The Government is proposing two major changes to local government which include removing regional councils and replacing these councillors with what they’re calling combined territories boards.
These boards would be made up of mayors from the region’s city and district councils, and they would take the lead on regional issues.
Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Local Government Minister Simon Watts announced the proposal on Tuesday. They have put out a draft proposal for public discussion and consultation is open until February 20 next year through the Department of Internal Affairs' website.
There are currently 11 regional councils in New Zealand, with examples including Greater Wellington Regional Council and Environment Canterbury.
Local Government New Zealand, an organisation that advocates for local government, defines regional councils as playing a core role; “in the management of natural resources including land, air, and water/wai; supporting biodiversity and biosecurity; providing regional transport services and building more resilient communities in the face of climate change and natural hazards”.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Bishop said the Government did not think local government was currently serving New Zealanders well.
“Right now, the system is tangled in duplication, disagreements and decisions that defy common sense,” he said.
“The Government’s belief is that local government has lost the social licence and that New Zealanders have lost faith in local government. This is borne by the fact that over half [of New Zealanders] don’t bother to vote in local elections.”
Bishop said in a couple of weeks, the Government would be introducing new resource management reforms to Parliament.
“The resource management reforms will strip out duplication in the system, standardise processes and drive down complexity and compliance costs. Under the new planning system, there will be fewer plans, there will be fewer consent categories and there will be fewer consents required,” he said.
“Regional councils will have a significantly reduced role as part of this new planning system. With this context, we have decided to take the opportunity to tackle the problem of local government."
Bishop said the current structure of local government was no longer fit for purpose - “there are too many layers for too little work”.
What’s the proposal?
As Bishop announced the Government’s proposal to “replace regional councillors and force local authorities to develop plans to run their regions more efficiently and effectively”, he also said: “The status quo is not an option.”
Bishop said scrapping regional councillors would mean “fewer layers of bureaucracy for ratepayers to fund, clearer leadership and decisions made by people who know their community best”.
Watts said the proposal would replace regional councillors with a Combined Territories Board (CTB) made up of mayors that New Zealanders have already elected.
An example of this is that instead of having Environment Southland, the regional council in Southland, this CTB would be made up of mayors from Gore District Council, Invercargill City Council and Southland District Council.
“By removing regional councils, we can cut duplication, reduce costs and streamline decision making,” Watts said.
“But the real change comes with the regional reorganisation plans,” he said.
Watts said every region would be required to develop a plan that sets out how councils can work together to deliver services “more effectively and efficiently”.
The plans would be shaped by local context, informed by public consultation and assessed against national criteria, he said.
“They must support national priorities like housing and infrastructure, offer financially responsible arrangements that keep rates manageable and deliver services at lower cost.
“These plans will be locally led and approved by the Minister for Local Government to ensure that our expectations for efficiency and effectiveness have been met.”
He said the regional reorganisation plans would be a framework for regions to design what works best for them “with clear expectations that the outcome must be better than what exists today”.
Existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements will carry through into the new system but Bishop said there would be no mandatory role for iwi representation on the CTB.
"The Government's view is that we don't agree with separate representation in that regard. We are proposing to essentially have elected mayors who are elected by New Zealanders to govern these Combined Territories," Bishop said.
The proposal document said under the proposed model, "regional constituencies of any kind, including Māori constituencies and general contituencies, would no longer exist. This is because regional councillors themselves would be replaced by the mayors in regions appointed as members on the CTB".
"The mayor of the city or district council would represent voters from the Māori and general rolls."
‘Not about centralising power’
Watts said it was not about centralising power - but empowering local leaders to lead their own reform.
When it came to the proposed boards and mayors who oversee different populations, and how their voting rights would work, Bishop said the Government is proposing a blend.
“Population base is the starting point balanced by this concept of effective representation, which is what the local government commission has to do already when it comes to local government voting plans,” Bishop said.
“Our proposal is essentially a double majority. So you need a majority of the population-based votes but you also need a majority of the constituent councils in a region, which means that rural and urban interests can be balanced, and that’s really important for resource management.”
When asked how confident they were that mayors could take on the extra responsibility, Watts said: “Our expectation is that putting mayors in the driving seat to be able to make these decisions which affect their regions is actually going to be something that they are absolutely going to take up and will be enthusiastic about.”
In the proposal document, it said a Crown Commissioner could be appointed to the CTB alongside mayors. “This would ensure that the national interest is considered in regional decision-making.”
The Crown Commissioner could have no vote and just take part in discussions, veto power or a majority vote.
“Another option is to appoint Crown Commissioners to replace regional councillors,” the document said. “Crown Commissioners would be appointed by the Government to run regional councils in the short-term and to prepare the regional reorganisation plan.”
Alongside this, the proposal document points out that seven districts have parts of their territory split between two or more regions.
For example, Rotorua has populations in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato while Waitaki has populations in Otago and Canterbury.
The Government isn't proposing changes to regional or district boundaries, the document said, and is instead proposing two options: district adoption or additional representation.
For district adoption, an isolated population would be adopted by an adjacent district and that mayor would have extra voting power to reflect this, the proposal document said.
