The central Government has a local government problem. Rates have been rising too fast, regional councils are seen as inefficient and unaccountable, and the public wants action. Fair enough. But the solutions on offer share a troubling assumption: that the best way to fix local government is to give Wellington more control. 
  
Two recent consultations illustrate this starkly. 
  
A ‘rates target model’ would impose a centrally administered cap on rates. The cap would be based on a formula derived from national GDP growth and a productivity assumption plucked out of thin air.  
  
A ‘simplifying local government’ proposal would abolish elected regional councillors and replace them with Combined Territories Boards, comprising mayors appointed to regional governance on top of their existing responsibilities. Boards will also develop regional reorganisation proposals for Ministerial approval. 
  
Both initiatives attempt to address real problems. Rates increases have exploded. Some councils have pursued extravagant projects while neglecting pipes and roads. Regional councils have accumulated functions without a clear purpose, creating duplication and blurring accountability. 
  
But diagnosis should drive prescription, and here the Government's logic falters. 
  
Rates capping attacks revenue without addressing spending. A cap does not distinguish between spending on communications advisers and spending on repairs to stormwater systems.  
 
In New South Wales and Victoria, infrastructure backlogs have mounted. Councils expend energy applying for variations rather than running tighter ships. Meanwhile, the big global rating agencies have warned that rates capping will hit council credit ratings, making borrowing costlier.  
  
‘Simplifying local government’ makes a similar error. The problem with regional councils is not that they have elected members. It is that nobody has clearly defined what regional government is for.  
 
Abolishing elected councillors would not resolve that confusion. It would simply remove one accountability mechanism and hand more power to council bureaucrats. The implicit assumption that fewer and bigger councils are better is also deeply flawed. 
  
What both problems require is stronger, not weaker, local democratic accountability, such as binding referendums on major spending decisions and making it easier for ratepayers to compare their council's performance against others. Subsidiarity – decision making at as local a level as practicable – would be another. Encourage governance structures that match the problem – flood boards, pest boards, catchment authorities – rather than ones drawn for administrative convenience. 
  
The Government says it wants to keep local voice where it matters most. Rates capping and ministerial approval of structures is an odd way to show it. 

Nick Clark's submissions were lodged in February, Simplifying Local Government and Consultation on a rates target model for New Zealand.