Most countries have a form of regional administration for public and environmental services. Some things, such as river catchments, flood control, public transport services and spatial planning lend themselves to a regional approach, explains Daran Ponter, the chair of the Wellington Regional Council, in defence of our 11 regional councils.
Our regional councils are poorly understood and flying under the radar. While councils sit at the heart of our communities and play a vital role in creating the local conditions for people to thrive, the larger the scale the more removed they generally are from those communities – witness regional councils.
Regional councils are a product of the 1989 local government reforms, where around 600 catchment, pest destruction, drainage boards etc were brought into 14 regional and unitary councils (Gisborne).
One of the key understandings at the time was that some functions were best carried out at a catchment/network/regional scale. Regional councils were never established as uber, or ‘big daddy’ councils. They simply operate at scale with different functions and duties than city or district councils. They are not in competition with local councils, but their existence often begs the question: why do we need them?
Government ministers appear to be picking up this mantle and are calling to either limit the functions of regional councils or remove them altogether.
Ministers are whipped on by sector organisations who see the removal of the environmental regulator as a way to remove restrictions on their operations. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for.
Environmental regulation is a part of any modern western democracy and essential to our trade. If it’s not your regional council doing this work, then it will be a government agency or your local council. Let’s be clear here – regional councils as environmental regulators are working within the legislative frameworks set by government.
If the Government wants a different approach to how we provide for the environment and satisfy our international markets about our environmental pedigree, then change the legislative settings, give clear guidance, and make time for the change to unfold.
Minister Chris Bishop understands this with his approach to RMA reforms, one which regional councils embrace and want to get on with. While we will disagree with some aspects of the RMA reforms, we need the clarity, efficiency and effectiveness that is being signalled.
To those motivated by the idea of fewer councils, the answer does not lie in shrill calls to ditch regional councils. It lies in considered thinking about how we better organise both central and local government for local outcomes.
Thirty-six years after the 1989 local government reforms, with knowledge we now have from the Auckland reforms, it is time for governments to bite down on local government reform 2.0 (LGR 2.0).
LGR 2.0 has the potential to provide for: amalgamating local councils to provide scale and efficiency, possibly as unitary authorities; regional/unitary councils being cut along different lines to represent changes in population, communities of interest and anticipated growth; and national functions being managed at a regional/local level, such as conservation and biodiversity.
I hear the call to abolish regional councils. In response I say, yes, let’s talk about what local authority amalgamation might look like and how we get there.
You might find that regional councils are the building blocks for a more streamlined, efficient, and responsive local government sector.
And let’s be conscious of the need to take communities with us on this journey. Councils are, after all, community organisations.