Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Well-being and local government A New Zealand Case Study Kaipara District Council; its responsibilities and responses to the regional museums of Kaipara, 2002 - 2011 A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy In Museum Studies Massey University Manawatū, New Zealand Mary Stevens 2014 ii Abstract This thesis examines the concept of ‘well-being’, as first introduced by the Local Government Act in 2002, with particular emphasis given to cultural well- being. With no definitions in the legislation, it does this by focusing firstly on understanding the meaning of the terms and then secondly, by a case study of one local authority and its response to cultural well-being through relationships with the three local museums. Kaipara District Council (KDC), a small, rural local authority, was chosen as the case study. Three key research questions were posed. What is the meaning of “well-being” in the context of the LGA 2002? How is well-being, and in particular cultural well-being addressed by KDC and its long term planning documents? How does KDC work with the regional museums of Kaipara to meet the legislative mandate for cultural well-being? Answers were sought by undertaking an historical study of well-being and its long development on the international scene, then concentrating on KDC’s long term planning documents. An interview with the district’s Mayor about the practical application of cultural well-being and relationships with the regional museums, was offset with interviews conducted with representatives of each heritage organization about the reality of District Council/Museum interaction from their perspective. The research demonstrates that even without a definition, there was abundance of information available to form a good understanding of the concept. On the other hand, there was so much information that finding an encompassing definition for the term would be impossible. The research also demonstrates the difficulties that small authorities, with inadequate staffing and governance representatives, face when presented with a complex piece of legislation. Both Council and Museum representatives struggled to comprehend the meaning of cultural well-being but while KDC believed its response was sufficient, the regional Museums were not satisfied. This thesis argues that KDC falls short in meeting its cultural well-being responsibilities but there is much that the region’s iii museums can do themselves to improve the situation. The solution for Kaipara’s museums is transferable to every other museum in New Zealand that finds itself facing similar circumstances. iv Acknowledgements This work would never have been started, let alone finished, without the never- ending support and assistance of my Supervisor, Susan Abasa. Whenever enthusiasm flagged or energy waned, Susan was there with words of encouragement and the ‘giddyup’ necessary to move me onwards. Her positive criticisms worked wonders during all stages of the work and I owe its completion to her patience and belief that it would all be worth it. Thank you Susan. I would also like to thank Mr. Don Elliott (Dargaville Museum), Mrs. Bet Nelley (The Kauri Museum), Mrs. Christine Bygrave (Mangawhai Museum) and Mr. Neil Tiller (Mayor of Kaipara District Council) for granting interviews and allowing the material to be used in this work. v Reader’s Note A low risk notification for this project was submitted to the Massey University Human Ethics Committee on 24 May 2011 and recorded on the Low Risk database. The names of key research participants are used with their permission. vi Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Reader’s Note v Table of Contents vi List of Illustrations x List of Tables xi Abbreviations xii Prologue 1 Introduction 3 Background to the study 5 Local government and museums 8 Objectives 8 Research design 10 Limitations of study 14 Outline of study 15 Chapter One: Where did well-being come from? 18 A Tale of Well-being 19 An economist’s perspective 19 The psychologist’s viewpoint 22 Pathway to Sustainability 25 International overview 26 The British influence 28 vii The New Zealand Way 29 Changes in the air 29 A question of culture 32 Law at last 34 Local Government Law since 2002 35 Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2010 35 History of the Amendment Act 37 Conclusion 37 Chapter Two: The search for well-being and meaning 41 The Local Government Act 1974 42 The Local Government Act 2002 43 Summary 48 A Voyage of Enlightenment 50 Sustainability 51 Well-being and well-being indicators 51 Lead Agencies 52 Department of Internal Affairs 52 Community Outcomes website 53 Local Council website 54 Ministry of Social Development 55 Ministry of Economic Development 58 Ministry for the Environment 60 Ministry for Culture and Heritage 61 Other Agencies 66 Statistics New Zealand 66 Local Government New Zealand 68 Summary 69 viii Chapter Three: Kaipara District Council and well-being 74 Long Term Council Community Plan: development, structure, content; a reading 76 Layout and Mission Statement 76 Community Outcomes 77 Regional Community Outcomes 86 The Community Outcomes Process 78 Review of the Community Outcomes Process 87 Community Outcomes Indicators 90 Review of the Community Outcomes Indicators Process 92 Planning for the Future 95 Council Activities 97 Local Governance Statement 99 Summary 100 Kaipara District Council and cultural well-being in practice 101 Kaipara District Council and the regional museums 102 Kaipara Heritage Assistance Fund 105 The District’s Libraries 106 Kaipara Community Art Award 106 Other Arts initiatives 107 Dargaville Cinema Charitable Community Trust 107 Summary and Conclusion 108 Chapter Four: The regional museums of Kaipara and well-being 111 The Dargaville Museum, Dargaville 113 Background 116 Museum and District Council Relationship 118 The Kauri Museum, Matakohe 122 Background 124 Museum and District Council Relationship 127 Mangawhai Museum, Mangawhai 128 ix Background 128 Museum and District Council Relationship 133 Summary 134 Cultural Value: A Discussion 134 Conclusion 141 Discussion and Conclusion 144 The secondary research questions 145 The primary research questions 147 Reviewing the evidence 150 Epilogue 155 References 158 Appendices 173 Kaipara Community Outcomes Steering Group 173 Northland Intersectoral Forum 174 Mangawhai Endowment Fund 175 Significant cultural and heritage sites in Kaipara 176 x List of Illustrations 1.1 Map of Kaipara 4 2.1 Lead agencies for well-being 52 2.2 Steps to promote environmental well-being 60 2.3 The multi-dimensions of well-being 63 3.1 Kaipara District and Northland Regional Council Community Outcomes overlap 86 3.2 Analysis of well-being content 101 3.3 Mayor of Kaipara District Council, Mr. Neil Tiller 103 4.1 Location map for Kaipara museums 112 4.2 Part of Dargaville Museum complex 115 4.3 View from Dargaville Museum at night 115 4.4 Viewing the Collection at Dargaville Museum 118 4.5 Mr. Don Elliott of Dargaville Museum 119 4.5 The Kauri Museum, Matakohe 122 4.6 Sampling the Collection at The Kauri Museum 123 4.7 The Kauri Museum CEO, Mrs. Betty Nelley 127 4.8 Mangawhai Museum 129 4.9 Mangawhai’s new museum 130 4.10 Mrs. Christine Bygrave of Mangawhai Museum 131 4.11 Referencing the stingray at Mangawhai Museum 132 xi List of Tables 1.1 Two part capsule for case study 1 2.1 Purpose of local government 45 2.3 Desired outcomes and indicators for cultural identity 56 2.4 Desired outcomes and indicators for leisure and recreations 57 2.5 Cultural indicators for NZ 2009 65 2.6 Defining principles and indicators for culture and well-being 68 2.7 Definitions of well-being 70 2.8 Key words for well-being 72 3.1 Development of Community Outcomes 83 3.2 Community Outcomes Projects 85 3.3 Kaipara District Council Community Outcome with Indicators 94 3.4 District-wide issues 96 3.5 Contribution of Council Activities to Community Outcomes 98 3.6 Four Principles 99 4.1 Kaipara museums and how they contribute to well-being 135 4.2 Value types and their effects 138 4.3 The complementary ingredients of value and well-being 140 xii List of Abbreviations CEO Chief Executive Officer CO Community Outcomes DIA Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua DM Dargaville Museum KDC Kaipara District Council LGA 2002 Local Government Act 2002 LGNZ Local Government New Zealand LTCCP Long Term Council Community Plan LTP Long Term Plan MCH Ministry for Culture and Heritage Manatū Taonga MED Ministry of Economic Development (since 1 July 2012 part of the integrated into the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Hikina Whakatutuki) MCWWS Mangawhai Community Waste Water Scheme MEF Mangawhai Endowment Fund MFE Ministry for the Environment Manatū Mō Te Taiao MM Mangawhai Museum MSD Ministry for Social Development Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora NZ New Zealand SNZ Statistics New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa SOLGM New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers xiii TKM The Kauri Museum 1 Prologue ___________________________________________________________________ In May 2010 the Mayor of Kaipara District Council (KDC) stated in the Council newsletter, Council News, that most of KDC’s debt was due to investment in infrastructure as Council had been on a drive “to enhance community well-being” (KDC, 2010a:2). The debt figure as revealed in the 2009-2010 Annual Report (KDC, 2010d) was in excess of 80 million dollars. Councils are regulated by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), which at this time required councils to promote social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being in a sustainable way. By November 2011, KDC was “on watch” with the Minister of Local Government. In September 2012, the Mayor and Councillors were dismissed and Commissioners appointed to manage KDC. How had this happened? There had been murmurings that all was not well for some time, but this was confirmed on 2 August 2011, when KDC accepted the resignation of its Chief Executive (CEO). A report (from PJ & Associates) had been presented at the Council meeting of 27 July on the state of KDC’s financial reporting and debt management. This was followed by the disclosure of a previously unknown report (KDC, 2011a), dated 18 February 2011, at the following Council meeting on 24 August. The Mitchell Report concluded that KDC operated efficiently and cost-effectively for core activities, but raised some serious questions about rising debt levels and the sustainability of KDC if it did not exercise proper financial controls. KDC struggled to provide basic services let alone to spend more on discretionary ‘niceties’, yet debt levels had trebled in three years. Of particular concern, were the rising costs associated with the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme (MCWWS) and the new District Plan. 2 The MCWWS project had been in process for some years and was the major investment in infrastructure to enhance community well-being referred to by the Mayor (above). An independent valuation on the scheme gave the replacement value at just over $37 million for a scheme which the Council acknowledges cost $58 million (KDC, 2012a: 65). There were other failures: Audit New Zealand would not provide clearance on the 2010-2011 Annual Report (KDC, 2011b) and the new CEO revealed an $8 million shortfall in the