If New Zealand is going to undertake the most significant reform of local government in a generation, it needs a far more careful, considered and genuinely collaborative process than the one we have just experienced, writes Gwynn Compton from Local Aotearoa.
After months of councils racing to meet the Government’s extraordinarily tight timetable for local government reform, Head Start has finally hit the brakes. It is also a move that ministers will be hoping reduces the risk of any electoral blowback from what were shaping up to be hugely controversial amalgamations.
Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop confirmed Cabinet would no longer decide in September which of the 18 Head Start proposals should progress. Instead, those decisions will be pushed into early 2027, safely on the other side of November’s general election.
Delaying those decisions is the right call. But the circumstances that have led us here only reinforce how rushed and ill-conceived the Head Start process was from the outset.
When the Government launched the process in May, councils were given just three months to develop proposals for the most significant restructuring of local government since 1989. The choice presented to them was hardly subtle: as Bishop put it at the time, councils could “lead your own reform, or we will do it for you”.
Those that participated therefore had to rapidly assess different structural options, negotiate with neighbouring councils and with their own elected members, consider the financial implications, think about representation and local voice, attempt some form of community engagement and develop proposals for entirely new unitary authorities, all by 9 August.
Councils around the country repeatedly warned that this was too fast. I have shared similar sentiments here numerous times since the overarching Simplifying Local Government reform programme was announced last November.
Then, less than seven weeks after the August deadline, the Government itself appeared to have reached much the same conclusion.
Simon says the overall quality of the 18 proposals was high, but none had unanimous support across their regions and some require further analysis. In particular, the Government says more work is needed on representation and how regional council functions would be transferred into new unitary authorities.
These aren’t minor details, and the fact that they’re being cited as a reason for the pause goes to the heart of why the rushed Head Start process was flawed from the start.
How communities will be represented in much larger councils, and how complex regional functions such as environmental management and transport will be divided up, are fundamental questions in any restructuring of local government. They are also precisely the sort of questions that deserved proper consideration before councils were pushed into drawing lines on maps within three months.
This rush has come at a cost for councils at a time when central government is demanding that they cut spending. 1News reports that figures gathered from 11 councils have been used to estimate that councils have collectively spent around $10.5 million on Head Start so far. Wellington City’s Mayor Andrew Little says councils in that region alone spent nearly $250,000 preparing their proposal.
That represents a substantial investment of ratepayer money, along with countless hours from elected members and council staff, responding to a process and timetable imposed by central government. It also doesn’t quantify the effort put in by thousands of people around the country who made submissions or provided feedback during these truncated consultation exercises.
It should also be remembered that this came on the back of councils having already gone through the Future for Local Government review under the previous Labour-led Government, as well as that government’s own failed Three Waters and RMA reform programmes, all of which incurred not insignificant costs for councils to participate in.
The irony is that the Government originally argued the short Head Start window would provide councils with certainty. Now there will be months more uncertainty, all while councils are doing the substantive work on preparing their draft long-term plans.
“Communities and elected members have been forced to have fierce and divisive debates, while central government politicians, realising they faced the same cauldron, have instead ducked for cover.”
Now, councils that scrambled to meet the August deadline find themselves waiting until next year to discover whether their work will progress at all – and potentially waiting for a different government to make that decision. Communities and elected members have been forced to have fierce and divisive debates, while central government politicians, realising they faced the same cauldron, have instead ducked for cover.
None of this means local government reform should be abandoned.
As I have long argued, there is a strong case for examining whether our current structures remain fit for purpose, particularly as the resource management system is rewritten, the delivery of water services has fundamentally changed, and councils face growing infrastructure and financial pressures.
But structural reform on this scale needs to be based on evidence, proper financial analysis, meaningful community engagement and a clear understanding of what problem each change is intended to solve.
Wholesale reform like this shouldn’t be a race. Pausing Head Start now is preferable to compounding the problems created by its original timetable. But there is an obvious lesson here for whoever occupies the Beehive after the election.
If New Zealand is going to undertake the most significant reform of local government in a generation, it needs a far more careful, considered and genuinely collaborative process than the one we have just experienced. Councils and communities deserve the opportunity to properly work through what reform should achieve, what structures will best deliver it, and what the consequences will be before decisions are made.
Head Start was supposed to accelerate local government reform. Instead, its abrupt stop might provide the opportunity to finally do that reform properly.
If the next occupants of the Beehive need any help with that, you know where to find me.
Tsunami of change for local government