Memo to Shane Jones: What if NZ needs more regional government, not less?
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
Analysis
- If the headlines are anything to go by, New Zealand's regional councils are on life support.
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones recently wondered whether "there's going to be a compelling case for regional government to continue to exist". And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is open to exploring the possibility of scrapping the councils.
This has all been driven by the realisation that the government's proposed resource management reforms would essentially gut local authorities of their basic planning and environmental management functions. Various mayors and other interested parties have agreed. While some are circumspect, there's broad agreement a review is needed.
At present, each territorial council writes its own city or district plan. Regional councils write a series of thematic plans addressing different environmental issues. All the plans contain the councils' regulatory "rules" that determine what people can or cannot do.
Under the coming reforms, the territorial and regional councils of each region would have only a single chapter each within a broader regional spatial plan. Their function would, for the main part, involve tweaking all-embracing national policies and standards.
Further, all compliance and monitoring - now a predominantly regional council activity - is to be taken over by a national agency (possibly the Environment Protection Authority). This won't leave much for regional councils to do, compared with their broad remits now.
In truth, regional councils have been targets since they were created as part of the Labour government's 1989 local government reform. Carried out in lockstep with the drafting of the Resource Management Act (passed in 1991), this established two levels of local government.
City and district councils were to be responsible for infrastructure and the built environment. The new regional councils were more opaque, essentially multi-function, special-purpose authorities, recognising that some government actions are bigger than local but smaller than national.
In the event, they became what in many countries would be thought of as environmental protection agencies. Their boundaries were drawn to capture river catchments, reflecting their catchment board antecedents, which looked after soil erosion and flood management.
Other functions were drawn from other government departments. Air-quality management came from the old Department of Health. Coastal management was partly inherited from the Ministry of Transport, shared with the Department of Conservation.
Public transport and civil defence were tacked on, given their cross-territorial scale and lack of anywhere else to put them.
All their various functions have meant regional councils determine who gets to use the region's resources - and who misses out. And political decisions are a surefire way to make enemies.
For example, the Resource Management Act applied the presumption that no one could discharge any contaminant into water unless expressly allowed by a rule or a resource consent. Regional councils therefore required their territorial councils to upgrade their rubbish dumps and sewage treatment systems.
Similarly, farmers could no longer simply take water to irrigate or empty cowshed effluent straight into the nearest stream as of right. The necessary infrastructure upgrades were expensive.
Ironically, these attempts to minimise the immediate impacts of such demands on water users saw urban voters and environmental groups criticise the councils and the government for being too soft on "dirty dairying" and other polluters.
Parochialism also plays a part, as does the feeling in some rural communities that they're forgotten by their regions' cities, where most voters live. The perceived poor handling of events such as last year's Hawke's Bay flooding and the 2018 Wellington bus network failure have not helped.
The government even replaced Environment Canterbury's elected council with appointed commissioners in 2010 over performance concerns, particularly in water management.
Yet the regional council model has largely survived intact - with two exceptions. The Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council was replaced by the Nelson City and Marlborough and Tasman District unitary councils in 1992, as a token sacrifice to the conservative wing of the National government, which vehemently opposed the new regions.
The genesis of the Auckland Council super-region can be traced to the 1999-2008 Labour government's frustration at getting a unified position from the city's seven councils on where to build a stadium for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Not everyone is happy with the resulting metro-regional solution.
If regional government is indeed put to rest, it will be another phase in this piecemeal evolutionary process. But the new model will still require central government to have a significant regional presence - and commensurate central government funding.
But central government has had a regional-scale presence for a long time. Police, the fire service, economic development and social welfare agencies all have their own regional boundaries. Public health and tertiary training and education are also essentially regional.
All these functions are inherently political. And in many other countries, they are are delivered by regional governments. Maybe, once the implications are looked at more closely, leaving regional councils intact will seem the easier and cheaper option. Indeed, there is a counter argument that we need more regional government, not less.
The current impulse for local government change - including district council amalgamation - continues an ad hoc process going back more than 30 years. As I have argued previously, the form, function and funding of local government need to be considered together.