budget in the 2011-2012 Annual Plan (KDC, 2011c) which had adopted by KDC six months previously . A new report, prepared by Jonathan Salter at the law firm of Simpson Grierson and discussed at KDC’s February meetings, advised that charges levied over the MCWWS, while legitimate, were illegally levied. The total amount in dispute was approximately $9.5 million (KDC, 2012b). At the Council meeting of 14 March 2012, Councillors, deliberating on rating options for the Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022, resolved that the preferred option to solve the financial dilemma was a massive increase in rates. A ratepayer revolt ensued. A Review Team was appointed in June 2012 and its report (Gent et al., 2012: 5) found there had been a failure of governance at KDC. This outcome could hardly have been in the Mayor’s mind when he made his ‘enhance well-being’ statement. If the chaos at KDC had been the result of poor understanding of their role by Councillors and non-compliance with the legislation surrounding the financial operations of a local authority, could this be symptomatic of other legislative failures at KDC? The four well-beings had been at the heart of the LGA 2002. This research looks at KDC’s role in achieving the promotion of well-being as demanded by that Act. 3 Introduction ____________________________________________________________________ I live at Pahi, a small peninsula dividing two rivers that run into the north-eastern end of the Kaipara Harbour. Pahi is part of the larger community of Paparoa, in the Kaipara District of Northland. Kaipara District was born of the local government reforms of 1989 when the Labour Government, through the Local Government Commission, reduced the number of local authorities from more than 800 to 87 (McKinlay 1998: 9 ). Kaipara District is an amalgam of the old Hobson Borough Council, Hobson County Council and Otamatea County Council. The two Hobson councils had their head offices in Dargaville while Otamatea was administered from the village of Paparoa, five kilometres from my home. Kaipara District Council is based in the small town of Dargaville on the western extreme of the district, almost one and a half hours drive from Mangawhai on the east. The district also stretches north and south from Dargaville in a narrow strip; a drive of approximately forty-five minutes in either direction. The district’s total population is relatively small (18,132) spread over a large, mainly rural area (225,225 hectares), not the smallest in size of the three district councils in Northland but, by far the smallest in population1 (Statistics New Zealand 2006 Census). There are 11,313 rateable properties (Local Government Online, 2011). Kaipara District has no significant industries other than one meat works (small) in Dargaville and one dairy factory at Maungaturoto. The largest town is Dargaville. Mangawhai’s resident population increases enormously at weekends ___________________________________________________________________ 1. cf Whangarei District - 191,314 hectares/74,460 population Far North District - 348,005 hectares/55,842 population. 4 and during the summer, with visitors to holiday homes and holiday-makers. A string of smaller townships and villages line State Highways 1 and 12 which pass through the district. Pahi, my part of Kaipara District, is a great place to live. It is close to the beaches of the east and west coasts and less than an hour’s drive from either the town of Dargaville or the city of Whangarei. One and a half hours drive north takes you to the kauri trees of Waipoua Forest, while the same time to the south takes you to the bright lights of Auckland. There are regional museums (all self- funded) at Dargaville, Matakohe and Mangawhai and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust maintains a Category 1 property, Ruatuna, at Hukatere and the Category 2 Kaipara North Head Lighthouse at Pouto. The massive Kaipara Harbour dominates the local area and provides some of the best fishing in New Zealand. Figure 1.1 Location map of Kaipara District Source: Kaipara District Council, Long Term Council Community Plan 2009-2019 5 My family lives in a 138 year old kauri home and in 2000 we moved a 1942 architect-d esigned home (Vernon Brown, recognised as one of New Zealand’s most influential architects of the 20th century) onto our property from Remuera, Auckland. This house is now registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) and has been restored back to its original state. At this same time I began working for the NZHPT at Ruatuna (10 minutes drive from Paparoa) and then became a member of the Trust Board at The Kauri Museum (5 minutes drive from Paparoa). At the Museum, there was often discussion on the difficulties of being self-funded and then the opposing view, that this was a better situation than being controlled by the local authority. Notwithstanding the consensus on this point, speakers might then rail against that same local authority for its lack of support for the Museum. As part of our historic house restoration, we had been the happy recipients of a grant from KDC to help with our heritage project. The question, then, was why did a cultural organisation with responsibility for thousands of heritage objects, seem to have a poor working relationship with KDC, when individuals could access funding from the same source for private projects with a heritage focus? The answer to this seeming discrepancy must lie in KDC’s policies and planning documents or the overarching legislation (the LGA Act 2002) that governs local authority activities. Background to the study On 24 December 2002, the LGA 2002 received the Royal Assent and became part of the law of New Zealand. This Act replaced the Local Government Act 1974, an out-dated piece of legislation which had been amended many times over the intervening years. The 1974 Act was very prescriptive with rules for activities as varied as farming, forestry, water, electricity and gas supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage, tradewaste, public transport, and such oddities as rules to allow a council to provide public weighing machines or install a clock for the public. The Act controlled the actions of local authorities so closely that it ran to 6 726 sections and 19 schedules. By 1990 when the Act was reprinted it contained twenty-five amendments to the principal Act and had grown to 740 pages. It continued to grow through the 1990s with further amendments to strengthen financial accountability, with the addition of financial management principles and procedures and accountability provisions (Wilson & Salter, 2003). Local authorities were so restricted by the legislation that the only response to any change in activity was an amendment to the Act. By contrast, the new LGA 2002, while still containing plenty of detail (314 sections, 20 schedules, 424 pages) profoundly changed the way local authorities are empowered to perform their general operational functions (Mitchell & Salter, 2003) and built on the increasing emphasis, leading up to its introduction, on accountability, annual planning and consultation (Wilson & Salter, 2003: 1-3). Under the new Act, local authorities exist: to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, to make democratic decisions by, and on behalf of, those communities and to make those decisions in a sustainable way. These three fundamentals form the core of the Act and are re-iterated through explicit "principles" in the Act and also in the detailed provisions for decision-making, consultation, community outcomes and planning. Councils must identify the outcomes communities desire in relation to the well-beings and promote the delivery of those outcomes (Mitchell & Salter, 2003: 1); a radical change from the traditional method of empowerment of local authorities by express prescription. The introduction of the LGA 2002 and its references to ‘well-being’ and sustainability’ was a response to developments that had been occurring on the international scene. Conferences and research had highlighted the growing interest in measurements for prosperity, happiness, quality of life. Britain had 7 just introduced a new local government act along similar lines to the New Zealand statute and New Zealand and Britain both had left-leaning Labour-led governments. ‘Well-being’ and ‘sustainability’ were part of the new government’s policy platform (Clark, 1999) and the new Act for local government was intended to “re-invigorate local democracy” (Knight, 2011) by modernising the way that local authorities worked, with an emphasis on “community-centred decision-making” (Knight, 2011: 179). The new Labour-led Coalition Government was heavily influenced in its early days by the Labour Government of Tony Blair in the UK, which came to power in 1997. Blair was an adherent of ‘Third Way’ politics and was influenced by the strategies propounded by the sociologist Anthony Giddens who published his theories in 1998 in The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. The Third Way is a left-of-centre political philosophy that argues for new ideas in economic and social policies to meet the challenges of new social and economic contexts such as, globalisation, individualism and the intrusion of ecological risk into politics (Choat, 2010). New Zealand at the time had just come through 15 years of neo-liberal economic policies with the ‘Rogernomics’ era of the 1980s and ‘Ruthanasia’ in the early 1990s, which had embraced right-wing positions of free trade, open markets, privatisation, and deregulation. Reductions in State spending, policies that forced down wages and increased costs to social services, coupled with high unemployment figures led to hardship for many (Dickson, 2008). The election of 1999 saw the neo-liberal economic agenda swept aside in favour of new ideas promoting social and economic responsibility. Even though her government did not adopt the Third Way philosophy totally (Choat, 2010) the Prime Minister did refer specifically (Clark, 2000a) to Third Way thinking, as in her statement to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce in June 2000: This makes ours a classic Third Way government – committed to a market economy, but not to a market society. New Zealand is, after all, a nation, not just an economy. And advanced nations must address 8 broader hopes and aspirations for inclusion, participation, empowerment, fairness, opportunity, security, and identity – as we are doing. At the Local Government Conference in July 2000, the Prime Minister acknowledged (Clark, 2000b) the negative aspects of the 1974 Act, the need for discussion on social cohesion and community development and social and economic policies that helped at a community level. The LGA 2002 reforms reflect this Third Way approach to local government planning and decision- making. Local government and museums There are several methods for establishing a museum in New Zealand. A search of websites for museums in New Zealand, using Museums Aotearoa’s Directory (MA, 2014), reveals that probably, the most favoured vehicle for museums which open on a daily basis, is a registered trust operating on a not-for-profit basis. The Directory also lists operating bodies which are incorporated societies and there are also privately-owned museums. Some of the city-based museums are governed by the local council. This work is only concerned with the relationship between museums which are legally constituted and the local territorial authority. As it happens, the three museum organisations in Kaipara are all legal entities, autonomous and self-funded. They receive no ratepayer-generated funding, but are still covered in their interactions with KDC by the provisions of the LGA 2002. Objectives This thesis examines the long term planning documents of a small, mainly rural, local authority to observe how it interpreted a major change in the law governing its activities in relation to its communities. One of the biggest issues after the Act’s introduction was that ‘ well-being’, one of the foundation stones on which the Act rests, was not defined in the statute. In order for well-being to be implemented, surely it was necessary to understand what the 9 term meant? More than that, there are four separate well-beings to be considered; social, economic, environmental and cultural. With regard to the Kaipara museums, what did/does cultural well-being mean to the local authority and the regional museums? In response to these issues, my research addresses the following issues: 1. What is the meaning of “well-being” in the context of the LGA 2002? 