Welcome to the second issue of Local Matters, the electronic newsletter of AUT University's Local Government Centre.

2008 is shaping up to be an extremely busy year for local government enthusiasts.  The debate over the future shape of Auckland is clearly testing the policy capability of the local government sector, Auckland stakeholders and the Royal Commission itself.  New Zealand's political parties are deep in the process of sorting out what they think the place of local government should be - and whether it is primarily a network of efficient infrastructure providers, a vibrant breeding ground for local democracy or both.

Reform is controversial elsewhere also.  The guest commentary for this issue comes from Patrick Smith, professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia who has some strong views on the recent restructuring of TransLink, the entity responsible for the planning and delivery of public transport services in Greater Vancouver and the South Coast of British Columbia.

In other international news, the Western Australia Local Government Association has just released its views on the future of local government in the state.  As our commentary on this shows, the Queensland restructuring has had a salutary impact.  We also look at a fascinatingly different approach to community engagement developed around a group of community owned bank branches.

Other features include a commentary on the Royal commission's approach, a new Local Government Centre service for smaller councils and a reflection on the Affordable Housing Bill.  We also update what is happening with local government research, including the recently established local government research network which will be hosted by the Local Government Centre.

We have been very pleased by the positive feedback from the first issue and hope that you find this issue just as valuable.

Back to top

In 2007-08, the Government of British Columbia produced a significant change to regional governing in Metro Vancouver - Canada’s third largest city-region. The province replaced the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (aka Translink), created by the province in 1998(1.) and run by an indirectly-elected Board of Mayors/local Councillors, with a new South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (SCBCTA – aka: still Translink).  This new SCBCTA has day-to day operations in the hands of a CEO, who operates under the scrutiny of an appointed nine-member Board, and a Regional Transportation Commissioner (responsible for fare increases – beyond inflation – customer complaints and the sale of any major assets. Local input under this new structure is limited to a largely advisory Council of Mayors (currently from the 21 GVRD municipalities) whose responsibilities are largely reduced to long-term thinking: including overall approval of Translink plans, major funding/borrowing issues and the final appointment of the Translink Board – from the shortlist of nominees. The province retains responsibility for establishing a 30 year vision for the region’s transportation and the professional board has the task of deciding on various options for a 10 year regional strategic transportation plan;  the Mayors’ Council simply ‘gets to choose’ from these options.(2.)

This New Public Management shift raises the classic public administration dilemma identified by Peter Self in the mid 1970’s – on the relationship between the counterpoints of accountability vs. efficiency.(3.)Clearly, in the recent British Columbia case, efficiency claims have won out; local accountability/control has been lost.

The context for these legislative changes was a simmering dispute over senior governmental prodding of Greater Vancouver to alter its long-range sustainability and transportation plans. (See Map) The catalyst for the intergovernmental struggle was the 2010 Winter Olympics and the availability of “new” senior federal and provincial $’s for Olympic-related infrastructure. One of the key priorities of the two senior governing orders was completion of a rapid-transit RAV [for Richmond-Airport-Vancouver] link between Vancouver’s (YVR) airport in the suburb of Richmond and downtown Vancouver. While not opposed, the GVTA/Translink had longer-term plans in place for earlier rapid transit investment such as into the NorthEast part of the region: the suburbs of Port Moody, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam. This senior government-led RAV project - especially when coupled with another controversial bridge and freeway twinning provincial initiative called Gateway(4.) which many saw as also contrary to many years of Metro Vancouver planning at ensuring a sustainable region - led to considerable contestation. 

On the creation of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (Translink), see Patrick Smith and Kennedy Stewart, “Local Government Reform In British Columbia, 1991-2005: One Oar In The Water”, in Joseph Garcea and Edd LeSage, Jr., eds, Municipal Reforms in Canada: Dimensions, Dynamics, Determinants, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp..25-56.

See “New-look Translink begins long journey to get back on track”, The Vancouver Sun, March 9, 2007 and Keep Translink Public,” The only power the Mayors’ Council has is to choose between a limited set of annual transit options, the scope of which they…have no independent influence over.” @ http://www.keeptransitpublic.ca (accessed March 24, 2008).

See Peter Self, Administrative Theories and Politics, (London: Allyn and Unwin, 1977), Ch.8. Self concluded that the central question in public administration is the dilemma posed by efficiency vs. accountability - and that these are zero-sum related.

