Dr Deon Swiggs | Chair, Environment Canterbury & LGNZ Regional Sector
The Government wants to scrap regional councillors to "simplify" local government. They say it will cut duplication and make things clearer for ratepayers. I've written about the internal contradictions in their proposal: The Questions Government Must Answer About Scrapping Regional Councillors
But there's a bigger question the proposal doesn't address: when regions face challenges that cross district boundaries, who coordinates the response?
Sea levels rising along Canterbury's entire coastline. Alpine water sources becoming more variable with climate change. Housing markets spanning multiple districts. Tourism pressure overwhelming small communities while benefits flow regionally.
These challenges don't respect district boundaries. They need regional coordination. But the Government's proposal doesn't strengthen regional coordination - it eliminates what limited capability we have, right when regional challenges are becoming more complex and urgent.
Regional governance needs reform. The question is what kind of reform - reform that builds capability for regional challenges, or reform that eliminates regional governance because it's easier than fixing it.
Before we make irreversible changes, we should ask: what are we trying to achieve, and does this proposal actually achieve it?
The views in this article are my own, and do not form any of ECan's formal submission or LGNZ's regional sector response.
The Challenges Nobody's Addressing
Consider what's actually happening in regions across New Zealand:
Climate adaptation spans multiple districts. In Canterbury, Kaikoura, Hurunui, Christchurch, Selwyn, Ashburton, and Timaru each face coastal hazard risks. Each is doing separate risk assessments and trying to fund adaptation from their own budgets. Sea level rise doesn't stop at district borders - but coordination is voluntary and fragmented.
Housing markets don't respect district boundaries. Greater Christchurch is one housing market across three districts. Growth pushes south from Christchurch into Selwyn, north from Selwyn toward Christchurch, and south from Waimakariri toward Christchurch. Without coordinated infrastructure planning and funding, the result is inefficient urban sprawl - housing developments requiring longer car trips, more infrastructure per household, and conversion of productive rural land. This pattern repeats in regions across New Zealand.
Water systems flow through multiple districts. Canterbury's braided rivers cross district boundaries. Alpine water sources could support sustainable regional development with coordinated infrastructure - but no single district is large enough to fund regional-scale water storage and distribution.
Economic impacts don't match governance boundaries. Tourism pressure in Mackenzie Basin affects a district of 5,000 people, but visitors travel through and benefit the entire region. Who coordinates regional tourism strategy when impacts and benefits fall in different places?
These aren't unique Canterbury problems. Every region faces challenges crossing district boundaries but lacking clear coordination mechanisms.
Question for consultation: What mechanisms should exist for coordinating regional challenges that cross district boundaries? Does the Government's proposal strengthen or weaken this coordination capability?
What the Proposal Actually Changes
The Government proposes eliminating regional councillors and replacing them with Combined Territories Boards (CTBs) of mayors. These mayors would continue running their districts full-time while also governing regionally.
Consider the workload implications. The Christchurch mayor runs New Zealand's second-largest city - already a demanding full-time role. Under this proposal, add governing the entire Canterbury region. The Mackenzie mayor runs a district of 5,000 people - now they'd also govern alongside Christchurch on regional decisions affecting 680,000 people.
This happens while mayors simultaneously develop regional reorganisation plans and implement major RMA reforms (Regional Spatial Plans, Natural Environment Plans, ecosystem health limits).
The proposal acknowledges this workload problem 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."
Questions for consultation:
What happens to regional governance capability during this transition?
If mayors need to delegate regional work to ward councillors to manage the workload, does that suggest the governance model is workable?
How do ward councillors elected on local issues by small populations suddenly gain expertise for complex regional environmental decisions?
What Regional Councils Currently Handle
To understand what changes, it helps to know what regional councils actually do. The mandate is surprisingly narrow:
- Environmental regulation (water quality, air quality, pest control, coastal management)
- Regional transport planning
- Civil defence coordination
- Resource consent processing for regional environmental matters
- Biodiversity planning and regional biosecurity
Important environmental and emergency management work - but a fraction of what genuinely needs regional coordination.
Regional councils don't currently coordinate:
- Regional economic development strategy
- Housing growth across district boundaries
- Regional infrastructure investment
- Regional tourism impacts and opportunities
- Social services needing regional scale
- Workforce development matching regional economic needs
Some of these happen inefficiently through individual districts working alone. Some fall through gaps between local and central government. Some simply don't get done.