2. How is well-being, and in particular cultural well-being addressed by KDC and its long term planning documents? 3. How does KDC work with the regional museums of Kaipara to support cultural well-being? To answer these questions, a number of secondary questions require an answer. What is the history of well-being and where did the concept come from? The well-being provisions of the LGA 2002 seemed to appear from nowhere and were so different to what went before, that a history of its development would add valuable background information to assist with interpretation of the term when there is no definition in the Act. What does the LGA 2002 actually say and how does it specify that well- being is to be delivered by a local authority? The Act specifies a process which a local authority must follow to deliver well- being in its long term planning. This question seeks to discover how that process was followed by KDC. Does cultural well-being in relation to the regional museums have any value to KDC? 10 The LGA 2002 specifies a balance ‘test’ for delivery of the four well-beings. This question seeks to determine whether this test has been addressed. Answers to these questions will help reveal the merits and shortcomings in KDC’s responses to the regional museums through the LGA 2002. Research design This thesis is a qualitative study within the interpretivist paradigm. Qualitative research involves the collection and study of a variety of empirical materials that allows the researcher to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings then attempt to interpret the data collected, giving it the meaning ascribed by the people who supplied it (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005: 3). In order to obtain a better understanding of the subject studied, qualitative researchers may employ a number of different interpretive practices (p4). Following Denzin & Lincoln, I chose case study as the strategy of enquiry for this work, using documents, records and interviews as the methods of collection. By analysing the information, a conclusion can be reached on the correctness and efficacy of the decisions made by the ‘case’. If a ‘case’ is to be studied, the probability is that it is a functioning body or system (Stake, 2005). Stake recognises three types of case study (2005: 445); intrinsic, instrumental and multiple/collective. Intrinsic case study is undertaken when a better understanding of a particular situation is the aim, when the primary interest is the case itself with no interest in how that case adds to theory or represents other cases. In addition, the case work can normally begin with the case already identified (p450). In an instrumental case study, although the case is still studied in depth, the information gathered is used as a tool to promote the understanding of something else, to add to theory or permit generalization on an issue. Multiple or collective case study is instrumental case study over several cases in order to investigate a particular or general issue. Cases may, or may not, have common characteristics, but understanding them will lead to 11 understanding and theorizing about an even larger collection of cases. In these two types of case study, the cases need to be chosen to fit the study (p450). Using Stake as my model, my study fits within intrinsic case study, following the normal intrinsic case study pattern. It is descriptive, outlines the sequence of events and how they are inter-related (2005: 449) in order to understand (p450) “what is important about that case within its own world”. Because the ‘case’ is encapsulated in its own boundaries, in intrinsic case study, understanding is limited to what is important inside these lines. Generalization within the ‘case’ cannot be avoided at times (Stake, 2005: 450) but generalization from a case study is impossible (Thomas, 2011: 50), a view not shared by Flyvbjerg (2006: 12). Flybvjerg also dismisses the claim (p19) that single case studies are inferior to multiple case studies because a single case is multiple in research effort as the evidence can be linked in so many ways. The advantage of the single case according to Flyvbjerg (2006: 20) is “that the most advanced form of understanding is achieved when researchers place themselves within the context being studied”. To understand the case, the data is gathered from some of the six areas common to case study researchers (Stake, 2005: 447): - the nature of the case, particularly its activity and functioning - its historical background - its physical setting - other contexts, such as economic, political, legal and aesthetic - other cases through which this case is recognized - those informants through whom the case can be known. Flyvbjerg (2006: 21-23) cautions that case studies may produce large amounts of narrative due to the complexities of real life drawn from the case. His approach is to concentrate on the particular events that make up the case and the details that make up those events. This ‘thick’ or ‘dense’ narrative produces 12 situations which may prove difficult to summarize but a summary is not always necessary as the case story itself is the result. Another view of case study is offered by Thomas (2011: 16). This is a two-part example of how to conduct a case study – the subject (person/place) and the analytical frame orobject. Each part requires the other to succeed as a case study. Table 1 encapsulates Thomas’s view of case study. The subject Analytical frame Kaipara District Council, well-being and responses to the regional museums Local government legislation Council documents Application Interviews Table 1.1 Thomas’s two-part capsule for case study The primary materials informing the case are the planning and administrative documents of KDC compiled in response to the LGA 2002. Data is collected and analysed from the Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCP), prepared in 2004, 2006 and 2009, which state the 10 year direction for Council activities. Supporting material may be taken from the Annual Plans which outline Council activity for the year in line with the direction of the LTCCP and the Annual Reports which give an account of how the Annual Plans were implemented. Information is also collected from any other relevant KDC documents, e.g. minutes and incidental Council papers, that assist with analysis. Any changes to KDC’s planning decision-making is tracked chronologically through these documents. Specific cultural well-being material is provided by interviews with a purposively selected group of interviewees chosen expressly because of their familiarity, or inter-action with, KDC. The interviewees are in two groups. The Mayor of 13 Kaipara District, Neil Tiller, is a representative of the ‘case’. Mr. Tiller is a farmer in the Dargaville area. The other group of interviewees is comprised of the leaders of the regional museums, with representatives from both governance and management. Leaders of the regional museum organisations provide observations on the ‘case’ (Stake, 2005: 451) as “cases within the case – embedded cases or mini-cases.” Mangawhai Museum (MM) is represented by Christine Bygrave, Chair of Mangawhai Historical Society Incorporated. Mrs. Bygrave has lived in the Mangawhai district for many years, farming with her husband. She has always taken an active interest in her community. The Curator (now CEO) of the Kauri Museum (TKM), Betty Nelley, provided TKM’s perspective. Mrs. Nelley started at TKM as a collections assistant, working up through the organisation until attaining her present position. Dargaville Museum’s (DM) Don Elliott, chair of the Northern Wairoa Māori, Maritime and Pioneer Museum Society Incorporated is a retired businessman and former councillor for KDC. The view offered by the interviewees, of the issues and personal interpretation of situations arising from working with the case, develops the documentary materials and forms the ‘thick description’ of the case (Stake, 2005: 450). In particular, the subjective responses expose the reality of working with local government from many angles, and identifies the different ways the interviewees see the case. The use of more than one method of obtaining data to clarify meaning provides the necessary triangulation required for qualitative casework (Stake, 2005: 454). Analysis of the primary materials informed the choice of interview questions. Of necessity, the questions asked of the Mayor of KDC were directed at knowledge of the LGA 2002 and KDC’s interpretations, whereas questions to museum people were aimed at understanding the outcomes of the legislative process as it affected the museums. The respondents were interviewed only once and the interviews were conducted as per the requirements of Massey University 14 Human Ethics Committee. The interviewees were provided with a copy of the questions along with an information sheet explaining the purpose of my research. Each interviewee signed the informed consent form provided. All interviewees agreed that their names be used in this study. Limitations of study As noted earlier, as this work is an example of intrinsic case study, the research is limited to one ‘case’ only, KDC, and so, no generalizations beyond the case are attempted. Generalizations and comparisons between KDC’s responses to each regional museum can be drawn but these too have a limitation as all museums in Kaipara district are self-funding and therefore outside Council control. There is no Council-funded cultural/heritage organization in Kaipara (other than the Council-provided fully-funded library service) available for comparison and KDC has never invited submissions on cultural well-being specifically for any of its LTCCP processes. In Kaipara, the Draft Plan is released and written submissions on the Plan are then invited. No evaluation of the LTCCP process was attempted for this study. A perusal of submissions to LTCCP 2009-2019 was performed solely to ascertain the content of the material submitted by the Kaipara District museums. Other limitations could be seen to be a bias or conflict of interest on my part, as a resident of the district in which the case study is set, my previous role as a trustee at TKM and my