Last week the government announced a delay to progressing any Head Start proposals until next year.

That announcement was met with dismay, angst, frustration, and anger by mayors across New Zealand. The quote that captured it best – “what a joke” – came from Gore’s Ben Bell.

I agree with all of those sentiments, but a delay could nevertheless prove to be a blessing in disguise.

Councils threw themselves into developing Head Start proposals earlier this year, in an attempt to avoid the dreaded Backstop alternative, which would see the government making decisions for them without the benefit of local knowledge.

By the August 9 deadline, 18 Head Start proposals were submitted. They would have impacted about 60 councils, but while amalgamation might provide some breathing room by reducing administration and governance costs, no mayor I have spoken to believed it was the whole solution to the fundamental issues facing their council.

There is simply not enough money to do all the work we are elected to do, and that won’t be solved by amalgamation alone.

I think it likely the HeadStart delays will be much longer than the minister has forecast, and that rather than being rolled out early next year, any changes will be further pushed back by the next government: whether left or right.

If, say, decisions were taken on Head Start proposals by the end of 2027, that would leave too little time for the required system changes to be put in place by councils ahead of the 2028 elections.

The 2031 election date would become the more likely transition marker, if not even later.

That leaves time for a bit of sober reflection about the nature of local government in New Zealand, what it is intended to do, and how it should be funded.

Our system of local government is modelled on the United Kingdom, where it was developed in the 19th century, but there are plenty of examples of quite different and successful models of local democracy around the world.

In fact, even in the UK, major reform is underway to modernise local government in response to the same issues that are now obvious in our own country. That includes the restructure of funding mechanisms, and increased local say in the things that matter most to people like health, education and emergency services.

My suggestion to the next government would be to abandon the idea that amalgamation, or the removal of the Four Wellbeings, or rate caps, or tinkering with the balance power between elected members and council chief executives, will fix the inherent problems within local government.

Instead, it would be better to undertake a more root and branch review of how we govern ourselves. We need to consider alternative models for what needs to be managed at a national level, a regional level, and a local level, and how that should be funded.

Papering over the cracks of the existing system is never going to fix it.

It will take longer, but we need a sustainable solution rather than a band aid.

I will still advocate for a One Southland model if Head Start does go ahead as an interim measure, because any feasible new model of local government in New Zealand – especially if it involves the devolution of powers from Wellington – will inevitably need to be based on regional, rather than sub-regional, splits to provide scale.