Loose Threads: A Parallel Reform

28/11/2025

The Government’s “Simplifying Local Government” consultation landed this week, proposing to replace regional councillors with Combined Territories Boards composed of mayors, who would then develop regional reorganisation plans within two years.

I am not going to comment on the details: I am doing that for clients, and the release of any analysis will be subject to their agreement. I do want to say that the timing is notable. On the other side of the world, in the United Kingdom, they are attempting something remarkably similar. But a new Institute for Government report offers a sobering assessment of those reforms and what happens when ambition outpaces institutional capacity.

The IfG’s analysis concerns what they term “dual delivery”: the simultaneous reorganisation of local councils into unitary authorities and the establishment of mayoral combined authorities with devolved powers. The parallels with Aotearoa are instructive.

It looks like we, too, are pursuing multiple transformations at once: local government reform alongside the replacement of resource management, water services reform, and climate adaptation legislation. The question of whether this represents efficient use of a reform window or an expensive overreach remains genuinely open.

What strikes me in reading both documents together is how the identified risks transcend borders. The IfG emphasises relationship-building before structural change, warning that reforms imposed without genuine coalitions produce compliance rather than commitment. Our proposal, by contrast, seeks views on institutional forms in the absence of functional clarity: here, function follows form, which is a bit of a red flag for a nerd like me. That said, the alternative governance models seem common sense: the preferred mayor-only CTB; a Crown Commissioner with observer status, veto power, or majority vote; or full Commissioner replacement of regional councillors. The Ministerial foreword is candid that the Commissioner’s alternatives come “with less local voice.” The consultation does not make clear whether a single model would apply nationally or vary by region: an ambiguity given the considerable differences between Hauraki-Waikato, Ikaroa-Rawhiti and Te Waipounamu’s circumstances.

The two-year timeline for regional reorganisation plans is ambitious. The IfG report stresses dedicated project management, proper resourcing, and, critically, clarity from central government on funding. Our proposals are notably quiet on transition costs and support. Past experience suggests these silences matter.

On Te Tiriti, I am reserving fuller comment until the Te Reo Māori version of these proposals is released. But even a preliminary reading raises questions. The proposal acknowledges that Te Ao constituencies at the regional level would cease to exist, and that the Bay of Plenty and Canterbury Acts providing for Māori representation were designed for a governance model that would no longer exist. The assurance that existing engagement arrangements will “continue” and that Treaty settlements will be honoured sits awkwardly alongside the structural elimination of dedicated regional representation. When the Crown promises continuity while removing the mechanisms that enable it, close attention to the policy work and implementation becomes essential.

The ministerial approval pathway for reorganisation plans, rather than a referendum and community decision, also deserves scrutiny. The document argues that referendums favour the status quo with low turnout. Perhaps. But ministerial discretion to approve, modify, or impose plans represents a significant centralisation of power, whatever the efficiency gains.

I have worked in both regional and local government, at the interface with central government, and in a similar arrangement to the Mayor-led arrangement. I have also supported a Mayor in their daily work, so I know firsthand how busy they already are: they are on call 24/7, and most are already working 12- to 14-hour days. Equally, I have no doubt the status quo is unsustainable. But the costs of change are real, and the benefits still a little unclear, and the IfG’s warning against governments that “set the wheels in motion and walk away” deserves careful hearing here.

Mā te wā.

Matthew Fright and Sarah Routley, Dual Delivery: How can areas successfully reorganise local government and implement devolution at the same time? (London: Institute for Government, March 2025), published in partnership with Grant Thornton UK LLP.