Meanwhile additional representation means a district with isolated populations would be represented on all CTBs their district is aligned with, the proposal document said.
"They have a voting share that is proportionate for their areas of their district that are part of that region. Instead of the mayor, it may be a local ward councillor who attends the CTB to represent the interests of the isolated population.
What happens to regional councillors?
Asked if they could provide a guarantee that councillors would be allowed to serve out the three-year term they had been elected for, Bishop said he could not give that guarantee.
Bishop said: “One option is that they continue to serve out their term until 2028. One option is that once the Combined Territories Boards take effect, whenever that shall be, then that layer of elected councillors are abolished.”
Bishop said they would be considering feedback on this over the next few months as people responded to the reforms.
He said the objective was to have a local government that was fit for purpose and fit for the 21st century.
Bishop said there would be many opportunities for the public and other political parties to have their say.
But he reiterated that “the status quo is not acceptable and not an option, so there is going to have to be change”.
When asked about what impact they think this would have on rates, Bishop said it would put downward pressure on rates as it would remove a “layer of duplication and bureaucracy that will take costs out of the system”.
Future elections
When asked about voting systems and how this proposal would give mayors more power and if they considered changing the way mayors were elected, Watts said post the recent elections, the Government was taking a look at what changes could be worth considering.
“Noting both turnout but also the way in which elections are undertaken,” Watts said.
He said himself and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith were putting thought to this.
“We haven’t made any decisions. Cabinet hasn’t considered any of that but we are putting thought to that in terms of what it may look like in terms of future elections.”
Timeline
Bishop said if the Government decides to go ahead with this proposal, it would be a complicated piece of legislation.
After consultation, a final proposal would be confirmed by March so legislation could be drafted.
He said it would be tricky to pass before the election so they would seek to pass it in 2027.
Bishop said these reforms would deliver the most significant changes to local government since 1989.
'Significant undertaking'
Following the announcement, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) said the proposals were a dramatic shift that would affect all parts of local government.
Its interim chief executive Scott Necklen said LGNZ would be talking to the Government regarding the options on the table.
“It’s important that once-in-a-generation change has strong buy in. It must be workable – and ratepayers must get bang for buck from any new local government system," Necklen said.
“Regional councils carry out critical work. We know the new resource management system aims to accelerate growth; we believe the functions of regional councils are critical to the success of these reforms.”
Central Otago Mayor Tamah Alley, who is also a national council member of LGNZ, said the proposed transition is a significant undertaking.
“Territorial authorities are implementing reform across a range of areas, as we work to deliver core services in a cost-effective way. This proposal can’t come at the expense of local accountability,” Alley said.
Labour's local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere said these changes "strip away a key layer of local decision-making".
"Labour supports simplifying local government, but not at the cost of losing the voice of local communities. Replacing regional councils with Ministers or appointed commissioners shifts power further away from communities, not closer."
The ACT Party welcomed the proposals with their local government spokesperson Cameron Luxton saying: "Ratepayers don't know who their regional chair is, but they do know who their mayor is. Under these reforms, they'll know who to hold to account."
"By removing a layer of governance, we are making it clearer where responsibility sits," Luxton said.
Before the Government made their announcement, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the country should be alarmed by the scale of what was being signalled.
"Our regions are on the frontline of climate change, extreme weather, water shortages, biodiversity loss and infrastructure failures. Weakening regional councils now would be reckless.”
30 Comments
Word must have got around the RC's to separate their bill from normal council rates so increases are less visible and less complained about as a small amount. Mine have tripled in 5 years.
Could never figure out the need for regional councils in the first place. Well run and expert organisations such as the Christchurch Drainage Board were amalgamated and almost immediately that prowess was lost amongst all the internal infighting that took hold. Might as well have just combined all within the City Council itself. At least now there may be an end to all the tit for tat carry on with one outfit blaming the other or the duck shoving of work between the two.
I was on their predecessor. Called a United Council, it had representatives from DCC, two Boroughs, one County, the Catchment Board, the Harbour Board, and maybe more. This is what the 'Mayor's Boards' proposal, is reverting to.
The problem is ideological - and was. The Regional Councils were set up to be equal to, not superior to, Local Authorities. The idea was for them to nullify each other, and the neoliberal agenda was to remove them. As it wants to remove all citizen-voice (wants the resource-stream to itself).
This move, however, is in desperation. GROWTH is reversing - as it was always going to do, this being a finite planet - and the reversal is setting in, and will accelerate, This is a global problem, and Tainter's 1988 Collapse of Complex Societies is the must-read. No move they make, can bring back the halcyon surplus-energy days (Surplus Energy Economics | The home of the SEEDS economic model – Tim Morgan). Indeed, most of the current infrastructure proposals - both National scale and Local - will never see the light of day. 3 waters, highways - won't happen.
The question is: what next? And the answer is most likely: very local.
Sounds like a good idea to get rid of regional councils and amalgamate the smaller councils into bigger super cities. That will then take on responsibility for 3 waters. So in a round about way 3 waters reforms will happen anyway
NO - see above.
