Child Care for Councillors

The management-governance split in local government that accompanied the Neoliberal ‘reforms’ of the 1980s, gives paid officers and central government (CG) enormous power over local government (LG) spending.  CG sets the rules - local governance and management have delegated oversight of centrally determined regulations and a range of delegated responsibilities. 

 

Take out the remuneration of the Mayor, Councillors, the CEO and staff, plus the costs of the delegated responsibilities and regulatory role imposed by CG and, in districts with a small rating base, there's not much left to meet other demands.

 

In the largely rural district in which I live, the council recently voted on the issue of councillors’ allowances. The Remuneration Authority sets rates of reimbursement for use of private car, phone and any childcare expenses. Local councils can decide which of these they will implement. 

 

When my council voted on this, they unanimously voted for the car and phone allowances, and unanimously voted against childcare allowance. The only councillor who would have voted in favour of reimbursement of childcare expenses, was absent at a family funeral. 

 

I’ve been surprised to hear a large number of people, including women, argue along the lines of: 

'I had to tailor my career to the demands of childcare, so can they'; or, 

'I managed so why can’t they; or,

'Other employers don't pay for childcare so why should my rates be spent on this.'

 

This ignores the facts that only 6% of local government councillors are under 40, and one in three are women which is a situation we should be aiming to change.  it also fails to account for the fact that family structures have changed and old community links have been shattered; most families can’t survive on a single wage, and many people have to work longer hours with greater inroads on personal and family time.

 

We will only get the best quality representation if we remove barriers to participation; otherwise we are governed mainly by those for whom there are no barriers. 

 

The argument that employers don’t subsidise childcare ignores the questions of whether employers should do so, and whether the state should stop committing so much money on  layers of highly paid managers and consultants, and subsidise childcare or - perish the thought - look at radical solutions like socialising it. 

 

The argument put forward in my district was that councillors are no different in essence from other 'volunteers' who don't get childcare allowances. 

 

All those who voted seemed oblivious, or chose to ignore the question that, if people get a car and phone allowance to enable them to serve as councillors, what’s the difference between that and reimbursement for what a parent might have to spend on child care to enable them to serve as councillors? 

 

If refusing remuneration for personal expenditure is a measure of commitment to service and acknowledges the unpaid work of volunteers, why did they not reject ALL allowances? Why pick on childcare?

 

That aside, councillors are not volunteers; they are elected officials who are remunerated for their service, at levels set by a central government body, and related to the population of the city, town or district. 

 

The same body also sets the pay range for CEOs, which establishes the baseline for the pay scales of the various levels of staff who are employed and managed by the CEO.

 

The CEO in my district- population 12,000 - gets a salary of $250,000 plus a car and other expenses. Fifteen senior managers earn between $100,000 and $200,000. 

 

The Mayor receives $90,000 pa (recently increased from $70k) and Councillors get $20,000, although that is increased if they chair committees.

 

Councillors in large metropolitan centres get significantly greater remuneration because it is decreed that demands on their time and the consequences of decisions they take may be proportionately greater.

 

The disaster of the Fox River landfill illustrates how problematic all these arrangements can become. A geographically huge district, with a low rating base, aside from its statutory regulatory and delegated obligations has to cater for a massive influx of tourists.  It put off dealing with a potential problem because it simply did not have the money to do anything about it. After a huge flood breached the old landfill and resulted in a mass pollution of a pristine river and shoreline, the council was also unable to pay for the clean up, which has to be taken over by central government.

 

How much more sensible would it be to have arrangements that would ensure local management and governance of a standard that could anticipate such disasters and have the funding to take steps to prevent them, or at least to have sufficient expertise and locally controlled funding to enable them to put right historical bad decisions before they become disastrous?

 

As a trade unionist, I look at it this way – councillors are paid elected officials who do an important job. They:

work irregular hours because meetings may have a scheduled start time but they can, and often do, run over; 

are expected to work unsocial hours, i.e. to attend night-time meetings and often do the equivalent of split shifts; 

are often required to respond to issues and to constituents' concerns outside normal working hours;

are on the equivalent of a fixed term contract with no guarantee of renewal; and,

may have interrupted their career progression in another field.

 

If people want to get their knickers in a twist about how their rates are spent - how about breaking with the good old Kiwi tradition of punching down and start looking up and thinking about how we can make local government more responsive to local needs including encouraging younger people and women to participate in governance.

 

A good start point would be to demand central government stops the iniquitous tax on a tax i.e. clawing back 15% from ratepayers in the form of GST on rates. 

 

Leaving that 15% in the council coffers could make a real difference to councils' ability to respond to at least some of the demands posed by climate change - for example.