present position with NZHPT. During the course of the research I also did a little volunteer work for Dargaville Museum. The concern that preconceived notions will colour the researcher’s views is refuted by Flyvbjerg (2013: 186-190), when he explains that it is ‘falsification’ rather than verification that is a characteristic of the case study. This is the result of preconceived notions being challenged or refuted by participants, leading to further investigation. Case study’s great advantage is the ability to get close to a real-life situation and examine events as they occur. Flyvbjerg also points out 15 that as research is a form of learning, “the greatest form of understanding is achieved when researchers place themselves within the context being studied” (2013: 189). The conflict of interest concern can be allayed with reference to the research strategy known as grounded theory. As Charmaz (2013: 297) writes, this method “attends to context, positions, discourses, and meanings of actions” and it is the research actions that distinguish it (301). Grounded theory is used to understand how power and inequities affect different categories of people, by the study of actions and processes. When it encompasses the elements of reflexivity and relativity, it falls within the constructivist version of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2013:303). Reflexivity is explained (Hall & Callery, 2001) as the effect of the interactions of researcher and participant on the construction of data. Relativity is the power and trust relationship between the same parties (Hall & Callery, 2001). As this work’s focus is on real circumstances, and constructivist grounded theory allows the researcher’s knowledge of time and situation to be taken into account, unlike objectivist grounded theory which emphasizes researcher neutrality (Charmaz, 2013: 303), knowledge gained from my various positions in the community does not need to be set aside . Outline of study This thesis enquires into the long term planning documents, policies and processes that have been employed by KDC in acting upon the well-being provisions of the LGA since 2002, and then turns specifically, to address cultural well-being and Kaipara’s relationship with the three regional museums. No cultural institution in Kaipara receives funding for day-to-day operational costs from KDC. Chapter One provides the historical overview of the term ‘well-being’ and the 16 development of the LGA 2002. It begins by tracing the concept of well-being from its first beginnings in the 1950s, through international forums, government policy documents and cabinet committee minutes. A short history of sustainability is included as the well-being provisions of the Act are so closely linked to the necessity for well- being for communities, at present and into the future. The background to the LGA 2002 begins in 1999 with the election of a new government which had well-being and sustainability as a policy platform. While the first chapter sets the scene for the introduction of the new local government legislation, the second chapter begins with a look at the relevant (to this work) provisions of the Act that determine the actions of a district authority in carrying out its new role. While providing systems for the delivery of ‘well-being’, the LGA 2002 has a major omission; there is no definition of ‘well-being’, its central theme. Each ‘well-being’ has a lead agency charged with its administration, with another lead agency taking overall responsibility. The latter part of this chapter analyses the materials supplied by each government department and ministry charged as lead agency for an individual ‘well-being’. The aim is to ‘tease out’ the various elements of each ‘well-being’ as determined by its lead agency, to arrive at a summary of what it might mean in the context of the Act. Chapter Three introduces KDC and analyses the processes it undertook in providing ‘well-being’ in general, as traced from the first LTCCP produced on the introduction of the LGA Act 2002, through to the current plan. A new plan, Long Term Plan 2012-2022, based on changes to the Act in 2010, has passed through the submission process but its introduction has been held up due to the difficulties KDC has found itself in in 2012. Turning to cultural well-being in particular, findings from the interview for this chapter reveal a clear lack of understanding of the term and exposes the ad hoc approach adopted by KDC to dealing with cultural institutions in Kaipara. This chapter includes a short consideration of the contents of the draft plan based on findings from the 17 interview process. The fourth chapter describes the history of Kaipara district’s regional museums and their connections over time with KDC. Examination of this material reveals the similarities and dis-similarities in the dealings between the museums and KDC (and its predecessor). Interview material with leaders of each organisation provides the ‘other side of the story’ and shows the frustration and difficulties experienced in their interaction with the local authority. The interviews also uncover the wide divergence of opinion and belief between organisations of what ‘well-being’ might mean and, in general, shows a clear lack of understanding of local government planning processes and the results that can be expected, or are possible, from participation. In the conclusion, I hope to be able to provide answers to the questions of how a small, predominantly rural district council addressed the requirement for cultural well-being in relation to the district's museums? what does it understand by the term? and how might any actions taken have affected the relevant institutions? I argue that KDC went through the process as required by the Act, but never truly engaged with its regional museums. Indeed, KDC worked actively to avoid the possibility of closer relations. Whilst touting the achievements of the regional museums (particularly TKM), KDC has shown no true commitment to cultural well-being in relation to the museums. There is no policy, no strategic planning, no committed funding, no regularity in response and no responsibility. Cynically, museums can be used to “show off” the district but only if they can look after themselves and not be a charge on the Council. 18 Chapter One Well-being: where did it come from? ___________________________________________________________________ The LGA 2002 became law in December 2002. The Act introduced new methods for a local authority in discharging its responsibilities and changed the relationship between local authority and ratepayers. The need to promote the well-being of communities required councils to consult with those communities, and to form long term strategic planning documents that required input from the community; for both determining the ends to which the planning was directed, and for community submissions for direction in achieving the planning aims. The concept of well-being in local government appeared to have sprung from no- where but in reality had been quietly gathering momentum internationally. This chapter has three aims; to trace the history of well-being and its long gestation, to acknowledge the development of sustainability as the other concept so closely associated with well-being in the Act, and to follow the final passage of well-being into legislation in the New Zealand political scene. It is written in the narrative form, constructed chronologically and thematically. A major piece of legislation that is so different to what went before does not just appear overnight. It is in preparation for months or years before its first presentation to Parliament. That was the case with this statute, but the two main concepts, ‘ well- being’ and ‘ sustainability’ had been in the international spotlight for decades. According to Prince (2010), the arrival of the concepts in New Zealand could be explained by the process of global policy transfer. This process relies on a “transnational policy community” which has three elements: - the experts 19 - sites of knowledge production (research institutes, universities, etc.) - sites of knowledge exchange where the experts network (conferences, seminars, forums etc.) followed by the experts circulating the knowledge through reports, articles, books. Policy makers then draw on all these influences (Prince, 2010: 136) when writing policy: in constant co-production of policy knowledge, resulting in often new and innovative hybrid forms that re-order the way we think and act on the world, and that might get circulated out again to inform some other policymaker’s work. In order to better understand the rationale behind the LGA 2002 and its aims, the first part of this chapter discusses the history of ‘well-being’ and ‘sustainability’ and then moves to review the processes which concluded with the inclusion of the terms in the LGA 2002. A Tale of Well-being The concept of well-being has existed for many decades. It originated after World War Two (WWII) as part of the new discipline of development economics (Sumner, 2006: 540) when it was used in a purely economic way in research on poverty in the world. An economist’s perspective During the 1950s, economic growth was all-important and prosperity and well- being were assumed to be inherent in the growth of a country's Gross Domestic Product figures (Sumner, 2006: 57). In the 1960s, the Gross Domestic Product indicator for well-being was still dominant but joined by a per capita measurement, both economic indicators, even though social data was becoming available (Sumner, 2006: 57). In line with the economic slant, research focused on consumption and the concept of ‘utility’ – that well-being 20 was apparent if an individual experienced satisfaction from the consumption of goods (Baliamoune-Lutz, 2006: 121). Towards the end of the 60s, as criticism of the utility view grew, focus began to shift to a ‘basic needs’ approach (Baliamourne-Lutz, 2006:121) and well-being expanded to include social requirements such as food, shelter, employment, health and education (Sumner, 2006: 57). Criticism of this approach was based on a lack of clarity as to how many needs were to be included (Baliamoune-Lutz, 2006: 121). By 1979 the first measurement for well-being that did not include economic factors had been developed. This was the ‘physical quality of life’ index which measured well-being in terms of expectancy at birth, infant mortality and adult literacy (Sumner, 2006: 57). In the early years of the 1980s an unsettled world economy led to non- economic concerns being set aside, until work at the United Nations Development Programme led to a multi-dimensional approach which provided for both economic and non-economic aspects to be included in discussions of what had by then become known as ‘well-being’ (Sumner, 2006: 58). In 1990, the United Nations Development Programme released its first Human Development Report which helped to establish the 1990s as the years when social development became prominent in academic and policy areas (Sumner, 2006: 59). Amartya Sen, one of economists responsible for the Report (who was to be awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998 for his contribution to welfare economics) argued that well-being is not consumption based on income (a monetary approach) but is instead “ the process of enlarging people’s choices” (Sumner, 2006: 58-9), in