental, and economic); each supported by a specific definition, priorities, and strategic directions. Masterton’s Wellbeing Strategy also shaped the community outcomes included in its 2018-28 Long-Term Plan. These community outcomes align with the vision statements of He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua (with one additional outcome), to guide the Council’s activity in relation to improving the wellbeing of residents and communities (Masterton District Council, 2020).
The development of He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua by Masterton District Council demonstrates a strong commitment to the achievement of community wellbeing. Masterton’s website indicates that an initial Implementation Plan (2018-2021) has been adopted to achieve the vision statements identified in He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua. We will be interested to see how the implementation of Masterton’s Wellbeing Strategy rolls out. Effective implementation is oftentimes difficult to achieve in the complex regulatory and funding environment of local government. It requires compliance with a raft of legislation to promote higher performance in areas such as fresh water, wastewater, and stormwater systems to meet environmental and public health standards (NZ Productivity Commission, 2019). Activities associated with the achievement of community wellbeing outcomes are therefore likely to compete for funding with the provision and maintenance of essential infrastructure. This balancing act requires in-depth consideration by local government decision-makers; we do not envy them this task.
Tauranga City Council also has a one-page Community Wellbeing Strategic Plan 2018-2021, currently in draft form. This is intended to help ‘prioritise investment and resourcing of community wellbeing initiatives in our city, so that Tauranga is a place where people want to live, work, invest and visit’ (Tauranga City Council, 2019). It is not clear, however, from the information available exactly what actions are planned to achieve this aspiration.
Elsewhere across Aotearoa, other councils are already, or beginning to, structure their strategic objectives and business activities to align with the wellbeing framework (social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing) articulated in the LGA. Clutha District Council’s Long-Term Plan 2018-2028, for example, uses the four wellbeings to assess the significant effects of its regulatory and emergency services function. Each potential significant negative effect is listed and the relevant wellbeing/s that may be impacted by that effect are identified. This provides clarity and enables the Council to frame its response sensitively and appropriately.
Challenges and opportunities
As noted by the Minister of Local Government (2019), ‘councils see and experience the challenges our communities face each day, and the services they provide make a critical contribution to wellbeing.’ But what of the challenges and opportunities facing councils themselves, as they seek to promote the four wellbeings within their communities? We have touched on some of these challenges above, and provide additional commentary on both opportunities and challenges as follows:
Line-of-sight between the strategic intentions of local government, and actions and spending to achieve wellbeing outcomes, is often lacking. For example, long-term plans may include aspirational community outcomes regarding wellbeing, however, it is not clear what specific projects or expenditure is allocated to achieve those community wellbeing outcomes. Opportunities exist for councils to structure their long-term plans to indicate which activities and expenditure is linked to which of the four wellbeings. This would identify any gaps in service provision, for further consideration.
Following on from which, in our experience cultural wellbeing is the least-addressed wellbeing in many of the long-term plans and other strategic council documents reviewed. The Minister of Local Government (2019) similarly noted a ‘lack of inclusive and effective community participation and partnership with Māori’ as a key barrier to effective local governance for wellbeing. Opportunities to rectify this imbalance are abundant, including councils engaging and partnering with mana whenua who have articulated wellbeing outcomes as a part of the development of post-settlement strategies, or the potential to co-create cultural wellbeing indicators with local Māori, if appropriate.
The intergenerational nature of wellbeing, as described in section 10 of the LGA 2002, is also challenging to plan for and implement. Councils need to consider the wellbeing of not only current, but future, generations. We suggest that guidance regarding how this can be achieved should be provided by policy-makers, otherwise the intention may be too indistinct to consistently implement.
The role of councils to promote wellbeing may at times be in conflict with its regulatory functions. For example, when discharging its compliance duties (with respect to bylaws, environmental health, planning, building, and other regulations), councils may impede the ability of communities to advance their economic, environmental, social, or cultural wellbeing. Opportunities exist for central government to provide guidance regarding wellbeing implementation in the regulatory environment. For example, regarding how the purpose of the Building Act (to contribute to the wellbeing of building-users) links to the building consent process; or how planners can measure whether their policies and resource consent recommendations provide for social, economic, and cultural wellbeing under the Resource Management Act.
As stated above, effective implementation of wellbeing strategies and plans can be difficult to achieve in the complex regulatory and funding environment of local government. While there may be appetite to state aspirational strategic intentions regarding the promotion of the four wellbeings, there is only so much rates income to go around, and essential three waters infrastructure is often (understandably) prioritised. In our opinion, the dichotomy between spending on physical and social infrastructure is an area ripe for further research.
And finally, opportunities exist to better monitor and report on the stated wellbeing intentions of local government. This may include the development of wellbeing indicators, unique to each council area, which can be reported on to understand progress towards the achievement of wellbeing aspirations. Without the accountability provided by regular monitoring and reporting, local government decision-makers and practitioners are shooting blind, and may not have the level of insight required to understand the effectiveness and efficiency of any wellbeing-related activities and expenditure.
Watch this space!
It is reassuring to note that we are not alone in our thinking regarding local governance for community wellbeing. The Department of Internal Affairs’ central-local government partnerships team is exploring the potential to harness local government’s strengths and proximity to communities, to understand how the wellbeing objectives, frameworks, and measures of both central and local government could be better aligned. The DIA has embarked on a programme of work to focus on how central and local government can work together to deliver intergenerational wellbeing, exploring what settings, conditions, and resources are required to support local government in this work (DIA, 2019). Although no outcomes from this work are as yet publicly available, we eagerly await the outputs of the DIA’s community wellbeing partnership initiatives and look forward to wrapping our heads around any framework that has the ability to resolve the challenges and realise the opportunities outlined above, in order to strengthen the ability of local government to support wellbeing.
Final thoughts
Planning for intergenerational wellbeing is a hugely fundamental and important role of local government in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, it’s not easy. Councils may have all the best intentions at a strategic level, but can have difficulty implementing wellbeing activities in a competitive funding, political, and regulatory environment. We remain hopeful that current wellbeing initiatives of local councils and the DIA’s work on community wellbeing partnerships provide the clarity needed to progress wellbeing outcomes efficiently and equitably across Aotearoa.
As noted in the NZ Productivity Commission’s inquiry into local government funding and financing (2019), council activities have a huge influence on the day-to-day lives, and wellbeing, of New Zealanders. We are excited to be part of the conversation and look forward to hearing your thoughts on local governance for community wellbeing. Kia kaha Aotearoa.