The Province’s Gateway proposals for Metro Vancouver includes a twinning of the main trans- Canada highway from the eastern suburbs into Vancouver, the twinning of its (Port Mann) bridge crossing over the Fraser River, and two additional perimeter roads and related infrastructure. The emphasis on internal combustion and individual automobile use of Gateway runs classically counter to the Metro Vancouver’s Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) first agreed in 1996, as well as to British Columbia’s own commitment to establish the least carbon-dependent jurisdiction in North America. That has not stopped the Transportation Minister from going ahead.

BC’s current Premier is former Vancouver Mayor/GVRD Land Use Chair Gordon Campbell; the governmental point person on RAV/Gateway and a new highway to Olympic Whistler is suburban Surrey politician/Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon. Minister Falcon’s frustration with GVTA/Translink politics - which raised questions about these provincial governmental projects, especially RAV - led Falcon to appoint a review panel (chaired by another former suburban – Langley - politician) and then, following their March, 2007 Report which concluded the current system was “deeply flawed and under funded”, to introduce legislation to alter significantly the locally-controlled regional transportation authority. For many Metro Vancouver residents, the 1998 creation of Translink had allowed regional land use and transportation planning to occur concurrently for the first time, and under regional-metropolitan direction. The Transportation Minister told the BC legislature that Bill 43 (the SCBCTA Act) was “to restore public confidence and accountability in Translink.”(5.)

There seems little local confusion as to what the Minister intended, namely the replacement of local control and the substitution of its “politics” for an appointed board.  This has been most clearly borne out in four recent 2008 “Translink” decisions – all made, or suggested, by the Province:

• A Premier/Ministerial announcement on $14billion in public transit infrastructure spending (for the province) over the next twelve years.(6.)
• A Ministerial announcement that Translink’s newest rapid transit line would be the current Skytrain/ALRT technology currently in use on the original two lines; this, despite a decade of regional thinking and debate, supported by numerous studies, on less expensive conventional rail links to Coquitlam and Port Moody.(7.)
• A Ministerial announcement on the creation of a crown corporation to oversee the Port Mann Bridge twinning portion of the Gateway project.(8.)
• After encouragement from Transportation Minister Falcon (to consider the Hong Kong experience on real estate development related to mass transit, a Translink announcement that under its new (10 week old) legislation, it would establish a Real Estate division to ensure its share of any and all real estate development along any future transit lines; Translink anticipates an average of $30 million per year over the next decade.(9.)

All these occurred with virtually no public consultation, and indeed, with little prior discussion by the January 1, 2008-appointed Translink Board. Beyond agreeing with the Minister’s suggestion on a Real Estate division, one of the Translink Board’s own first orders of business was its February, 2008 approval of a 600% pay increase “behind closed doors and without a press release”.(10.)

The New Public Management efficiency focus of the just established SCBCTA began before the provincial legislation was even completed: it involved provincial appointment of a selection or screening panel – one each from Vancouver’s Board of Trade, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, BC’s Gateway Council, the provincial government and a former Premier/Vancouver mayor representing the Regional Mayors. Three of these five screeners of the 400 or so applicants/nominees were affiliated with Vancouver’s Board of Trade. No transportation unions, users’ organizations, or others were considered. This panel short-listed 15 candidates for the Board. The nine new appointees, approved by the Mayors’ Council, had to come from this list. Those selected, by the Mayors’ Council, have been described as “a group of business appointees.”(11.) The initial appointed Board of professionals includes an i) investment banker/mechanical engineer, ii) a planner/design consultant, iii) a chartered accountant, iv) a resource sector public affairs strategist, v) an economist/academic/Bc Hydro Director, vi) a former bank VP/corporate director, vii) a former BC Transit manager/former project manager of Skytrain construction/professional engineer, viii) a University College President/former business executive, and ix) a former corporate lawyer/resource and insurance director.  Three of the nine new Translink directors are women.(12.)

The new board holds its meetings in private. When one local Mayor – Burnaby Mayor/former BC Transit head/former Translink Board member, Derek Corrigan - sought entry at the first meeting of the new Board “to observe”, he was denied entry.(13.) The new directors are insulated from any direct democratic accountability, only being replaceable by an internal Board vote. More importantly, they have powers of taxation, including the power to alter property classifications re: property taxation and re: other forms, to buy and sell property, and to run their own (and now armed) police force, to go with their lack of representation. Colonial wars in the Americas were fought on no more than this. Rare ‘public’ add-ons’ to closed board meetings will do little to overcome the very real representation - and accountability - deficit. According to John Winter, BC Chamber of Commerce president, with the Mayors’ Council, “I don’t know how much more democracy we need.”(14.)

