The proposed local government amalgamation has been the second-largest amalgamation since 1989. On this occasion, the amalgamation will see the exit of the regional councils.
Before councils assessing pros and cons of any amalgamation proposals, understanding the basics is the first step.
Amalgamation must be as per the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002, which is reorganisation of local authorities to promote good local government by enabling and facilitating improvements to local governance.
The purpose of the LGA which is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.
The scope of reorganisation under the LGA is wide ranging including amalgamation within districts/cities and regions or districts/cities taking up the functions of the regional and district councils referred to as unitary authorities like Auckland Council.
However, the option of regional council joining another regional council or submitting any reorganisation plan while still lawful has been quashed indirectly because of the government signalling no election of regional councils in October 2028.
The government’s expectation is for districts/cities to form larger more efficient unitary authorities that streamline functions, reduce duplication and improve decision making.
In short, districts/cities must use the amalgamation process objectively as an opportunity to provide substantially superior efficient and effective services.
Regional and district/city councils have distinct and differing functions under the LGA and the RMA. Section 30 of the RMA defines extensive regional council functions which consume four pages of the Act whilst district/city councils’ functions are defined within half-a-page under s31.
Under the RMA, the regional councils are empowered to control take, use, dam and diversion of water, air quality, land use (for the purpose of the management of soil conservation, water quality/quantity, ecosystem and natural hazard), river/lake beds, natural wetlands and the coastal marine areas (from high tide mark to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) towards the sea).
The above functions have been delivered by planning, consenting, compliance monitoring, enforcement and education.
Effective delivery of the above functions are based on full catchment management.
Regional councils also have functions and powers under other legislations such as Biosecurity Act (regional pest management), Building Act (control of dams), Land Transport Management Act (regional transport planning and public transport) and Maritime Transport Act (navigational safety enforced by Harbour Master).
Based on economies of scales the above functions are better delivered at a regional level.
Under the RMA districts/cities control of effects of use, development and protection of the land for the purpose of subdivision, natural hazard, contaminated land and indigenous biological activity management and enabling land for housing and business.
District/city councils also have wide-ranging powers and functions under other legislations such as the Building Act (building consents), Water Services Act (supply of drinking water and management of wastewater and stormwater), Health Act, Food Act (food business, food safety), sales and supply of alcohol Act, Land Transport Management Act/LGA (local roads), Dog Control Act and Litter Act (controlling littering).
From district/city councils’ perspective, based on the Three Waters and solid waste management alone economies of scale become crucial to combine forces with as many district/city councils as possible.
Many readers may still recall the proposal of four entities to manage Three Waters under the previous government which clearly indicates extreme cases of economies of scale in this small country of ours.
Having factored all the above into consideration, the question is which amalgamation option will provide ‘‘best bang for the buck’’ to improve the combined regional and district council services and outcome deliveries under a myriad of wide-ranging legislations?
A sensible pathway is proposals considering the execution of functions under the critical legislations such as RMA, LGA, Biosecurity and Land Transport, to assess efficiency and effectiveness of the amalgamation option.
The government’s official guidance Head Start pathway’s bottom line is at least two councils merging, which in most cases will fail government approval merely on the basis of fragmented catchment management as such misleading and counter-productive to achieve the desired outcomes.
The proposals must be robust to enable executing of the regional and district/city council functions efficiently and effectively.
Councils can also resort to the ‘‘do nothing’’ option to allow the government to determine a pathway.
Despite the large population, Auckland council was formed on the above basis.
Judging by the government criteria, larger unitary option will have greater approval rate.
Being a small nation with low population ‘‘bigger the better’’ should be a sensible and cost-effective option with all benefits of economies of scale but there are legitimate concerns of small communities are being left out.
Provided the above concerns are managed, creating larger unitary authorities have more merits than demerits.
Unfortunately, the pathway provided by the government in the ‘‘Head Start pathway’’ until and after 2028 is head-spinning with several uncertainties.
According to the pathway, current regional council can continue until 2028 to oversee the first generation spatial and natural environment plans. After 2028 government appointed interim bodies will replace regional councils. The process assumes the new plans are acceptable and applicable to the new unitary authorities.
Councils adopting the do-nothing option will continue as usual after the 2028 election with the focus on delivering of the first-generation plans.
Again, the assumption of the planning work being acceptable and applicable to the newly created unitary councils under the backstop process.
There is no timeframe for unitary council formation under the backstop process.
Based on the above clumsy process, the ideal outcome is all unitary councils are appointed by 2027 without requiring a lengthy, costly and complex backstop process with many uncertainties after the 2028 election.
Regardless of the above outcome, new planning process must not commence until all unitary councils have been appointed or the government has provided clear process pathway.
• Dr Selva Selvarajah is a consultant specialising in wastewater, water quality and the RMA.