The regional level of administration will not go away. But the overriding question remains: who should speak for and be accountable to their communities for what are ultimately still political decisions, whoever makes them?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Labour candidate Peeni Henare stands by gang-patch law repeal claim
Peeni Henare insists he was replying to a question with his personal view, not the party line. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour's Tāmaki Makaurau candidate stands by saying he'd repeal the gang patch law at an event on Wednesday night, despite the party's deputy leader insisting he was "mistaken" . Peeni Henare told RNZ he was asked his personal view on the issue, which was informed by his whānau experience, and understood that differed from his party's view. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said it showed the type of campaign currently underway, where one candidate spoke for Māori and the other spoke for a "mainstream party". An audience member at the Waatea-hosted debate at Favona asked the candidates: "Will you repeal the gang patch law, if you come into government - yes or no?" Te Pāti Māori candidate Oriini Kaipara responded "yes" and Henare could also be heard saying "āe" (yes). However, Labour leader Chris Hipkins has previously said the party would not repeal the legislation making it illegal to wear gang patches in public, prompting the government to hit out at Labour for inconsistency and question whether the party was telling the truth. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith highlighted the comment, saying Labour had "finally announced" its first law and order policy. Henare acknowledged his view was not the "party view", but indicated he provided his own opinion, which he "stands by". He also said he would continue to advocate for better legislation to support Māori communities and dismissed the criticism as another distraction by the government to "disguise their anti-Māori agenda". Ngarewa-Packer indicated it was symbolic of the different voices vying for the Tāmaki Makaurau seat. She told RNZ there were two different candidates and two different parties. Labour wouldn't push the "Māori agenda", she said. "They're going to push an agenda that, sadly, is focused on middle voters, so that's why we have to be in there." She hoped that distinction would be "disclosed" through the campaign. It was a "poignant reminder for Māori" that Labour would defend "a system", while Te Pāti Māori would "defend and transform our people". "That's a tough gig for Peeni to be in, to be really honest." Ngarewa-Packer said Henare may personally feel a certain way, but "he's got to toe the line," adding the talented, young Māori leader was "shackled". Deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni explained Labour had "no intention to repeal that legislation" and Henare may have been mistaken. "We did oppose the bill in the House and so I'm wondering whether that led him to that conclusion," she said. Asked whether there needed to be a conversation with Henare to clear up any confusion, Sepuloni said there was "certainly no need for a telling off here". "Peeni is doing a good job out on the campaign trail and we respect the mahi that he's doing." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Attempted spying conviction for soldier who was less Bond, more bumbling
Photo: ADELE RYCROFT At first glance, it reads like a Tom Clancy spy thriller. A disloyal, far-right soldier, an undercover officer posing as a foreign agent, and the passing on of secret army information, which could put the safety and defence of the country at risk But this time, it isn't fiction. It's real life, in New Zealand. For the first time, a serving soldier has been convicted of attempted espionage , sent to a military prison, and dismissed from service for attempting to spy on the Defence Force. At his long-awaited trial, in front of a court martial at Linton Military Camp, the man - whose name is currently suppressed - pleaded guilty to three charges of attempted espionage, dishonestly accessing a computer system, and possessing an objectionable publication. Newsroom journalist Marc Daalder broke the story six years ago, and attended the court case this week, and tells The Detail , that "this isn't James Bond, it's not the Hunt for Red October either ... what we have here is maybe more like a bumbling wannabe-spy". "As the judge put it in his sentencing decision, 'How could you be so naive as to think this is the way forward, this is the right thing to do?'" Daalder says that the soldier did have ties to far-right groups and "it's a serious, serious issue, but you don't want to overstate it either". So how and why did a Kiwi kid grow up to be a would-be spy? Daalder says the soldier had a troubled childhood; he was a loner and didn't make friends easily. "Even once he joined the NZDF, he was not particularly well-liked, and that's part of what drove him, he says, to these far-right groups." Daalder says in social media posts the soldier would boast that he "joined a Nazi organisation and [he said that] it's the best thing that ever happened to me, I used to be a loser, no job, no fitness or social skills. Now I'm working a decent job, have plenty of friends and a half-decent life, all thanks to the mentoring I got from older Nazis, and I have no regrets". Before the 15 March terror attacks, the soldier founded a far-right group, 'The Dominion Movement', which meant that after the attacks he was on the radar of police and was pulled in for questioning several times. In an affidavit presented at his court-martial hearing this week, the soldier said, "The investigators were incredibly aggressive towards me, often getting in my face and shouting. To me, their approach was actually violent." The soldier said he was terrified, and felt he had to leave New