The past success of BC’s Regional Districts has been tied to a high level of local ‘buy-in’ as well as the RD-system’s flexibility.(15.) It is early days for the newest BC regional governing structure; it may well prove to be more efficient; it already represents a diminution in local democratic control and accountability. But any reader of the Canadian experience on the central issues of efficiency and accountability would do well to remember the conclusions of the 1979 (Lambert) Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability Report: ‘the essential ingredient in making a democratic government efficient is accountability.’ In sum, in a democracy, you cannot have efficiency without accountability. British Columbia’s new Translink fails that democratic test.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Back to top

A 2006 report prepared for the Western Australia Local Government Association (WALGA) found that operating deficits and underinvestment in infrastructure were common across much of the state's local government sector (findings consistent with similar surveys in South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales).

The State government elected in 2005 had made a commitment to WALGA that it would not impose reform during its current term which expires in 2009.  WALGA sensibly recognized the likelihood of reform in the next term of government, especially given the evidence on the financial state of many councils.  It put in place its own process to review the structure and operations of local government, the report from which, The Journey: Sustainability into the Future: Shaping the Future of Local Government in Western Australia, was released in February this year (it is available at http://www.systemicsustainabilitystudy.com.au/journey).

The experience of Queensland, where the State government imposed a radical restructuring of local government part way through the sector's own voluntary process of considering possible reforms, has had a very clear impact.  The report comments:

WALGA has also been aware that failing to initiate a determined and disciplined response by Local Government risks testing the patience of the State Government. In April 2007, despite a State Government agreement to fund a voluntary reform process within Local Government, the Queensland Government moved with enforced change.

The result was a very determined effort to strike a balance between local democracy and efficiency.  Retaining the existing structure of 142 councils is treated as a "not negotiable", recognizing the very real importance of local democracy and community identity.  But this should not compromise efficiency in service delivery.  The result of striking this balance?  A proposed 10 year programme of shifting services from individual local authorities to regional delivery arrangements in order to capture economies of scale and other efficiencies.  The vision statement for the process is:

“Local Government will implement and maintain a
governance model that integrates effective service delivery
(on a regional basis) with appropriate political representation
(on a local basis).”

There is a clear message in the report for WALGA’s constituent local authorities.  A necessary (and hopefully sufficient) condition to fend off intervention by a higher tier of government is that local government itself demonstrates the will, capability and commitment to deal with the problems it faces in a timely manner.  Sooner or later a failure to do so in a manner that appears also to meet the minimum requirements of the higher tier of government will almost certainly result in reform being imposed.  It is a lesson which has a clear resonance for Auckland local government.

Back to top

Community engagement, working with communities to identify and achieve key community outcomes, is usually thought of as core business for local government.  In Australia there is a "new kid on the block" leading innovation in community engagement.  It's not part of local government, it's not even part of the voluntary and community sector.  Instead, it's a second tier trading bank but also a very effective practitioner of community engagement.

10 years ago the Bendigo bank, along with all its competitors, was caught up in community demands to do something about the widespread withdrawal of banking services from rural and regional Australia.  It saw an opportunity to develop a partnership with communities in the provision of banking services.  The result was the establishment of a network of community owned bank branches operating under a franchise from Bendigo bank.

For most observers of the banking sector Bendigo is seen as something of an eccentric, choosing a model for branch growth which emphasises community commitment, rather than entrepreneurial profit, as the key driver.  To many commentators who think about its potential, it is simply a bank most of whose branches are owned by the community - almost a bank minus model.

Developing, almost out of sight, within this model is a radical new approach to community engagement which is becoming a powerful additional resource for many communities.  Community bank branches, often but not always in partnership with elements of local government or even State or federal government, are playing a lead role in major community projects.  A really good example is energy efficiency.  Community bank branches have been playing a leadership role in a number of Victorian communities in projects replacing incandescent light globes with energy-saving light globes.