They weren't 'reforms', either... they were attempts to maintain exponential growth. Of one species, levering a finite energy source, withing a defined area. We can redefine that: they were the perpetuation of crass ignorance.
Consider the NZ economy and then ask yourself what benefit super cities?
If it's done well, economies of scale and scope. Less overhead cost per unit of service.
You think the rural sector will accept direct control from the majorities of these super entities.
Rodney, Franklin and Papakura all did
Rodney, Franklin and Papakura...not exactly what you would define as agricultural economies.
Rodney didn’t accept the super city it was forced on us. And it’s fkn terrible.
Not sure what Debbie NP is saying. Surely all of NZ, not just the regions, is subject to Climate and extreme weather impact. Witness Auckland several years ago. Urban and rural impact by the literal bucketload.
The real message here is stick to the original job and stop pumping inflation via rates on an "assumed" social and political mandates.
Sigh.
Please read the Surplus Energy link above.
We could do all that and more, in the surplus years. But EROEI is falling off a cliff (he calls it ECOE - same thing). Problem is we have chosen - stupidly - to value things in money, and not to include essential measures - like energy and resources.
Now that ignorance is biting itself in the bum, and is either incapable of, or choosing to remain ignorant of, reality.
Insofar as I can see none of this addresses the core problem of local government (no matter its form)....funding
Since the 2023 LG Act gave councils "powers of general (in)competence", perhaps the core problem is 2 decades of out of control spending...on non core virtue signaling vanity projects plus unelected officials unmandated empire building agenda
Predictable comment from a predictable source.
Actually, in 20 years, if people don't like things or approaches, they have the ability to vote them out.
That is what is being taken away - democracy. By a morally/intellectually bankrupt regime dead-set on raping what is left, in short order.
The joke is that they are doomed to fail - not enough planet left now.
Speaking of predictable...
The problem, and it is an apathetic one, is that the majority can’t be bothered to vote.
Sounds like you may be expecting more and better for less contribution....good luck with that.
Can't locate a 2023 LG Act. The LG Act is 2002. Can only locate a Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023.
There was huge fight in NP with the TRC in the last five years or so.. About the rugby stadium if i recall. TRC flexing it's muscles doing what it thought best. Cost the NP ratepayers. I don't believe it would have happened if there was no TRC rather some form of amalgamation / oversight by local councils.
The DCC built the giant money hole that's the Forsyth Barr covered stadium: all the councillors who voted for it lost their seats - but too late to stop it. Not only regional councils that make economically mad decisions.
But now they get fantastic concerts and events thus making Dunedin a more attractive place to live and bringing in business when people come from all over to said events.
Until the Christchurch stadium opens. That is the end of large international acts for Dunedin.
What concerts? It's been a long time since anything of note and the acoustics are horrible. For sports events, barring a once-every-few years rugby test match, the attendance is sparse (to be charitable).
And with ChCh building (opens April 2026) a much bigger, better designed, easier to access venue in the South Island's major city, the Dunedin one is a comprehensively stuffed money drain.
Living in Otago, the hot mess that's the ORC won't be a loss if what replaces it is more efficient and effective - not a high bar. Emblematic: three (or more) go rounds, years of work, and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on just finding themselves new premises - which turned out to be a hugely expensive rebuild of an existing building that's still to be completed.
However: given the ideologically driven permanent bureaucracy runs local councils and manages the councillors, and protects itself with things like restrictive codes of conduct and closed councillor training days, more change is needed there to regain the public' s trust.
"given the ideologically driven permanent bureaucracy runs local councils and manages the councillors" I watch Michael Laws on occasion and he is on the ORC. I get the impression he is a lone voice fighting against said bureaucracy. I'm beginning to think that the majority of councillors, certainly here in NP, don't really know what's going on with the officials (I use officials when all is going well and bureaucracy when they do something that suits themselves) I've been looking at the Local Governennt Act 2002 and I'm getting the distinct impression that Councillors are able to do more than they know. The other observation is that there are numerous reference to "local authority" with no definition or description of what a local authority is. My reading into it is that its the local authority comprises the CEO and everyone else beneath. Councillor does not appear anywhere in the Act. Probably some other Act which I haven't got around to finding.
“The Government’s belief is that local government has lost the social licence and that New Zealanders have lost faith in local government. This is borne by the fact that over half [of New Zealanders] don’t bother to vote in local elections.”
I don't see the lack of engagement in local govt as due to them having lost their social licence. I see opposite: the lack of engagement being the cause of councils making decisions that represent only those that do engage, and too many foolishly complain without actually making their voices heard, submitting to the councils about new proposals and turning up to vote.
It is only when society by and large realises they have a duty to vote, and they have more power in numbers than the councils do, that we will see improvement locally. However i digress, you can lead a horse to water, and fill it with carrots, but it may still not give a crap and walk away.
Are mayors set to be paid more for the second job. Do they even have the time for it?
Good question and another one is if forthcoming changes to the RMA are to only decrease the current functions of Regional Councils what happens to those that remain. That is based on the assumption that not all the present work is useless or unnecessary.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.