Zealand and get to another country where he thought he would be safe. "He frames himself as a victim of political persecution," Daalder says. The soldier then contacted a third party, indicating that he wanted to defect. "Following the New Zealand government learning of the contact with that third party, an undercover officer, posing as an agent of the foreign country, reached out to him and asked to meet ... and the soldier was asked to provide a letter, asking what he could provide that would assist that foreign country," Daalder tells The Detail . "From there, it's a mixture of spy thriller and maybe a bumbling spy version." Among the items the soldier provided were documents, including maps and aerial photographs of various defence force bases, along with passcodes, access codes, login details to its IT system, and telephone directories. He also passed on handwritten assessments of the vulnerabilities of the Linton Military Camp, where he was stationed. The soldier was eventually arrested at the Linton Military Camp in 2019, and put under open arrest, living in defence-subsidised housing and receiving full pay. He initially faced 17 charges, including espionage. This week, he pleaded guilty to attempted espionage, accessing a computer for a dishonest purpose, and knowingly possessing an objectionable publication, and was sentenced to two years in military detention - the longest possible sentence of detention available under the law. Otago University law lecturer Sean Whittaker, who moved to New Zealand from Scotland a year ago, told The Detail he was "very surprised" by the spying conviction. "New Zealand has a reputation of being a safe place to live, to work, and not being vulnerable to such action - either by external forces or by people within the country itself. "I think that it's important to mention that the limited number of instances of espionage being detected and prosecuted is not indicative of the lack of quality of New Zealand's security intelligence services. "Ultimately, I think they are doing a good job; they have detected espionage in this particular instance, and I think that's overall because New Zealand isn't exceptionally vulnerable to espionage," he says. But does New Zealand really have anything worth spying on or information worth selling to foreign countries? "Despite New Zealand's small size, it is a decent-sized player in the international community ... we do have things that are worth [spying on], as it were, things that are valuable, both intrinsic to us and to the global system as well." Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Officials warn of damage to diplomatic relations in secret climate change memo
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon Officials warned the government that reneging on climate commitments could have a domino effect and give bigger countries, like China, an excuse to do less. The advice was mistakenly released under the Official Information Act by the Ministry for the Environment (MFE). MFE and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) have sought to retrospectively redact the information. The sensitive information was contained in a briefing paper released under the OIA in April. The paper warned that if the government decided not to meet New Zealand's first target under the Paris Agreement, it could impact a "delicate" hard-won global agreement and risk "undermining confidence in the solidarity of our climate effort" and harming "a number of our priority relationships". New Zealand's is a member of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance which includes Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. The advice said the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia as well as Europe would view "backing off from Paris Agreement commitments extremely negatively". The United States has since pulled out of the Paris Agreement. The memo urged ministers to show their commitment by sealing climate cooperation deals with other countries last year - before a crucial deadline to show progress under the Paris Agreement. Officials said sealing these deals to pay for emissions-cutting projects overseas - which are needed to achieve around two thirds of New Zealand's 2030 target - was a critical step for reassuring other nations this country was committed to meeting its obligations. The government did not take this step, and still has not. So far it has declined to make a decision either way, despite the urging of its own advisers. However after RNZ put questions to Climate Change Minister Simon Watts in July, officials asked RNZ to delete the material so they could replace it with a more fully redacted version. The advice also contained legally privileged material which RNZ has decided not to use. The advice also said Pacific Island countries would share similar concerns to New Zealand's larger "priority" partner countries about the implications for the durability of the Paris Agreement, "which is seen as a critical, if fragile, safeguard against an existential threat". It said a loss of confidence in New Zealand's commitment to climate action would likely diminish its influence in the region at a time of "increased strategic competition." "It is extremely likely that an individual country rejecting its commitments would be viewed through a lens of outsized impacts," it said. The warning was part of a package prepared by environment officials and MFAT in March 2024 outlining why the government should not lower its 2030 climate target - and why it should take "concrete steps" to seal international deals. Sixteen months later, the government has not reduced its target - and still says it is committed to meeting it - but it also hasn't taken the steps officials said it should take to reassure other nations that New Zealand planned to deliver. Paying money to other countries to fund decarbonisation projects (for example