Mike Yardley is a Christchurch-based writer and commentator on current affairs, and a regular opinion contributor.
OPINION: Is the local government landscape about to be upended?
“Lead your own reform, or we will do it for you.” So says RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop, while unveiling the latest iteration of the Government’s pathway for council amalgamations.
Few will mourn the looming termination of regional councils like Environment Canterbury and their wasteful, obstructive dysfunction.
I welcome the prospect of consolidating our 78 councils into far fewer and larger entities. But the cutting of the cake is far easier said than done. And Bishop’s impetuous edict to councils, whereby they only have three months to pitch their proposals, reeks of undue haste.
He and Local Government Minister Simon Watts are understandably eager to get some traction ahead of November’s general election, and also so that reconfigured council entities are good to go for the 2028 council elections.
But the pathway to reform needs to be orderly. Missteps have already stymied progress.
Back in November the Government unveiled a ridiculous proposal, whereby the powers of elected members of regional councils would be transferred to a transitional board of mayors. It was a fatuous idea, widely ridiculed in the resulting submissions and now dumped by the Government.
Five months has been wasted on that malarkey – with little to show for it – and the Government is now running out of runway to get some meaningful progress on sector reform before the election.
Bishop and Watts would have been far wiser to simply launch Head Start back in November. That would have given territorial councils sufficient headroom to formulate voluntary amalgamation proposals, and seek public feedback, throughout the year.
As it stands, Head Start will now have no formal public input. So if councils are to avoid Bishop and Watts forcing their own amalgamation designs on them under the backstop process, how many of them are willingly going to organise themselves into proposed merged entities within the three-month window?
Carving up the South Island
Federated Farmers has compiled its own amalgamation preferences, which would slash the South Island’s current 28 councils into 12 unitary authorities. Much of its preferred map makes eminent sense.
And for many regions, like Southland and Nelson-Tasman, consolidating council entities isn’t controversial. In South Canterbury, it’s conceivable that Timaru, Waimate and Mackenzie will team up.
Kaikōura should probably couple with Marlborough. Waimakariri and Hurunui could be future bed pals, although Woodend, Kaiapoi and Rangiora may be a better fit with Greater Christchurch.
And clubbing parts of Selwyn (Lincoln and Rolleston) with Greater Christchurch seems inevitable.
But surely it would be a stretch for an expanded Christchurch council to swallow up the bulk of Selwyn, a la Darfield, Castle Hill and Arthur’s Pass. The Ashburton District strikes me as a more natural suitor for heartland Selwyn.
Mood of the mayors
Yes, carving up the Canterbury map and determining just where future council boundary lines should lie raises big questions and debate. So what’s the mood of local mayors?
Selwyn’s Lydia Gliddon has been on leave, but has previously voiced opposition to amalgamation. Waimakariri’s Dan Gordon is downbeat “at the condensed timeframe and the apparent non-voluntary nature of the reform. Past consultations made our residents’ position clear: structural change is not the right fit for our district at this time.”
Gordon says he’s open to discussing “future options with our neighbours - but not at the expense of our district’s identity or local decision-making”.
In contrast, Christchurch’s Phil Mauger is unfazed and upbeat. “Amalgamating with neighbouring councils has to be a consideration. Three months gives us an opportunity to consider what we can propose. We want to get onto this straight away.
“A collaborative approach will be key. It’s important that any proposed change is what is best for Christchurch and the wider region,” he tells me.
But Gordon is adamant the public gets a say first. “We will consult on any proposal, ensuring local voices are heard and understood by decision-makers,” he tells me.
The 90-day timeframe makes crafting and consulting on a cohesive proposal a tall order. It will be like hurriedly herding cats.
Minister Bishop should get off his high horse and extend the Head Start timeframe, so considered proposals can secure community backing and a legitimate public mandate. Double the timeframe to six months.
Comment (4)