the context of the lives people live and the freedoms they enjoy (Laderchi C. et al., 2006: 34). Sen based this on five basic freedoms: - political/participative freedoms/civil rights - economic facilities 21 - social opportunities - transparency guarantees - protective security. Sen was responsible for shifting the focus from means (e.g. money to purchase food) to ends (being well-fed). Sen’s method (called the capabilities approach) was much more complex than anything before. The method, described most succinctly by Sumner (2006: 58) explains: individuals have a set of entitlements (command over commodities) which are created through a set of endowments (assets owned – physical and self) and exchange (trade and production by the individual). These entitlements are traded for a set of opportunities (capabilities) to achieve a set of functionings (outcomes of well-being). Thus ‘entitlements’ can be transformed into ‘capabilities’ which can in turn be transformed into ‘functionings’. Examples of simple functionings are being adequately nourished and being in good health while more complex functionings are achieving self-respect or social integration (Sen, 1993: 31). Functionings have corresponding capabilities; for example, the ability to be well fed and sheltered, the capability of escaping premature mortality (Sen, 1993: 31). Lack of well-being is “capability deprivation” (Sumner, 2006: 58). The problem with Sen’s work, as acknowledged by Sen himself (Sen, 1993: 30-66), was the lack of a list of capabilities, but the work has been so influential that research still continues. In economics, Sen’s capabilities approach has reached the status of a well-being theory. Sen was not the only economist working at understanding well-being. Throughout the 1990s there was more debate on the meaning and measurement of well-being and two streams of thought emerged (Sumner, 2006: 59). Firstly, the objective (or universal) approach to measuring well-being, an international 22 perspective, and secondly, the subjective (or locally based definition of well- being) method. Research is ongoing with new aspects of well-being and how to measure it emerging, but three variations are accepted; (i) measurement by economic indicators alone, (ii) measurement by non-economic measures alone, or (iii) a combination of both (Sumner, 2006:61-68). Common economic measures include gross domestic product per capita, real wages per capita, unemployment rate and poverty rates. Non-economic measures include education enrolment rates, literacy, life expectancy, health service, water supply, sanitation and political participation. Sumner gives advantages and disadvantages for both options. He states that the advantage of economic measures of well-being are that they are quick and easy to access and are more likely to be up to date and more readily available than non-economic figures. On the other hand, non-economic measures are slow and expensive to collect but are much more useful in the medium-to-long term as the results reflect the ‘ends’ or outcomes of policy as opposed to economic measures which reflect the inputs or ‘ means’ (Sumner, 2006: 61-66). The combined approach to well-being is shown in the World Health Organisation’s Quality of Life indicators and the United Nations Development Programme’s human development indices. There are problems with both these approaches as they still include, to a large degree, economic measures as their basis although the World Health Organisation, in line with the multi-dimensional approach uses some subjective measures in the research (Sumner, 2006: 68). Well-being may have originated with development economics, but economists are not the only group of professionals conducting research into this subject. Social scientists from several disciplines have studied human well-being but the most extensive research has been conducted in the field of psychology. The psychologist’s viewpoint While the view of well-being has been principally influenced by an objective, economic approach (Diener et al., 2009: 4,) a belief that subjective indicators of 23 well-being are necessary to aid governmental policy making and people’s own reflections on their lives greatly augment objective indicators, is the basis for the research in psychology (Diener et al., 2009: 3). Psychologists have rejected ‘ happiness’ as a definition of well-being, as the word can have too many meanings. Instead, they provide (Diener et al., 2009: 9) a subjective definition of well-being as: an overall evaluation of an individual’s life in all its aspects. Thus Diener et al. (2009: 9-11) present well-being as a generalised view rather than any one specific area of life, and is based on the premise that well-being is present only when people believe their life is going well, no matter whether their life includes any of the specified objective indicators such as material goods or education. The psychologist’s (Deiner et at., 2009: 45) argue that the objective methods of defining or measuring well-being, while useful, do not present the full picture because the indicators chosen (usually social or economic) are dependent upon the values that are held by the person choosing. A more useful system would be one that sees objective and subjective measures as complementary. Objective indicators would measure crucial aspects of life for individuals while subjective measures could provide additional information in the form of estimations of the relative importance of those aspects of life, leading to better use of the objective indicators (Diener et al., 2009:45). They are not limited to just those parts of life that can be observed by others. If subjective and objective measures were used in tandem then the results could be used to improve people’s well-being. The authors acknowledge that while there are limitations with the subjective approach, just as there are with the objective one, these limitations are often different and the subjective measures provide a much broader picture of life. Examples of this are indicators that measure the quality of one’s life and judgments of life satisfaction. As these subjective reactions to life environment affect behaviour and decision-making (e.g. employment, where to live) policy makers can use the information and the influencing factors it is based on, to 24 provide guidance for societies to achieve desirable futures. The psychologist’s argue that nation-wide accounts of well-being would be most desirable, as in many cases assumptions are made on the outcomes of policy without having any information on which to base the assumption. A subjective assessment across a representative sample of the entire population (young, old, rich, poor) would provide this information. Subjective measures can also be used for comparisons between alternative policy directions for legislators, providing information on what the populace prefers (Diener et al., 2009: 47). A criticism of the use of subjective well-being measures for policy development is that it is based on self-reports which cannot be verified (Diener et al., 2009: 67). However, the psychologists have an answer – all measures, whether subjective or objective – must be empirically validated to decide whether they are good measures. The procedure for validation is the same for whatever type of measure is being evaluated. Tests are conducted to determine whether the measure behaves as would be expected given the underlying theory. The more the measure behaves in line with theory, provides the tester with evidence of reliability. Standard measures of subjective well-being pass the accepted tests without controversy and any perceived weakness could be corrected by careful research design and analysis (Diener et al., 2009: 68-93). The two fields of research into well-being discussed above have been conducted separately, one focusing on objective measures, the other subjective measures with the psychology discipline seemingly more open to using the two methods together. The psychologist’s observe (Diener et al., 2009: 94) firstly, that if the economists had not dismissed subjective measures for well- being as being valid in the early days of well-being research, then many opportunities to test that validity would not have been missed and secondly, that there are still many large-scale studies that do not include subjective measures when they could. However, it appears that the economists are moving in the subjective direction. An international study in 1999 (the Voices of the 25 Poor, a World Bank initiative) with the results published in the 2000-2001 World Development Report, recognised a multi-dimensional aspect emerging in the definition of poverty which highlighted two psychological aspects of well- being (Sumner, 2006: 60). The World Values Survey and the Gallup World Poll both now include well-being indicators (Diener et al., 2009: 198) and some countries already have, or are examining, the possibility of adding well-being measures to their national surveys. Marino Rojas, Professor of Economics at the University of the Americas Puebla in Mexico 2012, is an economist whose specialist research area is the relationship between economic variables and subjective well-being. He writes that subjective well-being can provide additional information outside the traditional objective indicators to understand human well-being (Rojas, 2006: 182). An effort to promote a multi-dimensional approach to research into well-being can be observed with an international conference held in July 2011 in Birmingham (organized by Birmingham City University), entitled Well-being 2011; the First International Conference exploring the multi-dimensions of well-being. While the theme was not international perspectives on objective or subjective well-being measures, it was cross-disciplinary and a diverse range of speakers covered a wide field – health, community, urban design, arts, architecture and environment. The main focus of the conference was well-being but importantly, it was well-being supported by sustainability; both concepts at the heart of the LGA 2002. Pathway to Sustainability Sustainable development had its beginnings with concern for the environment and began without anyone realising it in Britain in the 1950s with the introduction of the first piece of legislation designed to protect the environment, the Clean Air Act 1956. The 1960s saw the birth of the ‘ green’ movement and the subsequent development of environmental education, but it wasn’t until the 70s that international effort became focused on the issue (University of 26 Huddersfield, n.d.). International overview The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972 paved the way for sustainability. The Declaration issued at the end of the meeting while never actually mentioning sustainability, proclaims that governments must look to improving the condition of the environment in the present and for the benefit of future generations. Although economic development achieved by use of the environment is a major theme, there is also mention of the well-being of people, achieved through economic, social and environmental benefits by careful management of the earth’s resources (Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972). In 1983, the Secretary-General of the United Nations established an organisation called the World Commission on the Environment and Development (commonly known as the Brundtland