Simplifying Local Government
In November 2025, the Government released a proposal to ‘simplify’ the structure of local government across New Zealand. The proposal outlines changes to how regional functions are governed and how councils may be organised in the future
The reforms, if enacted, represent the most significant change to local democracy in decades.
Key proposals
Step 1. Replacement of Regional Councillors
- Under the draft proposal, elected regional councillors would be removed and replaced with a Combined Territories Board (CTB) for each region.
- Each CTB would be made up of the mayors from each city and district council in the region.
- CTBs would assume all current regional council roles, including environmental management, regional transport planning and civil defence.
- The Government is also consulting on the option of appointing Crown Commissioners, who may either join or replace the CTB.
Step 2. Regional Reorganisation Plans (RRPs)
Each CTB would have two years to prepare a Regional Reorganisation Plan. RRPs must examine how councils can work together more effectively across the region.
Proposals may include:
- Shared services
- Joint council‑controlled organisations
- Amalgamation of territorial authorities
- Creation of unitary authorities
During this period, regional councils would continue operating as they do now.
RRPs would be:
- Independently examined, and
- Approved by the Minister of Local Government.
The proposal notes that RRPs would not be put to a referendum.
Voting and decision making
Under the proposal, the CTBs would use two different voting systems, depending on the type of decision being made.
- One Mayor, one vote - Every mayor on the CTB has one vote, regardless of district size. This ensures every territorial authority, big or small, has an equal voice in those decisions.
- Population‑Adjusted Voting - Each mayor’s vote is weighted based on the population they represent. Larger districts would have more voting weight compared to smaller districts.
Most decisions will be made using the population adjusted voting. Decisions around land, water and catchment will need a majority of the population adjusted vote and a majority of individual mayors.
Council’s submission
Council has made a submission to the Government on the proposal. We do not support the reform, including step 1 and step 2. Our submission identifies significant risks to rural communities, local representation, affordability, and the stability of local democracy.
The submission raises significant concerns about the scale of disruption, lack of clarity regarding costs, risks to rural representation, and the constant pressure of multiple reforms. We consider these proposals to be premature, insufficiently defined, and unlikely to address the underlying system issues that are driving delays and poor outcomes.
Key recommendations
Fixing the actual problem
The proposal focuses on replacing elected regional councillors with a CTB but does not address the underlying legislative and system issues, such as outdated and complex laws that contribute to delays and poor outcomes.
We recommend fixing the regulatory bottlenecks first by prioritising the Resource Management Act reform and improving national frameworks before altering regional governance structures.
Funding the mandate
The proposal does not outline how transition costs, system integration, staffing impacts, or asset changes would be funded. Rural councils will be disproportionately affected, with ratepayers ultimately absorbing the cost.
We recommend making ‘affordability’ a key criterion in local government restructures. Clear information must be published on expected costs. We understand that the RMA reform will cost the local sector $840 million, the emergency management reforms another $84 million. This is on top of the estimated $50 billion investment in water infrastructure throughout the country. Any restructure needs to consider these enormous costs imposed by recent legislation.
Protect the ‘local’ in ‘local government’
The proposal risks centralising decision-making and weakening representation for rural communities. Larger population centres could dominate regional decisions, affecting service levels, local advocacy, and community identity.
The Government needs to guarantee fair and effective representation for smaller district in all voting arrangements, particularly under any population adjected voting. A durable reorganisation cannot be built on speed alone but requires clarity and evidence along with community involvement at all stages.
Clarify Treaty obligations
Courts have confirmed that councils are not treaty partners as they aren’t part of the Crown. Yet, councils may inherit Treaty obligations whenever a law like the RMA requires them to ‘take into account’ Treaty principles. The proposal does not clearly define how Treaty obligations would apply within the new model.
We recommend clear legal guidance on councils’ Treaty obligations and CTBs so that expectations are clear, consistent and transparent for everyone involved including Iwi.
No unelected Crown commissioners
It is unclear how CTBs would be resourced to lead large‑scale regional reorganisation, who would provide specialist project support, or who would carry the costs. The potential involvement of Crown Commissioners further raises concerns about the erosion of local democratic oversight.
We recommend elected regional councillors should be retained for their full term and we suggest a Crown observer with no voting rights who can assist with coordination within the CTB and the Government. Any new governance model should be based on the principles of localism and not controlled by Wellington.
No restructure without public support
The proposal allows significant restructuring including amalgamation and creation of unitary authorities without requiring a public mandate. This would mean that if a smaller council disagrees with the restructure, its future may be effectively decided without its consent.
We recommend strengthening criteria for regional plans so that smaller councils cannot be overruled. Ensure strong local consultation and require explicit measures protecting “local say” and meaningful community involvement.
References