Question for consultation: Should regional governance capability for these broader functions be strengthened, or is fragmented district-by-district approach adequate for challenges that cross boundaries?
The Weakening of Regional Voice
Under current arrangements, Canterbury has:
- 14 elected regional councillors whose job is regional environmental governance
- 2 Ngāi Tahu representatives under Treaty legislation
- Total: 16 people with regional mandate and democratic accountability
Under the proposal, Canterbury would have:
- 10 mayors elected primarily for district responsibilities
- OR Crown Commissioners (not elected)
- Plus potential ministerial appointees
- None elected specifically for regional work
This represents a weakening of regional democratic voice - fewer people making regional decisions, and none elected with an explicit regional mandate. At the same time, regional challenges (climate adaptation, water allocation, cross-boundary growth) are becoming more complex and urgent.
Question for consultation: Does New Zealand need stronger or weaker regional governance capability for the next 50 years? Does this proposal move in the right direction?
What's Missing from This Conversation
The proposal focuses on eliminating a governance layer to save costs. It doesn't ask what regional governance should achieve or how to build capability for long-term regional challenges and what community voice looks like.
Climate adaptation requires 50-year planning horizons and coordination across multiple districts. Managed retreat from coastal hazards needs regional cost-sharing - individual districts can't afford it alone.
Infrastructure investment crosses boundaries. Regional water storage, regional transport corridors, regional waste management - all need coordination and funding beyond individual district capacity.
Economic development competes regionally. Regions compete nationally and internationally. Districts competing with each other within regions weakens collective regional competitiveness.
The Government's proposal doesn't address any of this. It reorganises governance structure without asking what that governance needs to deliver.
Question for consultation: Before restructuring regional governance, shouldn't we first define what we need regional governance to achieve? Shouldn't the structure follow from the function, not the other way around?
What Good Reform Could Look Like
If the goal is genuinely improving regional outcomes, reform could:
Clarify what needs regional coordination versus what should stay local. Districts do essential work delivering local services. They need autonomy for genuinely local decisions. But regional challenges need regional capability - the question is what form that takes.
Build long-term institutional capability for challenges requiring decades-long planning horizons. Climate adaptation, infrastructure investment, environmental limits - these need stability and expertise, not temporary transitional structures focused on reorganisation.
Strengthen coordination mechanisms between regional and local governance without eliminating either. Both levels matter for different functions. The question is how they work together effectively.
Ensure democratic accountability for regional decisions. Whether through elected regional representatives, enhanced mayoral collaboration with clear accountability, or other mechanisms - regions need democratic voice for regional choices.
Address actual coordination gaps - housing growth, infrastructure investment, economic development, climate adaptation - not just reorganising existing environmental regulatory functions.
The proposal could have asked: what regional challenges need stronger coordination, and how do we build that capability? Instead, it asks: how do we eliminate regional councillors?
Those are different questions leading to different answers.
This Isn't About Defending Current Arrangements
Regional councils have real limitations. Too narrow in scope for many modern age regional coordination needs. Unclear accountability in some cases. Low public engagement (41% voter turnout suggests problems). Remote from communities in large rural constituencies. These need addressing.
But the question is whether eliminating regional democratic representation while adding impossible workloads to mayors actually addresses these limitations, or whether it creates new problems while leaving the old ones unsolved.
The consultation should be asking:
- What do we need regional governance to achieve?
- What coordination mechanisms work for challenges crossing boundaries?
- How do we build capability for 50-year challenges like climate adaptation?
- How do we ensure democratic accountability for regional decisions?
- What's the evidence that this specific proposal improves outcomes compared to alternatives?
The Choice We're Making
This proposal eliminates the limited regional governance capability we have, fragments regional coordination across busy mayors focused on district responsibilities, and hopes coordination happens voluntarily when district interests align.
The alternative is strengthening regional coordination capability to match the challenges regions actually face - whether through reformed regional councils, enhanced statutory collaboration requirements, regional infrastructure investment entities, or other mechanisms.
Question for consultation: Which approach better prepares New Zealand's regions for climate change, infrastructure challenges, and economic opportunities that don't respect district boundaries?
Regional governance needs reform. The question is what kind of reform - reform that builds capability for regional challenges, or reform that eliminates regional governance because it's easier than fixing it.
These are the questions that deserve answers before we make irreversible changes.
Have your say: https://consultations.digital.govt.nz/simplifying-local-government/proposal
Closes: February 20, 2026