Harmonising National and Local Goals in New Zealand
Giguère and Considine state in the first chapter of this volume that a central expected outcome of partnerships is the formulation and implementation of proposals that are based on the local context and that give orientation to national policies and programmes. Harmonising national policy goals and local priorities remains a great challenge in all advanced economies. It requires priorities to be established in a clear and transparent way locally, and policies to be flexibly implemented to support significant geographical variation in application. Pressures to deliver public services at the lowest possible cost exacerbate this difficulty. This chapter considers this challenge in relation to recent changes to local government legislation in New Zealand, which has considerable implications for the implementation of national policies. It examines the influence of collaborative principles within the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) and considers the degree to which a new form of local governance is emerging.
KeywordsLocal Government Local Authority Central Government Government Department Local Goal
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot, J. and P. Walsh (1996) Public Management– the New Zealand Model, Auckland, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Burke, K. (2004) ‘Engaging with Communities over Outcomes: A Review of Innovative Approaches to Meeting the LGA 2002 Challenge of Identifying Community Outcomes’, Local Government New Zealand, Wellington.Google Scholar
- Considine, M. (2005) ‘Partnerships and Collaborative Advantage: Some Reflections on New Forms of Network Governance’, Background paper, The Centre for Public Policy, Melbourne.Google Scholar
- DETR (1998) ‘Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions’, London, Eland House.Google Scholar
- Filkin, G., Stoker, G., Wilikinson, G., and J. Williams (2000) ‘Towards a New Localism – A Discussion Paper’, New Local Government Network, London.Google Scholar
- Future Taranaki Facilitation Group (2006) ‘Future Taranaki – Progress Report on Community Outcomes for Taranaki’, Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford, New Zealand.Google Scholar
- Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and its Critics, Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Giddens, A. (1999) ‘Democracy’, Reith Lecture #5, url http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week5.htm.
- Harmsworth, K. (2001) ‘Glocalism: The Growing Importance of Local Space in the Global Environment’, Canada West Foundation, url http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.
- John, P. (2001) Local Government in Western Europe, London, Sage.Google Scholar
- Johnston, K., Cheyne, C. and W. Parker, (2005) ‘Promoting Community Well-being – A Study of the Involvement of Councils of Social Service in the Local Authority Community Outcomes Processes’, New Zealand Council of Social Services (NZCOSS), Wellington.Google Scholar
- Julian, J. (2004) ‘Integrated Decision-making and Co-ordination through the Local Government Act 2002 – What Are the Barriers to Achieving Local-central Government Relationships to Further Community Outcomes?’ unpublished thesis, Victoria University, Wellington.Google Scholar
- Latham, M. (1998) Civilising Global Capital – New Thinking for Australian Labour, Australia, Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
- Local Futures (2006) ‘Local Government, Strategies and Communities’, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University, Wellington.Google Scholar
- Lynch, J., Adams, A., O’Regan, M. and M. J. Rivers (2001) ‘A Plan for a City’, accessed from http://lgnz-old.katipo.co.nz/bookshelf/best_practice.
- McKinlay, P. (2004) ‘Realising the Potential of the Community Outcome Process – A Report Prepared to Assist Local Authorities and Other Agencies Use the Community Outcomes Process to Achieve Sustainable Improvements in Community Well-being’, Local Government New Zealand, Wellington.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Social Development (2005) ‘Good Practice Guide for Working with Local Government’, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington.Google Scholar
- Schick, A. (2001) ‘Reflections on the NZ Model’, url: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/academiclinkages/schick/paper.
- Skelcher, C., Navdeep, M. and M. Smith (2004) ‘Negotiating the Institutional Void: Discursive Alignments, Collaborative Institutions and Democratic Governance’, prepared for the Political Studies Association Conference, April 2004, University of Lincoln, UK.Google Scholar
- SSC (2001) The Review of the Centre, State Services Commission, Parliament, Wellington accessed at http://www.SSC.govt.nz.
- SSC (2002) Review of the Centre One Year On: Getting Better results for Citizens, Ministers and Staff, State Services Commission, Parliament, Wellington, accessed at http://www.ssc.govt.nz
- SSC and MSD (2003) Review of the Centre – Integrated Service Delivery: Regional Co-ordination, Wellington, accessed from http://www.msd.govt.nz/publications.
- Stewart, J. and M. Clarke (1996) ‘Developments in Local Government’, Institute of Local Government Studies Discussion paper, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
- Stoker, J. (2000) ‘From New Management to New Labour: Tensions and Hopes in the Reform of British Local Government’, in Amna, E. and S. Montin (eds), Towards a New Concept of Local Self Government, Poland, Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
- Thomas, S. and A. Memon (2005) ‘New Zealand’s New Local Government Act: A Paradigm for Participatory Planning or Business as Usual’, Urban Policy and Research Journal March 2006, 24 (1), 135–44.Google Scholar
- Vestur, B. (2002) ‘Manukau City Council — Local Government Case Study’, unpublished research paper, School of Government, Victoria University, Wellington.Google Scholar