Typically the community bank provides funding, and the logistical support.  The bank acts as the point of contact for people to register their interest, works with the voluntary and community sector in securing volunteers to install the lightbulbs and generally undertakes project management.  Several smaller communities have benefited from this initiative already.  Currently the bank is initiating a 'Ban the Bulb' campaign for the community throughout the Shire of Yarra.  The target is to replace 50,000 incandescent light globes and approximately 3500 homes.

Volunteer organisations will earn approximately $125,000 in fund raising.  Some 50,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions will be avoided.  The project will be substantially funded by the sale of carbon credits.

It is an example of a new approach to community engagement, bringing to bear locally-based community focused commercial skills in partnership with the voluntary and community sector and, increasingly, local government.  It is a superb illustration of what can happen through managing community financial resources to combine the best of current banking services with a strong focus on community benefit.

Back to top

Semantic hair splitting or fundamental difference?  A crucial first step for any Royal Commission is determining the scope of its enquiry.  The terms of reference for the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance use the terms 'governance' and 'government' almost as though they are interchangeable.  It is a Royal Commission on Auckland Governance but it is charged to report on the local government arrangements for the Auckland region.  It is expected to cover the "ownership, governance and institutional arrangements… of public infrastructure".  It is also to report on "what governance and representation arrangements” will enable effective responses to different communities of interest, provide leadership for the region and its communities and facilitate appropriate participation.

The Commission itself initially seems quite clear.  Its open letter to the people of Auckland states it has been set up to enquire "into the question of Auckland's local government and how it is working".  The term "local government" is used consistently throughout the letter.  But the call for submissions document then appears to recognize that governance is more than just local government.  The introduction notes the Auckland region's current governance arrangements are complex and refers to "a number of public and non-public agencies together make planning decisions and provide infrastructure and services for the region".  However, the questions it then poses are essentially around the structure and function of local government.  The word governance appears but in a manner that strongly implies governance is simply a function of local government.  Thus, it asks "should the chair or mayor of a regional governance body be directly elected?"

Does the distinction between governance and government really matter?  To answer this question, we need to look overseas - Auckland is New Zealand's only significant metropolitan region so we lack local parallels.

The evidence is unequivocal.  The distinction between government and governance is crucial.  First, the issues which metropolitan regions are required to manage need the active involvement of a wide range of actors, not just local government in whatever form.  Secondly there is a fundamental distinction between administrative and functional boundaries.  Effective metropolitan governance means understanding and working with functional boundaries which will differ from function to function.

Consider some examples.  A focus purely on local government structures would exclude two of the most important locally-based 'public' entities in the Auckland region.  The ASB Trust is by far the most important discretionary funder in the region and thus a key contributor to community well-being, the promotion of which is a core task of local government.  How can the Royal Commission report on the future arrangements for public infrastructure without considering the role of the Auckland Energy Consumers Trust which, as the majority owner of the region's gas and electricity networks, plays a central role in infrastructure provision?

The functional boundaries for activities such as integrated transport management or economic development clearly extend well beyond the formal legal boundaries of the Auckland region.  Any serious planning for the future transport needs of the Auckland region will need to encompass the respective roles of the ports of Auckland and Tauranga and the transport networks which link both of them to Auckland's importers and exporters.  For economic development (and probably also spatial planning) there is a strong case that the functional boundary of the region should include Whangarei, Hamilton and Tauranga.

There is a very real risk that the early and immediate focus on local government structures as the scope of the Royal Commission's enquiry will simply perpetuate the difficulties which Auckland, and as a consequence New Zealand, faces because of inadequacies in metropolitan governance.  It is to be hoped that, as the Royal Commission continues its work, it will understand both the fundamental difference between government and governance and the need to ensure that its enquiry is squarely based on considering the most appropriate governance arrangements for the Auckland metropolitan region.

Terms of Reference for Royal Commission

Back to top

The Centre has lodged an extensive submission with the Royal Commission.  Its purpose is to highlight current trends in local government and local governance, drawing attention to research and experience relevant to the role of the Royal Commission in making recommendations on the future governance of the Auckland region.

The submission is a reasonably comprehensive coverage of current international developments.  It deals with issues such as:

• Current trends in metropolitan governance, including the dilemma of balancing the need for timely and effective decision-making with the demands of the democratic process - the Greater London Authority and the restructuring of TransLink in Vancouver provide the main examples.
• Whether there are any efficiency benefits from forced amalgamation.  This includes a discussion of scale both of local authorities and of individual services.  There is a marked preference for a shared services approach provided that this can be made to work.  Management, and occasionally political, opposition have been barriers.
• The emerging role of neighbourhood or local governance, especially as a means of addressing the 'wicked issues' which now preoccupy public officials.

