A recent McKinlay Douglas study commissioned by the three Northland Councils has looked at and evaluated the governmental structure in Northland using the basic criteria of “efficiency” and “effectiveness.” The resulting recommendation was that all councils in Northland be reorganised into a single, unitary central council with local sub-organisations to provide voice for diverse interests.  Unfortunately, this study was initiated with the solution already in mind – i.e., “reorganisation” – but there has not been an adequate definition of the “problem” that this “solution” is supposed to resolve.

The assumption apparently made is that “efficiency” and “effectiveness” of the present governmental structure are less than adequate and that “reorganisation” would improve the situation.  Sadly, “efficiency” and “effectiveness” of governance are vague criteria and neither by itself is a sufficient basis for change, much less theoretical improvement.  One can be very “efficient” (measured in costs) at doing less than effective things… and vice versa.  Effectiveness must be measured in terms such as “fitness for purpose” and “satisfaction of those served”, and is much more subjective to measure than efficiency which merely looks at a ratio of inputs to outputs… i.e., more lollies for the dollar!

One must be careful to focus on real causes and effects when promoting change, whether it be “enhanced status quo,” “single-unitary,” or “dual-unitary” governance structures.  (I.e., reducing all council structures to a single District/Regional council covering all of Northland; or, two District/Regional councils, one basically covering the Far North and the other the lower part of Northland after Auckland finalises its northern boundaries).  Since “effectiveness” must include “satisfaction” as a significant part of its measure, it is hard to see how any of the public will feel comfortable with a single-unitary government, centralised in Whangarei… issues of money collected and where spent, issues of needs determined by referendum, issues of project prioritisation… all would be subject to negative perceptions and dissatisfaction based on geographical and cultural considerations.

Perhaps an external parallel example would be useful.  When East and West Germany were reunified, it was felt that economic, political and cultural benefits would accrue to Germany as a whole.  As it turned out, debt increased, taxes increased, inflation increased, unemployment increased, political turmoil ensued, quality of life declined and even internal social relations deteriorated.... it has taken decades for the situation to approach the general level of both “efficiency” and “effectiveness” that West Germany once enjoyed; and, even the former East Germans still feel that in some ways they were better off before reunification.  It seems that actual impact at the personal level of well-being trumps theoretical eco-political benefits at the governance level.  Levels of trust and respect between the “poorer” former East Germans and the “wealthier” West Germans are still quite low as a result.

It is not a difficult stretch of imagination to contemplate the effects of a “forced marriage” between the citizens of all of Northland under a single-unitary government structure.  A dual-unitary structure might make more sense in terms of “effectiveness,” but there is scant evidence that cost efficiency would result given the duplication of functions and absorption of new “former Regional Council” functions.

A far better solution to the question of “How to improve the well-beings of all the citizens of Northland” would seem to keep the decision-making power at the lowest possible levels while increasing the collaborative coordination on all areas/functions of mutual interest.  The concept of a “Mayoral Council” seemed a step in the right direction, but such collaborations are only as good as the individual collaborators… personal interests and ambitions have a funny way of sidetracking the momentum of such “councils” and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that such would not be true for the working of more centralised units of governance.  Centralisation of power is by definition dislocating decisions from the people who are affected by them.

Instead of reorganising governmental structure, we need to be looking at the underlying causes of ineffectiveness and inefficiency.  “Change” is not in, and of itself a “strategy” without focusing on true underlying causes first to determine what exactly needs changing.... sometimes it is the people or policies, not the structure.  Beware of hidden agendas when people start insisting that change is needed without a clear definition of the problem and causes.