electrifying diesel buses or shuttering coal plants in Asia or the Pacific) was explicitly baked into New Zealand's target when it was set. Doing much of the work overseas was deemed cheaper and less disruptive than making faster, deeper cuts here, at least until the farming, electricity, manufacturing and transport sectors in New Zealand had had more time to deliver bigger emissions savings, which was expected to happen after 2030. Without overseas help, this country will fall more than a year's worth of emissions short of its promise, according to latest estimates. But since the 2023 election, ministers have repeatedly baulked at committing to paying for overseas carbon deals, saying spending billions offshore is not realistic, and that they still have time before 2030 - and even hinting that they might find 80 million tonnes of additional emissions savings here at home. Officials have repeatedly told ministers that overseas deals are the only realistic way to meet the target. Advisers have calculated that meeting the target here at home would take the equivalent of fully electrifying all road transport, eliminating all industrial energy emissions, and eliminating half of all agricultural emissions, all in the next four years. That would cause unnecessary "social and economic" pain, according to the Climate Change Commission. In the documents, officials warned that countries whose cooperation was important to New Zealand "would view backing off from Paris Agreement commitments extremely negatively - undermining confidence in the solidarity of our climate effort with theirs and triggering concerns this would 'push the domino' that gave cover to others." They told the government taking concrete action last year to close deals with other countries would "mitigate the risks" of damaging important relationships. Switzerland, Sweden, Singapore and other countries have already signed deals with the likes of Kenya, Peru, Nepal and Ghana to secure what's been called the "low hanging fruit" of climate action, including paying for energy efficiency upgrades to buildings, electric buses, ebikes and renewable energy. Paying for poorer countries to cut emissions is cheaper than it would cost to achieve the same climate benefits in a wealthier country. Some climate lobby groups say taking the cheaper route is cheating - however government advisors say it is now New Zealand's only choice, short of reneging. The sensitive advice said announcing concrete steps to buy carbon savings last year would help the New Zealand government to prove its commitment before the first deadline for all countries under the Paris Agreement to publish their Biennial Transparency Reports. The transparency reports are the Paris Agreement's main mechanism for countries to keep each other honest on their progress. "It is important that New Zealand retains a clear narrative that it will uphold its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, including pursuing measures with the aim of achieving the NDC," the government was told. "This will provide partners more reassurance if this narrative is supported by a robust plan to optimise domestic mitigation and take concrete steps toward purchasing a steady stream of offshore emissions reductions. Early decisions to stand up purchasing arrangements will enable this progress to be demonstrated to key partners through the 2024 Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) and other channels," the advice said. "Domestic mitigation" refers to steps inside New Zealand to cut emissions and meet the country's emissions budgets, which the government does through its Emissions Reduction Plans. The Emission Reduction Plans have been set at a level that would meet around a third of the total 2030 target, with the other two thirds were expected to come from overseas, at a cost likely to end up in the low billions. As of August 2025 the government had not announced any purchases. That's despite MFE presenting Watts with six options for meeting New Zealand's commitments. The details of those options were redacted from the documents. In an interview on July 25, Watts confirmed that Cabinet had not made any decisions, either to buy help from offshore or rule it out. "Our position on offshore mitigation remains consistent with what I've said previously, which is at this point Cabinet hasn't made any decisions on entering into any arrangements, however the government has made decisions since being in office in a number of countries to put in place mechanisms to enable that to occur, if the decision is made to do that," he said. Last year the government announced memorandums of understanding with countries such as the Philippines, to "explore" potential future carbon trading under the Paris Agreement. "Our focus remains that we are focussed on domestic emissions reduction opportunities... we are still making good progress to close that gap, it is a significant challenge but we are closing that gap, as I've noted with some of the technology that's come through even in the last six months," Watts said. Asked if he accepted there was no path to closing an 80 million tonne gap by 2030 domestically, Watts said: "I'm not going to make any statements on where we are going to be five years from now, what we are focussed on is what we can do with the tools that are available. There are new tools and innovations coming on month by month that allow us to close that gap." Asked again if he was saying there was a prospect of meeting the 2030 target inside New Zealand, Watts said the government was "focussed and committed to its climate targets" and spoke about steps to meet the domestic emissions budgets. "The government remains committed to the plan we have published and our domestic budgets," he said. "I have optimism around our ability to get to those positions in the future." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
