The Government wants fundamental change to how regions are governed. As Chair of Environment Canterbury and the LGNZ regional sector, I support reform that improves outcomes for communities. Change is needed - the question is what kind of change actually works.
These questions deserve answers before we make changes we can't undo.
The Government's proposal eliminates regional councillors and replaces them with boards of mayors. I've read the 30-page document carefully. There are serious contradictions that need resolving before we make irreversible changes to regional governance.
The views in this article are my own, though I expect they'll help inform some to consider their own thoughts.
What Problem Are We Actually Solving?
Before examining the proposal's mechanics, we need to understand what we're trying to fix.
The Government offers three main justifications: the system confuses people, there's duplication between councils, and RMA reform creates an opportunity for change. They provide three examples - a council challenging development over non-existent wetlands, multiple park rangers doing similar jobs, and developers needing consents from different councils with different rules.
Here's what puzzles me: none of these issues require eliminating regional councillors.
If people are confused about council roles, we need better education and clearer boundaries. If councils aren't cooperating, we need stronger collaboration mechanisms and shared services. If developers face multiple consent processes, we need streamlined regulations.
Question for Government: How does eliminating regional councillors solve these problems? Under the proposed system, developers will still need district consents from territorial authorities and regional consents from Combined Territories Boards. Same process, different governance structure.
More concerning is what the proposal doesn't mention as problems: climate adaptation, water management capability, infrastructure coordination, environmental expertise. These are what regional councils actually do. Why isn't the proposal designed around strengthening these functions?
Does Electoral Mandate Actually Matter?
This contradiction undermines the entire justification for reform.
Throughout the document, Government argues mayors should govern regionally because they have district-wide electoral mandates. Ministers say mayors "already know their communities" and this creates "clear accountability." The whole Combined Territories Board (CTB) model rests on mayors being the right people for regional decisions because voters elected them.
But then, on page 13: "City and district councillors will be able to be appointed to committees by their mayor, as a delegate. This will help split the workload between the mayor and other councillors."
Think about what this means. A ward councillor elected by 5,000 people in Christchurch Central to deal with parking could be delegated to decide water allocation for Mackenzie District farmers. A Timaru ward councillor elected on playground issues could determine flood protection priorities for Hurunui communities.
These ward councillors weren't elected to make regional decisions. They campaigned on local issues. Voters in other districts couldn't vote for or against them.
Question for Government: If a ward councillor's mandate is sufficient for regional decisions through delegation, why isn't a regional councillor's mandate - elected by 50,000-100,000 people specifically for regional work - considered adequate?
Look at this comparison:
| Decision-Maker | Electoral Base | Elected for Regional Work? | Government's Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional Councillor | 50,000-100,000 voters | Yes, explicitly | "Insufficient mandate" |
| Mayor | 5,000-400,000 voters | No, elected for district | "Appropriate mandate" |
| Ward Councillor (delegate) | 5,000-30,000 voters | No, elected for ward issues | "Acceptable through delegation" |
The delegation provision admits mayors can't actually do this job. If the role requires delegating to ward councillors, why assign it to mayors in the first place?
How Is This Actually "Simpler"?
The proposal promises to "cut through the clutter" and simplify local government. But examine what they're creating:
For resource management decisions, there's a dual-condition voting system (page 29). Decisions need both:
- More than 50% of population-weighted votes, AND
- More than 50% of mayors with "voting mandates for decisions on spatial plan chapters"
Plus a ministerial appointee might have voting rights "at the Minister's discretion."
Compare that to now: regional councillors debate and vote, simple majority decides.
For cross-boundary populations (seven districts span multiple regions), the proposal creates two complex mechanisms:
- "District adoption" where mayors represent people who can't vote for them
- "Additional representation" where mayors sit on multiple CTBs with different vote weights
Question for Government: If the goal is simplification, why create dual-voting systems and complex cross-boundary mechanisms? These are workarounds for problems that only exist because you're eliminating the straightforward solution.hem?
Who's Accountable When Things Go Wrong?
The proposal promises "clear accountability to the public by the CTB" and lists "clear leadership" as a key criterion. But CTBs make accountability more complicated, not clearer.
Currently, if you're unhappy with a regional council decision:
- Regional councillors made it
- You can see how they voted
- You can vote them out
Under CTBs, imagine asking "Who's responsible for flood protection decisions?"
The answer becomes: The CTB collectively decided. Your mayor has 1 of 10 votes. They might have voted against it. Or delegated to a ward councillor. Or a Crown Commissioner decided. Or a ministerial appointee had the deciding vote.
Question for Government: How is responsibility spread across 10 mayors in different districts "clearer" than dedicated regional councillors accountable for regional decisions?
Mayors can tell district constituents "that was a regional decision," tell regional stakeholders "that was a district issue," claim "I voted against it" when CTBs make unpopular calls, or say "my hands were tied by national policy."
Where's the clear accountability in that system?
What About Democratic Representation?
The Government frames this as strengthening local democracy. But look at the actual numbers for Canterbury:
What we have now:
- 14 elected regional councillors
- 2 Ngāi Tahu representatives (under legislation negotiated with iwi)
- Total: 16 people whose job is regional governance
- Canterbury voters directly choose their regional representatives
What the proposal creates:
- 10 mayors (elected to run districts, not regions)
- OR Crown Commissioners (not elected at all)
- Plus potential ministerial appointees (not elected)
- Total: 10 or fewer people
- None elected specifically for regional work
Canterbury voters will lose the ability to vote for anyone whose actual job is regional management.
Question for Government: How is replacing 14 people elected for regional decisions with 10 people elected for district work (or unelected commissioners) strengthening democracy?
Where's the Evidence This Will Be More Efficient?