Commission after its Head, the former Prime Minister of Norway). The Commission was charged with examining the world’s environmental concerns and finding a way to correct them. People from all walks of life around the world were asked about their environmental concerns. Issues covering many areas were listed as of concern but the environment was connected to them all – trade, education, health, over-population etc. but no clear division existed to separate environmental from social and economic issues. Each affected the other. The findings were reported in Our Common Future (usually termed The Brundtland Report) in 1987, where for the first time the term, sustainable development was used. Sustainable development had three fundamental components; environmental protection, economic growth and social equity and (United Nations, 1987: 41) was defined as: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 27 This sentence is referred to as the ‘classic’ definition and has been used ever since. Critics complain about the term ‘needs’ and what it is supposed to mean (Nunan, 2011) and there have been efforts at writing a new definition, including the United Nations Development Programme in its Human Development Report 2011 (UNDP, 2011: 18). However, changing the terminology just raises a new set of difficulties (Nunan, 2011) and though The Brundtland Report definition is problematic, and used to justify all manner of schemes that are far removed from the original intention (the promotion of economic and social advancement in ways that avoid environmental degradation, over-exploitation or pollution1), but it is well known globally and, according to Nunan (2011: 1), “should be acted on in a much more assertive way”. Five years after the release of The Brundtland Report, the United Nations General Assembly asked for a report on progress made towards sustainable development. The result was the Earth Summit, or United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Five separate agreements were reached at the Earth Summit, including the Rio Declaration (UNEP, 1992a) and that named Agenda 21 (UNEP, 1992b). The Rio Declaration identified 27 principles on sustainable development including the need for balance between the rights and needs of the present generation and future generations (Principle 3). Agenda 21, a document of 40 chapters, is a plan for use by governments to implement the principles of sustainable development contained in the Rio Declaration (MFE, 2012), with the aim to make development socially, economically and environmentally sustainable in the 21st century (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2010). __________________________________________________________________ 1. See Earth Summit http://earthsummit2012.org. Viewed 15 May 2013 Metropolitan University, 2010). 28 It was agreed that as most problems have their roots in local activities, and that as local authorities already have the necessary infrastructure, they play a vital role in sustainable development (Hawkes, 2001: 41). Approximately two- thirds of the 2500 issues identified in Agenda 21 involve local authorities and communities (Hughes, 2000: 2). In practice, Agenda 21 morphed in Local Agenda 21 at a domestic level. The British influence Local Agenda 21 initiatives were adopted widely as a voluntary exercise by local authorities in the United Kingdom to address the integration of environmental, social and economic issues at local level (Hughes, 2000: 15), and were strongly supported by Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Leader of the Labour Party (Hughes: 4). In 1998, a white paper entitled "Modernising Government" was published by the government and expressed concerns with the state of local government. This paper indicated a clear intention to place a duty on councils to promote the economic, social, environmental well-being and sustainable development (the Local Agenda 21 initiatives) of their areas by the implementation of a community plan. This duty was later watered-down to a generalised power (as in the New Zealand LGA 2002) from fear that a local authority might be taken to court for failing in its ‘ duty’ (Hughes, 2000: 22). In 1999 and 2000, amendments to the UK Local Government Act formally integrated the Local Agenda 21 issues into British statute law (Hawkes, 2001: 45). Section 2, Promotion of well-being, in the Local Government Act 2000 provides that: every local authority has the power to do anything they consider is likely to achieve the promotion and improvement of economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. This statute is still in force with the wording unchanged. Despite the importance of the Earth Summit and the far-reaching decisions made 29 there, in New Zealand in the years after, despite the British example, there was little central government support or leadership on the Agenda 21 initiatives (Hughes, 2000: 6). In contrast to the British experience with more than 65% of local authorities committing to Local Agenda 21 and strong support from local government associations, there was little interest shown by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and local authorities apart from workshops on Agenda 21 at the 1998 local government conference and a social and environmental sustainability seminar in 1999 (Hughes, 2000: 6). This all began to change with the election of a new Government in 1999. The New Zealand Way In New Zealand, the pre-election policy statements of both the Labour Party and the Alliance Party had identified the need for major reform of local government legislation. These two parties formed the Coalition Government which came to office in November 1999. New Prime Minister, Helen Clark's opening address (Clark, 1999) to Parliament spoke of: Implementing a policy platform which reduces inequality, is environmentally sustainable and improves the social and economic well-being of all New Zealanders. This economic and social advancement was to be achieved by partnerships between communities, businesses, voluntary groups and local authorities with sustainability as its foundation; a manifestation of Third Way thought. Changes in the air At the first Local Government Forum held on 7 March 2000, the Government and local government representatives agreed on a programme to review all pieces of local government legislation, including the Local Government Act (Department of Internal Affairs [DIA] 2001). Then, on 9 November 2000, the Government released the Statement of Policy Direction for Review of Local Government Act 1974 (DIA, 2000). The Government's strategy was to focus on 30 local government as part of the democratic system that worked to meet the needs of its communities. To do this required a principles-based approach (the proposed principles were communities’ right to representation, leadership, participation, diversity, fairness and accountability) and a move away from the old prescriptive formula (DIA, 2001). The document was designed to raise awareness about the work that was underway and to invite comment on the new policy proposals while they were still in development. Paragraph 21, Section 4 entitled Purposes and Principles of Local Government contains the first mention of well-being: The over-riding goal of all governments, both central and local, should be to advance the well-being of the population. This is followed by the statement (the forerunner of what would become section 10 LGA 2002, The purpose of local government in the 2002 Act): The Government believes that a statement of the over-riding purpose of the system of local government (why we have it) could be along the lines that it is: to enable local decision-making by and on behalf of citizens in their local communities to promote their social, economic and environmental well-being in the present and for the future. The document also introduces the concept of ‘ principles’ as a guide to how local government might operate and explains that although a new Act will give greater flexibility in how a local authority might meet the expectations of its communities, there will still be a prescriptive element around regulatory functions and financial accountability. Individuals and groups were invited to comment on the proposals. A consultation document, Reviewing the Local Government Act 1974, Have Your Say, was released on 14 June 2001. In her forward, Minister Sandra Lee stated that the review of the Act was significant for the way the new proposals had been formulated; it had been a collaboration between the DIA, other Government departments and local government sector, in all twenty-seven 31 different sectors. The document contains a new version of the purpose of local government. For the first time, we see the inclusion of cultural well-being as one of the set of well-beings. The proposed new purpose reads: the purpose of local government is to enable local decision-making by and on behalf of citizens in their local communities, to promote their social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being in the present and for the future. The DIA ran 66 public meetings throughout New Zealand as part of the consultation process and received 664 written submissions. 312 (48%) of the submissions received included comments on the proposed purpose of local government statement. 64 of these came from district, city and regional councils and LGNZ (AC Nielsen, 2001: 12). 82 submissions in opposition to the notion of local authority involvement in promotion of well-being for their community came from resident and ratepayer groups, business and a few individual submitters. Cultural and social matters were for central government and local authorities should concentrate on the core essentials of water, sewage and waste disposal (AC Nielsen, 2001: 15). Of the 300 submitters who commented on the well-being proposal, 197 supported the concept but in varying degrees. At various cabinet meetings after the consultation process, further decisions relating to the forthcoming Local Government Bill were made. On 27 September, the Minister of Local Government recommended to the Cabinet Policy Committee (POL Min (01) 26/12) that the Bill should contain a slightly altered statement: The purpose of local government is to enable local decision-making, by and on behalf of individuals in their communities, to democratically support and action their social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being, in the present and for the future. The committee agreed to this on 3 October 2001 but when the Local 32 Government Bill was introduced to Parliament on 18 December 2001, the wording had altered again. It was now a sub-part of Part 2 of the Bill; Role and structure of local government, Sub-part 1 – Purposes and powers of local authorities. As clause 8, Purpose of local authorities, it read: The purpose of local authorities is to enable local decision-making, by, and on behalf of, individuals in their communities, to democratically promote and action their social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being in the present and for the future. Two words only have been changed. Authorities replaces government and promote replaces support, but the result is the placement of a greater responsibility on a local authority to actively engage with its local community. A question of culture Up until the release of Reviewing the Local Government Act 1974: Have Your Say in June 2001, there had been no mention of cultural well-being. Local government planning documents up to that time had commonly referred to the ‘ triple bottom line’ referencing the social, economic and environmental dimensions of well-being even though local authorities carried out some cultural functions (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2005: 3). A joint vision and strategy document prepared after the first Local Government Forum meeting with the Government in 2000 only mentioned the three well-beings (SOLGM, 2010: 5). The British Local Government Act 2000 provided for only economic, social and environmental well-being. Up until this time, cultural issues had been subsumed into the social dimension. So where did the notion of cultural well-being originate? Again, it had a long back story. There had been conferences on culture previously but the first big one was the UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies held in Mexico City in July- August 1982. The Declaration issued at the conclusion ran to 54 clauses with clause 41 stating that “society must make substantial efforts with respect to the planning, administration and financing of cultural activities” (UNESCO, 1982: 4). 