6 Conclusion
Subsidiarity as a concept provides a broad framework within which to debate the allocation of governmental responsibilities; i.e. the best compromise between availability of information, location of costs and benefits of the decision, accountability of decision-makers, and cost-efficiency and effectiveness.
That allocation of responsibilities must be supported by arrangements to minimise duplication of functions, ensure that all necessary functions are performed somewhere[4], co-ordinate input by different arms of government to decisions with a wide impact, and ensure adequate transparency, accountability and participation.
Subsidiarity does not tell us how to make the necessary compromise or what the supporting arrangements will look like, but does suggest that following these processes is essential to achieving an optimal outcome.
Europe, the United States and Australia have adopted varying solutions to these issues. Both the American and Australian approaches are primarily constitutional, relying on texts and structures to protect individual and community interests, but the Australian version gives less primacy to the centre. The EU approach emphasises the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality but gives little detailed guidance on their application. This seems closer to English and New Zealand constitutional experience
Opportunities to apply the concept of subsidiarity in the New Zealand context are rare due to the limited interactions between governments, the still small number of trans-Tasman governmental structures and New Zealand’s limited ability to influence the trans-Tasman outcome.
When those opportunities do arise, however, considering the issues raised by the concept may be of considerable value in focusing efforts on the key aspects of allocating functions and ensuring their optimal performance.
Notes
- [4]Although this restricts the ability of lower levels of government to determine whether performance of the function is in fact necessary in the first place – thereby putting the honesty of the original allocation of responsibility in question.