This submission has been posted on the Centre's website and can be viewed by clicking here .

Back to top

Housing affordability has become one of New Zealand's most pressing public policy issues as the cost of home ownership has escalated well beyond the ability of many aspiring homeowners.  The term 'intermediate housing market ' has entered our vocabulary to describe the growing proportion of the population whose household incomes are too high to qualify them for social housing assistance but too low for them to purchase on the open market.

In December 2007 the government introduced legislation which it promoted as enabling local government to assist with improving housing affordability.  Explaining the policy underlying the bill, the explanatory note stated:

This Bill enables (but does not require) territorial authorities to assess the level of affordable housing in their districts. Following its assessment, a territorial authority may, if it wishes to, develop an affordable housing policy and implement that policy.

Affordable housing policies will promote the provision of housing affordable to low and moderate income earners and in a manner that takes account of the need for a variety of housing sizes, tenures, and costs.

On the face of it, this looks like a central government initiative to help local government with a shared objective.  It would be a natural inference that central government and local government had worked together to scope the problems that needed to be addressed, develop possible solutions, identify any necessary legislative changes, and collaborate on putting those in place.  A natural inference perhaps, but a wrong one.

Despite the fact that this legislation was all about enabling local government initiatives to promote housing affordability, the local government sector was not involved in the policy development of the legislative drafting which led to the introduction of the Bill (other than a single workshop which did not result in any agreement on a way forward). Local Government New Zealand in its response acknowledged and supported the government's objectives but in respect of the Bill itself said that it:

• Creates complex processes that involve unacceptable risk and cost to territorial authorities.
• Contains a number of unclear definitions and approaches.
• Legislates for functions that territorial authorities can already carry out, and
• Does not provide the mechanisms territorial authorities need to implement affordable housing policies.

Individual local authorities were more direct.  A number pointed out that the suggested funding mechanisms, such as rates remission and reduced development contributions (or applying development contributions to the creation of affordable housing) would be a direct additional cost to existing ratepayers.  Ironically, this was likely to be heaviest in those districts whose ratepayers already face the highest rates of increase because of development pressures (increases which the recent rating enquiry regards as unsustainable in the medium term).  Some also pointed out that local government was already engaged in a number of innovative programmes to improve affordability and that the terms of the legislation could actually prejudice these.

It now seems clear that government will have to go back to the drawing board if it wishes to get effective local government involvement in dealing with affordable housing. New Zealand has an enhanced emphasis on central government/local government collaboration through, for example, the interface team within the Department of Internal Affairs.  Housing New Zealand Corporation itself has a number of partnership initiatives with local government.

Why, on such a crucial housing issue, did central government's advisers not see fit to consult with local government and work collaboratively on designing initiatives which both support?  It is to be hoped that this experience will be seen not just as a costly lost opportunity, but as a lesson in the need for central government both to take its intended partner, local government, into its confidence at an early stage, and to recognize the very real knowledge and experience it can bring to the table.

Back to top

Making the promotion of community well-being one of the primary purposes of local government has some major downstream consequences, especially in terms of information.  It's not just having a loose understanding of what makes up community well-being, drawn from community outcomes processes and other sources.  It is also having good quality information about the current social, economic, cultural and environmental state of your community, about important trends, about people’s expectations, and about being able to measure progress.

New Zealand's big cities (and some medium-sized ones as well) have the advantage of the Quality of Life project to help them understand their communities and the changes taking place in them.  New Zealand's small and medium local authorities have no equivalent, and would almost certainly find it very difficult to afford a project of that scale.  However, they have exactly the same need (in some cases a heightened need) to understand what is happening in their communities.  To take demographic change as an example, it's not just knowing Statistics New Zealand projections for the future population by age, gender and ethnic mix.  It also knowing things such as changes in household formation rates (the key driver of demand for housing), the health status and expectations of your older population, what's happening to your school leavers, including their intentions about future training, employment and where they want to live, to understand what is likely to happen in terms of demand for services, changes in local employment, business activity etc.