33 In 1988, UNESCO launched the World Decade for Cultural Development with increasing realisation that human development and well-being could not be sustained by economic measures alone (UNESCO, 1995: 7). Works such as The Brundtland Report had pointed this out and the success of the Brundtland Report to the Earth Summit process inspired the wish for a similar process to explore issues such as the cultural dimensions of individual and collective well- being (UNESCO, 1995: 8). In late 1992, the World Commission on Culture and Development was appointed to prepare proposals for present and future action to meet “cultural needs in the context of development” (UNESCO, 1995: 8). The members of the Commission believed that culture was at the heart of sustainable development since cultural attitudes and life-styles influence the way that people manage their environment. During its deliberations, the Commission canvassed the work on ‘basic needs’ and Sen’s ‘capabilities approach’. The result of the Commission’s work was Our Creative Diversity released in November 1995. This commission did not issue a definition of culture, considering the topic too diverse, but concluded as in the Brundtland Report, that all concepts covered by human development could not be separated. An International Agenda was formulated for inter-disciplinary research on the part that culture plays in sustainable human development, to lead to a Global Summit (UNESCO, 1995: 18). By 1998, the planning was done and the UNESCO Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development (The Power of Culture) opened in Stockholm, Sweden on 30 March 1998 with a programme designed to transform the new ideas from Our Creative Diversity into policy and practice. A background document prepared for participants stated that culture appeared to be on the ascendancy in public awareness everywhere (UNESCO, 1998a: 3) and that state policy should link cultural policy to human development (UNESCO, 1998a: 6). The Conference Report (the Action Plan) recognised twelve principles and Principle 1 (UNESCO, 1998b: 13) declared that “sustainable development and the flourishing of culture are interdependent”. All the work at the conference pointed to the need to include 34 cultural issues in any state policy for an integrated approach to quality of life for its citizens. It recognised that if culture is so central then the concerns of state should include cultural well-being (UNESCO, 1998b: 13-18). In Australia in the years after this conference, Yencken & Wilkinson (2000) argued to include cultural issues in the notion of sustainability as three pillars – ecological, social and economic. With the inclusion of cultural sustainability, the concept would be known as ‘the four pillars of sustainability’ (Yencken & Wilkinson, 2000: 9). While the book is largely about environmental sustainability, they conclude that environmental sustainability will never be achieved without sustainability in the other three areas. Their work was extended by Jon Hawkes (2001) who showed how culture directly intersected with the other dimensions of sustainability in human development. Hawkes argued for a cultural ‘filter’ to be applied to all policy just as environmental, social and economic filters were already applied (Hawkes, 2001: 33) a measure that was applied in New Zealand in 2003. Law at last The Local Government Bill, complete with the four well-beings, was introduced into Parliament on 18 December 2001 and was then referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee which did not report back to Parliament until 10 December 2002. 391 submissions were made on the Bill and these led to some more changes to the purpose and role of local government clauses. The Select Committee recommended that the concept of a ‘sustainable development approach’ (New Zealand Parliament, 2002: 1) be included in community well-being and once more the purpose was altered (for greater clarity according to DIA (2002)), to read 7A Purpose of local government: The purpose of local government is : (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on 35 behalf of, communities; and (b) promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well- being of communities, in the present and for the future. The Select Committee took additional advice from the DIA and the Commissioner for the Environment as to whether the concept of sustainability was covered sufficiently in the wording of “well-being for the future” (New Zealand Parliament, 2002: 7). Committee members decided that sustainability in the Bill would be covered by the term “sustainable development” as it linked to international sustainable development initiatives and Agenda 21 activities amongst others. The Local Government Bill was read for a second time on 18 December with the third reading held on 20 December. It received the Royal Assent on 24 December 2002. Local Government Law since 2002 26 November 2010 saw the introduction of the LGA 2002 Amendment Act 2010. The amendment reflected the concerns of the new National Party-led Coalition Government (National, United, ACT, Māori Party) which had ousted the previous Labour Government in November 2008. The new Minister for Local Government was the Hon. Rodney Hide, Leader of the ACT Party, holding a Cabinet position as part of a coalition agreement. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2010 The Amendment Act was introduced to provide a framework for ratepayers to better influence the work of their councils in several areas (Hide, 2010: 1). These included: -better control of council costs, rates and activities by focusing on core services -easier-to-understand financial reporting, standardised across all councils -better accountability (by the production of pre-election reports with information on financial performance and planning) -simplification of the planning processes in the principal Act (by combining 36 the community outcomes processes and the long-term planning process -focusing planning on financial and infrastructure issues -simplifying council processes and thereby reducing compliance costs and giving more flexibility to councils to improve effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of council services (Minister of Local Government’s Office, 2009). It is interesting to note that the community outcomes processes were targeted for both cost and the fact that they were seen to be used to extend councils’ roles beyond core services (Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee Minute, 2009). The definition of community outcomes in s5 of the principal Act was repealed and a new definition substituted: community outcomes means the outcomes that a local authority aims to achieve in order to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of its district or region, in the present and for the future. This change meant that community outcomes were now in the ownership of the local authority rather than local communities. The new Act inserted a new section, s11A Core services to be considered in performing role, into the principal Act: In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities: (a) network infrastructure (b) public transport services (c) solid waste collection and disposal (d) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards: (e) libraries, museums, reserves, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure. 37 Originally, the word ‘museums’ was not included in the Bill as one of the proposed core services (Cabinet Papers, 2010: 18) but by the time the Bill was introduced on 29 April 2010 (NZ Parliament, 2010: 3) ‘ museums’ had been included and the clause remained unchanged throughout the parliamentary process. The core services clause in the Bill had been opposed by the local government sector as it maintained that it would be too restrictive on local authorities. KDC’s submission (KDC, 2010) was in line with sector interests giving the reason that all communities are not the same therefore a uniform clause could cause unnecessary expenditure. History of the Amendment Act Work on the Amendment Act began in much the same way as had the approach to the introduction of the LGA 2002. The incoming government made its Speech from the Throne and advised its priorities. These were to grow the economy, reduce government bureaucracy and reduce regulatory and compliance demands (Cabinet paper, April 2010). In April 2009, Cabinet members invited the Minister of Local Government, the Hon. Rodney Hide, to report to the Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee with proposals to improve local authority transparency, accountability and financial management (Cabinet paper, 2010: 2). No consultation documents were released, submissions were to be called during the select committee stage. The LGA Act 2002 Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on 29 April 2010 and had its First Reading on 4 May. It was then referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee which reported to the House on 3 November 2010. The Second and Third Readings were held on 16 November and the Bill received Royal Assent and became the LGA 2002 Amendment Act 2010 (10/124) on 26 November 2010. Conclusion The introduction of the LGA 2002 was the final act in a process that had occupied the Labour-led Government for three years, and was the culmination 38 of international research and events (New Zealand participated in all the United Nations conferences mentioned) that had occupied the preceding 40+ years and is still ongoing. Even though events appeared to follow the global policy transfer links as propounded by Prince (2010), whether the LGA 2002 would have been introduced if the Labour/Alliance Government had not come to office in 1999 is a moot point. Certainly, the close political connections between the New Zealand and British Governments of the time may have added to the push for its introduction. Interestingly, the MFE’s website reports that New Zealand reported annually (from 1993-2001) to the Commission on Sustainable Development at the United Nations, on implementation of Agenda 21 objectives. The 2002 report, Towards Sustainable Development in New Zealand (MFE, 2002a) was prepared as part of preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg, South Africa (in August and September 2002), called to review progress since the Earth Summit ten years earlier. The New Zealand delegation to the Summit was led by the Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Helen Clark and the delegation’s objectives included, amongst others, positioning New Zealand as a leader in sustainable development at home and abroad and improving governance for sustainable development (MFE, 2002b). As a lead-up to the Summit, Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) released Monitoring Progress Towards a Sustainable New Zealand on 1 August, a first attempt at measuring progress since the Earth Summit. The document uses statistical indicators only, covering economic, environmental and social issues, with a warning (SNZ, 2002: 17) that the selection may be skewed towards the viewpoint of the selector (see Diener et al., in the psychologist’s viewpoint above). After consultation, a review indicated that cultural issues should be included and that a bottom-up approach involving community input was important (SNZ, 2002: 8). In addition, linkage between objective and subjective indicators would be useful and valuable. 