Readers of The MJ might be surprised to learn that the on-off nature of local government reorganisation is not solely a UK phenomenon.
In May this year, the New Zealand Government asked local government to submit within three months outline reorganisation proposals via its Head Start process. Councils that didn't submit proposals would enter a back-stop process where government would decide for you.
Head Start then became a false-start and back-stop a full stop as the Government paused all the proposals they'd received, which covered two-thirds of New Zealand's councils. It was hardly surprising that the pause button was pressed given we are two weeks out from what looks like a closely fought General Election. Local government issued howls of frustration and a collective ‘I told you so'. Had proposals moved forward right now though, the overwhelming driver was to be ‘consensus'.
Consensus can often appear to be the easiest path. There is a danger in assuming that what is easiest to agree will solve the problems we face. Sometimes consensus avoids the very decisions that create lasting benefit, producing arrangements that are acceptable to everyone and transformational to no one. The real question is whether proposed arrangements address the challenges they were designed to solve.
The most valuable conversations during Head Start have not been about structures, boundaries or organisational charts. They have been about outcomes. How do we create stronger leadership and accountability to the communities we serve, plan more effectively for growth, improve delivery and maintain local connection? Reorganisation per se is not about mythical savings, and is more about injection of capacity and capability for future working.
Too often organisational design starts with form before we have agreed purpose. Far better to start by asking what we are trying to achieve, what opportunities we want to embrace and what outcomes future generations deserve. In other words, what decisions should we be making now that benefit generations to come? Our Iwi (Māori leaders) would describe these as mokopuna (grandchildren) decisions.
The level of participation, time and effort councils have put into Head Start these last few months has demonstrated a real appetite for change. While proposals differ considerably across the country, it is commonly acknowledged that standing still is not a strategy. Communities are feeling the squeeze from rising costs, ageing infrastructure, housing pressures and have increasing expectations of their councils. These challenges are only becoming more complex. The pace of change is the fastest it has been and the slowest it is likely to be.
In the Wellington region, councils reached different conclusions about the future shape of local government. For me, that was never the most interesting part of the story. The more important lesson was watching local government grapple with difficult questions about purpose, scale, representation, ambition and performance.
As local government waits to see how the new government New Zealanders will elect progresses local government reform, there is a temptation to focus on which proposals advance and which do not. That misses the point. Whatever shape local government takes in the future, the challenge remains the same – creating organisations capable of delivering for communities, protecting the environment, enabling economic growth and maintaining public trust.
Those conversations could be uncomfortable. They challenged assumptions and tested relationships. Head Start demonstrated extraordinary commitment from people who care deeply about their communities while also exposing some of our longstanding habits and tensions. As local leaders we should not shy away from that reality. Change is rarely neat and meaningful reform is rarely comfortable. As leaders and key advisors to our councils we need to beware that we don't fall into prioritising doing things the same way, rather than prioritising the doing of what works. It is incumbent upon us to incubate the conditions for change.
The very short timescale to submit outline proposals under Head Start was a source of grievance within the sector. Though it was extremely challenging and consumed all the air time, I'm unconvinced another two or three months would have made a significant difference.
The most effective Head Start proposals I observed were those that had a clear ‘why' and were the product of collaboration. Collaboration that went across councils, engaged communities and were developed in partnership with Iwi leaders. Politicians and Iwi Rangatira are community leaders and those Iwi leaders are kaitiaki (guardians) for their people, for all people, for our land and our waters. They bring a long-term view to discussions that could otherwise be dominated by more immediate political considerations.
As local government waits to see how the new government New Zealanders will elect progresses local government reform, there is a temptation to focus on which proposals advance and which do not. That misses the point. Whatever shape local government takes in the future, the challenge remains the same – creating organisations capable of delivering for communities, protecting the environment, enabling economic growth and maintaining public trust.
As our Iwi partners reminded us in their contribution to the Wellington proposal: ‘This is not a restructure of councils. It is a rare chance to build something new, and to build it well. The decisions in front of us are mokopuna decisions. The people who will live longest inside what we choose are not yet in any of our rooms, and they will not ask which council held which preference in 2026. They will ask whether we built them a region that works, a whare they can afford, wai they can swim in, whenua that is cared for and a partnership that endures. If we make our choices with their faces before us, the politics of the moment get smaller and the work gets clearer.'
Jo Miller is chief executive at Hutt City Council, New Zealand