The Local Government Centre is introducing a new service for small and medium local authorities to help them deal with this information need.  In turn, working with the ‘local knowledge’ held by authorities will greatly assist the study process. The service will be led by Professor Charles Crothers (also Professor of sociology at AUT) and a recognized expert on social and economic statistics. This service will work in conjunction with the community profiling service already developed by Professor Crothers and his colleagues.

The new service will cover:

• How to make effective use of publicly available statistics, including "mining" census data to help you understand your community.
• Designing, implementing and interpreting cost-effective surveys - essentially, helping you build a "do it yourself" capability internally to avoid the often high cost of using external experts.

The Local Government Centre will be approaching selected small and medium sized local authorities over the next 2-3 weeks to invite them to join in setting up a reference group to work with the Centre in design of the service, including an equitable and affordable cost structure.

Any local authorities which would like to be part of the reference group are invited to contact Peter McKinlay, the director of the Local Government Centre (peter.mckinlay@aut.ac.nz) to make their interest known.

Back to top

Latest international research and practice indicates that strong governance and economic transformation aspirations need to be aligned.

In a seminar on Thursday April 17, David Wilson, Director of AUT’s Institute of Public Policy, summarised the key principles by which to match sound economic management with strong metropolitan governance. David presented the latest international and New Zealand-based research and applied knowledge about how to positively transform metropolitan economies. His presentation is available here. 

Read NewstalkZB's review here.

The next seminar will be a presentation by the Centre Director, Peter McKinlay, of current international trends in local government and governance based on his consultations in England and Canada in the first half of May.  He will be focusing particularly on current developments with the Greater London Authority, the new "unlocking the talents of our communities" being promoted by government in England, and TransLink (the entity responsible for transport policy and implementation in Greater Vancouver and environs) as a possible governance model for infrastructure in Auckland.  The seminar will run from 1pm -3 pm on Tuesday 3 June.  For a flyer click here.

For further information regarding this seminar, contact Peter McKinlay, Director, Local Government Centre ( (09) 921-9999 xt.6237 pmckinlay@aut.ac.nz

Back to top

The Institute of Public Policy, situated within the Auckland University of Technology, is an independent research and development centre. They have a framework that provides a dynamic relationship between private and public sectors, the market economy, central and local government and the wider community. This makes their applied research and graduate studies grounded in reality, and provides resources that help you make evidence-based decisions and develop the know-how to speed up innovation in your specific field.

The current programmes that are available through the Institute are:

Doctoral Programmes in:

• Economic and Social Development
• Public Policy

MPhil Degrees in:

• Economic Development
• Public Policy
• Community Development

Graduate Diploma in:

• Economic Development

Master of Arts in:

• Children and Public Policy

Restorative Justice

Community Development:

• Professional Development

For more information go to this page, or phone 09-921-9999 ext 8399

Back to top

‘Child impact assessment’ involves assessing a proposed policy, decision or activity with ’the best interests of the child’ being central to the assessment (Hanna et al 2006).  It is an emerging field of practice internationally and in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Where child impact assessments have been undertaken internationally, these have largely been at the national legislative level.  The New Zealand Office of the Children's Commission contracted AUT’s Local Government Centre to undertake pilot child impact assessment projects in local councils and to report on the implementation processes and outcomes.

The Local Government Centre Manager, Nic Mason, has worked alongside councils to identify what policy or project could most usefully be ‘adopted’ for their assessment, as well providing a platform to advance ‘the best interests of local children’ with council staff and elected members. For example, one council decided to canvas the opinions of children who lived in the central business district, whilst another council wished to work with local children to better understand (and solve) the continuous litter problem between dairies and schools.

A critical factor which enabled a child impact assessment to successfully eventuate in one pilot site was the involvement of a motivated staff who quickly connected the possibilities of receiving local children’s perspectives into their own work outputs. A key outcome has been that these researched perspectives are still being utilised in the council’s policy, strategic planning and decision-making processes. Additionally, the expertise which was generated amongst this multidisciplinary team (comprising planners, community advocates, and infrastructure project managers) is still rippling through the respective departments involved. 

By integrating the literature review learnings with the implementation pilots’ learnings, the best process identified by which to undertake an inaugural child impact assessment in a New Zealand local council would involve six steps;

1. Screening
2. Scoping
3. Core questions developed
4. Information gathering & assessment
5. Reporting
6. Monitoring and evaluation

Each of these back-and-forth steps is more fully described in the Local Government Centre-authored report that is currently with the Office of the Children's Commission, to be released later in 2008.

Back to top