Article Three in RSL’s series on the impact of Local Government Reform on Sport and Recreation.
“Put plainly, a risk of amalgamation is bias towards Council-led approaches to achieve consistency and uniformity at the expense of alternative models.”
Progress on the eighteen Council-suggested amalgamation (Headstart) proposals has been deferred until after the general election. Despite this delay, the fact that many of these proposals have been led by Councils themselves indicates there remains a high likelihood of some form of amalgamation progressing, whatever the make-up of the next government.
Given this, we continue to explore the likely impacts and outcomes of reform on the recreation and sport sectors. In this article, we examine what bringing together different models through amalgamation might mean and how to ensure some models are not overlooked.
There are Numerous Examples of Different Provision Approaches
We will all know of a unique or innovative approach to facility or service provision that is delivering positive sport and recreation outcomes for a local community. Sports field provision and maintenance is shared in some parts of the motu with volunteer clubs, marae and schools. Facility ownership has evolved to support a mix of Council and non-Council provision models. This may lead to some shortcomings in facilities, but ultimately participation opportunities are made available that otherwise may not have been possible.
These alternative approaches may also place less cost on ratepayers. Many of these non-Council-provided facilities would not exist without the vision and significant contribution of local philanthropists, trusts and incorporated societies. Ongoing operational funding is supported by sponsorship opportunities and fundraising, each providing additional revenue streams.
Amalgamation Drivers May Not Fit with Different Models of Provision
The benefits of amalgamation in New Zealand and abroad are marketed in corporate speak. Terms like reducing duplication, achieving financial and scale benefits and simplifying service delivery are cast out as potential benefits. These terms may be more appropriate for utility, transport or shared service activities than parks and community service provision. For sport and recreation, these drivers potentially risk losing the bespoke and successful arrangements and facility delivery models operating in smaller community and local authority areas.
Ironically, most participants are often oblivious to the way a facility or service is funded or operated, and in many cases do not know which local authority area they are participating in.
What Can Be Expected if Amalgamation Progresses?
Recent amalgamation of Councils in New Zealand (primarily Auckland) and overseas has focused attention on several key areas:
- Prioritising efforts to consolidate and realise contract management efficiencies for facility maintenance and management
- Putting in place service provision that has consistent brand, customer experience and fee charges
- Heightening rigour on health and safety and risk management processes (tending to favour models that Council has direct control over)
- Putting in place consistent staffing models and more generic job titles and descriptions
- Establishing consistent levels of service, opening hours, playing seasons and booking allocation models (often the goal of consistency can impact alternative models already working well)
Creating larger entities through amalgamation can (sometimes unintentionally) create disbenefits for local volunteering, pride and identity in local services and facilities. Community-funded, operated and supported solutions could be at risk, because they don’t fit a generic mould or ideal model of service delivery. In many cases, Council-led provision is likely to be delivered at higher costs (higher overheads / less volunteer inputs), which may be passed on to the participants (or ratepayers).
Put plainly, a risk of amalgamation is a bias towards Council-led approaches to achieve consistency and uniformity at the expense of alternative models.
What’s the Solution?
Unsurprisingly, there is no right solution. However, we suggest the following principles should be at the forefront of facility and community network approaches post any amalgamation. The main goal is not to lose the huge value of current provision, simply because it doesn’t fit a consistently applied delivery model.
- Value models by the levels of participation and outcomes they support rather than being wed to a particular type of delivery model
- Recognise the mix needed between local needs and regional network scale and efficiency
- Favour models that can adapt easily by scaling up or down – a one-size-fits-all approach will impact flexibility and opportunities to respond to use and community profile changes
- Take a service-first approach that puts local citizen needs at the centre of provision – this will be particularly important to meet the diversity and inclusion needs of target population groups
- Recognise partnership models require unique skills to set up and manage. These are different from the skills required to support operational delivery. In many cases, Regional Sports Trusts can play a valuable role here.
If you’re coming along to the Recreation Aotearoa Leader’s Summit, we’ll be digging into this topic further in the masterclass session, and we are keen to get a range of perspectives.