Ministers promise this will be "more cost-effective" and deliver "better value for money." Yet the proposal contains no cost-benefit analysis, no financial modeling, no evidence that eliminating regional councils saves money.
Consider the costs:
- CTB support infrastructure (secretariats, committees, advisory panels, staff)
- Transition costs (redundancies, restructuring, system changes, training)
- Public consultation on reorganization plans
- Tens of millions in a region like Canterbury
The puzzle: The proposal says efficiency comes from "sharing services to save money" - shared consenting, joint back-office functions, consolidated operations.
But you can do all of this without changing governance structures. Many regions already have shared services agreements.
Question for Government: If shared services deliver efficiency, and shared services don't require governance changes, why eliminate regional councils to achieve something we can do anyway? Where's the cost-benefit analysis showing CTBs are cheaper than enhanced shared services with existing governance?
Can This Actually Handle What's Coming?
The proposal emphasizes RMA reform happening simultaneously, suggesting good timing for governance change. But when you understand what RMA reform requires, the timing looks problematic.
The new Planning and Natural Environment Bills create sophisticated requirements:
- Regional Spatial Plans covering 30-year timeframes, integrating land use with infrastructure and environmental limits
- Ecosystem Health Limits - scientifically-based limits for freshwater, air quality, biodiversity that cannot be breached
This requires deep technical expertise in ecology, hydrology, planning, economics, infrastructure engineering.
The proposal expects CTBs to simultaneously:
- Handle day-to-day regional operations
- Develop regional reorganization plans (2-year intensive projects)
- Implement RMA reform (spatial plans, environment plans, new systems)
- Continue running their district councils
Question for Government: How do mayors elected to run district councils suddenly develop capability to set ecosystem health limits and create 30-year regional spatial plans? When do they find time to do this while running districts and developing reorganization plans?
The Strong Case for This Reform
Let me acknowledge the strongest counterarguments, because they deserve consideration:
Mayors do have broader mandates than ward councillors, and broader name recognition than most regional councillors. In small districts, the mayor might genuinely be the best-known elected official to represent that community regionally.
Regional councils can be remote from communities, especially in rural areas where regional constituency boundaries are large and meetings happen in main centers. The connection between voters and regional representatives isn't always strong.
Some efficiencies are possible through shared services and reduced total elected positions, even if the governance model isn't perfect. There's legitimate scope to do more with less.
The current system does confuse people about who does what, and low voter turnout (41%) suggests democratic engagement isn't working well.
These are fair points. But they argue for reforming regional councils, not eliminating them. Better communication, clearer roles, more accessible meetings, stronger shared services - all achievable without removing elected regional representatives. The question isn't whether the current system is perfect. It's whether this proposed alternative actually solves the problems while preserving democratic accountability alongside the environmental mandate.
My worry is it does not.
The Opportunity We're MIssing
Canterbury grows by 1,000 people monthly. We face infrastructure deficits, climate adaptation challenges, water allocation pressures, and housing affordability crises. These cross district boundaries and require regional coordination.
What good reform could achieve:
- Mandatory shared services for back-office functions (IT, HR, legal, procurement)
- Clearer role definitions between regional and territorial functions
- Stronger collaborative planning while maintaining democratic accountability
- Enhanced Treaty partnership models rather than repealing them
- Adequate transition time for RMA reform before restructuring governance
- Evidence-based cost-benefit analysis before irreversible changes
Instead, we're getting a proposal that creates complex workarounds for problems it creates, eliminates direct regional democratic representation, and loads impossible workloads onto mayors during massive legislative transitions.
What These Contradictions Suggest
These inconsistencies suggest a proposal developed to meet political commitments rather than solve identified governance problems. The justifications don't align because they're rationalizations after the fact.
I'm not defending the status quo. Canterbury has led local government innovation. Our collaborative environmental management has achieved outcomes that top-down regulation struggled with for decades. We understand systems need to evolve.
But if we're making fundamental changes to how regions are governed, shouldn't the policy be internally consistent? Shouldn't there be evidence behind it? Shouldn't the Government answer basic questions about how their proposal works and why it's better than alternatives?
A Note on Perspective
I should be clear about my position. As a regional councillor, this proposal directly affects my role. That creates potential conflict of interest that should be considered.
But it also means I understand how regional governance actually works, what it takes to do it well, and what gets lost when you eliminate dedicated regional representation.
I'd rather see my role reformed properly than abolished for political convenience. But I'd also rather see it abolished than see regions governed badly. What concerns me isn't protecting my position - it's the risk we're replacing an imperfect system with one that's worse, without evidence it will improve outcomes.
What You Can Do
Submissions are open until February 20, 2026. This matters. We're talking about who makes decisions on water, environment, transport, natural hazards, and climate adaptation across entire regions.
Read the proposal yourself. Look at the actual mechanisms, not just the aspirational language.
The Government should answer these questions before we make irreversible changes:
- What specific problems does eliminating regional councillors solve that enhanced collaboration couldn't achieve?
- If ward councillors can make regional decisions through delegation, why can't regional councillors elected for that purpose?
- How are dual-voting systems and cross-boundary mechanisms "simpler" than current arrangements?
- Where's the evidence this will be more cost-effective than shared services with existing governance?
- How will mayors handle district responsibilities plus regional governance plus major reform implementation?
- How are Treaty commitments protected when Treaty legislation gets repealed?
- Who's accountable when 10 mayors with 1 vote each make unpopular regional decisions?
Submit your views. Discuss with your councils. Think about what evidence-based reform would actually look like.
These questions deserve answers before we make changes we can't undo.
Submissions on the proposal can be made at: https://consultations.digital.govt.nz/simplifying-local-government/proposal