39 Almost seven years later, in July 2009, Statistics New Zealand published a report building on what had been learned in 2002. Measuring New Zealand’s Progress Using a Sustainable Development Approach: 2008 is based on the Brundtland definition and lists environmental responsibility, economic efficiency and social cohesion (which includes cultural issues) as ‘ target dimensions’ of equal importance, as no dimension can be achieved at the expense of any of the others (SNZ, 2009: 9). As in the 2002 report the indicators used are measured by statistical data, but for the first time there is a subjective indicator in the section on living conditions – household satisfaction with material standard of living. The explanation (SNZ, 2009: 105) states: Well-being depends on not only meeting basic material needs, but also on people’s subjective judgement of their living conditions. This indicator provides a fuller answer …. The two measures for the indicator (SNZ, 2009: 107) are - basic needs are met and the promotion of satisfaction and happiness in life. As a side issue, local authorities are urged to use the document to assist with responsibilities to their communities, well-being and sustainable development under the LGA 2002. Another government document released back in January 2003, just after the LGA 2002 was enacted, the Sustainable Development Programme of Action ensures that all government actions and decisions provide for the well-being of current and future generations. The principles for policy development require that all actions must take account of the economic, social, environmental and cultural consequences (MFE, 2003). The introduction of the LGA 2002 was the result of many years and separate strands of research by individuals and organisations coming together at a particular time. The leading role of the United Nations was instrumental in the evolution of well-being and sustainable development. The two concepts cannot be separated. It was fortuitous that the political climate in New Zealand changed several years after the Earth Summit as this led to the instalment of a 40 Prime Minister who had a specialist interest in international affairs. The LGA 2002 and numerous other new pieces of legislation, plus the reports mentioned above (and there are many others) attest to the importance that was attached (politically) to well-being and sustainability in New Zealand at that time. The amendments of 2010 are a response to later changes in government and policy. This was the position for policy makers, legislators and government ministries leading up to, and after the introduction of the LGA 2002, but how was local government to handle its new responsibilities? That is the subject of the next chapter. 41 Chapter Two Well-being: the search for meaning ___________________________________________________________________ The previous chapter examined the historical background leading to the introduction of the LGA 2002. This chapter addresses the issues raised for local government at its commencement. For a piece of legislation with such a totally different approach to that which went before, the LGA 2002 has two significant omissions. The key definitions for well-being and sustainability are missing. Where, then, were local authorities to find the information required to deliver their new responsibilities through the Act? There are two aims for this chapter. As the rationale for this thesis is to gain an understanding of how a particular local authority delivered ‘well- being’ to its regional museums, the first aim is to reach an understanding of the processes contained in the Act whereby a local authority was to effect this delivery generally. The second aim is to reach an understanding of what ‘well- being’ means and how local authorities might be able to ascertain whether their delivery of well-being has had an effect. This chapter is restricted to discussion of the LGA 2002 as it was introduced without reference to later amendments. The specific issue of KDC, the LGA 2002, cultural well-being and regional museums is covered in later chapters. This chapter begins with a short discussion of some sections of the LGA 1974 as a comparison to the Act which replaced it, and then moves to an examination of those sections of the LGA 2002 applicable to the implementation of well-being through local authority planning documents. The final part of the chapter introduces the ‘lead agencies’ of central government entrusted with responsibility for each of the four well-beings, and reports on 42 their role in providing information to enable understanding of each well-being. As the focus of this thesis moves to cultural well-being only in later chapters, where the information on each individual well-being provides a connection to cultural well-being, then this will be detailed specifically. The Local Government Act 1974 The Local Government Act 1974 came into force on 8 November 1974. The introductory preamble stated that the Act ((1990) 25 RSNZ: 19) was to amend the law relating to local authorities by incorporating several older pieces of legislation and providing for reorganization of districts and administrative functions. It is not until section 37K (inserted into the Act in 1989, the year there was a major reorganization of local government in New Zealand) that the purpose of the Act is revealed. There are nine purposes; four provide for the recognition and enhancement of communities, three detail operational and service functions, one provides for the exercise of powers and duties of local government and the final purpose is to provide for local participation. The majority of sections in the Act are taken up with regulating local government functions (the new Act removed all of these operational functions from the statute). For example, there are rules for: road widths, road gradients, vehicle crossings, footpaths, alterations to drains, motor garages, leases of airspace, tolls at bridges, tunnels and ferries, water supplies, water races, supply of energy, construction of boat havens, stock dips, stock paddocks, transport shelters. By the time the 1990 Reprint was replaced with another reprint on 3 March 2000, the Act was so amended and annotated that it was extremely difficult to follow and understand. Work was already underway on its replacement. 43 The Local Government Act 2002 By comparison to the Act it replaced, the LGA 2002 has no preamble. After the title page and commencement section (some sections came into force immediately on 25 December, with the majority commencing and enforceable from 1 July 2003), the purpose of the Act is introduced in section 3 (s3). The purpose of this Act is to provide for democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities; and, to that end, this Act: (a) states the purpose of local government; and (b) provides a framework and powers for local authorities to decide which activities they undertake and the manner in which they will undertake them; and (c) promotes the accountability of local authorities to their communities: and (d) provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach. The need for local government to promote the well-being of communities is repeated in section 10 (s10). The purpose of local government is: (a) to enable democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well- being of communities, in the present and for the future. The emphasis is on communities, the four well-beings and the need for sustainability. It is a much broader approach and markedly different from 44 the static list of purposes in s37K of the 1974 Act it replaces. The new Act changed the role of local government from that of, “service delivery and provision of public goods, to one of community governance” (Cheyne, 2006: 175) . The 2002 Act removed the “prescriptive empowering functions” (Wilson & Salter, 2003: 4) from the statute and granted (Part 2, Purpose of local government, and role and powers of local authorities, section 12), “powers of general competence” (Mitchell & Salter, 2003: 5). Local authorities now had full rights, powers and privileges to carry out any activity, but with the limitation that these powers are subject to the Act and the general law and must be exercised for the benefit of the district. A set of principles to govern the performance of a local authority in carrying out its role, as provided in s14, is one of those limitations within the Act. A local authority must operate in an open, democratic manner; use sound business practices; use the resources of the district in an efficient and effective way; provide opportunities for Māori and give effect to identified priorities and desired outcomes. There is a need to have regard to the views of all its communities; take account of the diversity of its communities and take account of the interests of the community now as well as into the future. Table 2.1 shows how the long list of mixed purposes in LGA 1974 has been replaced by the open-ended purposes of LGA 2002. 45 Purpose of Local Government Local Government Act 1974 Section 37K Local Government Act 2002 Section 10 To provide – Recognition of the existence of different communities in New Zealand To enable democratic decision making and action by, and on behalf of, communities Recognition of the identities and values of those communities To promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well- being of communities, in the present and for the future Definition and enforcement of appropriate rights within those communities Scope for communities to make choices between different kinds of local public facilities and services For the operation of trading undertakings of local authorities on a competitively neutral basis For the delivery of appropriate facilities and services on behalf of central government Recognition of communities of interest For the efficient and effective exercise of the functions, duties and powers of the components of local government For the effective participation of local persons in local government Table 2.1 Comparison of the ingredients of the Purpose of Local Government in LGA 1974 and LGA 2002. 46 The provisions in Part 6 (planning, decision-making, consultation, commu