I have spent a lifetime focusing on the constitutional nuances that shape nations.
My interest was partly formed in the United States, where government operates as a devolved pyramid with conflicting sovereignties between states and the federal centre, and shaped further in the Netherlands, a country of highly localised decision-making through provinces to cities.
As a member of the Scottish National Party, I witnessed Scotland moving from governance by London to powers almost comparable to New Zealand’s dominion status before the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1947.
Which is why I am scratching my head at the passive acceptance by councillors and public of this government’s proposal to abolish regional councils.
As I have written here before, it is perverse that regions over 600km from Wellington have their future decided by a Parliament largely chosen by half of the population clustered around Auckland some 1100km away.
Legislation and policy are shaped to the broad priorities of our largest city and its hinterland. Major regional decisions are increasingly made by unelected officials in health, education and transport, particularly since Chris Hipkins abolished the District Health Boards in 2022.
It is more perverse as we strongly identify with our regions through rugby, culture and in many other important ways.
I am not suggesting the current regions are perfect or well run; the evidence shows otherwise. However, when a loved one is unwell, we fight for recovery rather than euthanise important institutions without any thought. To suggest this, as Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis expressed in his recent article (Opinion ODT 10.2.26), is wrong.
If we are to reform local government in New Zealand, we need to ask ourselves how government should behave and perform. Ending micromanagement and letting professionals work, while providing governance and oversight.
Since arriving in New Zealand I have found that, across club committees, charity boards, even in major institutions such as universities or hospitals, the boards routinely stray into micromanagement and control. Boards should set direction, provide oversight and ensure professionals are supported and held accountable.
Health? Te Whatu Ora delivers economies of scale, but where is our local voice? Education faces the same tension: a central department dictating regional needs.
Policing is similar; New Zealand has one national force, but crime in Dunedin differs markedly from Auckland. We need oversight without micromanagement to be heard. In the United Kingdom, there are elected regional police and crime commissioners who do not manage but provide regional accountability.
New Zealand remains overly centralised, a legacy of Julius Vogel’s abolition of the provinces in 1876.
We are only five million, but are a geographically large nation and dispersed across a landscape of distinct communities, cultures and economies.
Local governance is not a managerial puzzle or structural inconvenience. The regions are the direct descendants of the original provinces, often closer to locals’ needs, iwi and hapū than Wellington can ever be. They can form the vital link between government and the people themselves.
It is a ludicrous proposal to abolish the regions in favour of managerial committees.
A version of this was tried in Greater London. From 1986 to 2000, the Greater London Council was abolished, boroughs operated as individual cities and unelected bodies handled shared functions such as transport. The result was fragmentation without clarity, blurred accountability and disputes over responsibility. When agreement could not be reached, issues were deferred, and infrastructure deteriorated accordingly.
Allow me to suggest two reforms to allow local government to succeed.
The first is straightforward: cease full remuneration and increase councillor numbers. In the United Kingdom, a city the size of Dunedin would have about 50 part-time councillors, receiving a modest allowance of roughly $15,000 plus expenses.
Forty-five citizens offering governance and oversight would cost less than our current model. They act as watch-keepers, upholding accountability and standards.
The second reform is more difficult. It requires a genuine shift in mindset: an end to the managerial culture embedded in our public bodies.
We must distinguish between governance and execution. Councils exist to set policy, provide direction and exercise oversight. Staff exist to implement those decisions.
Too often we blur these roles, with governance drifting into management. Unless this is resolved any form of local government in New Zealand will struggle to function effectively.
Evolving as a nation requires the opposite instinct than that displayed in Wellington: step back from the relentless centralising impulse. Do not abolish; build. Do not concentrate power; devolve. Pass authority from Wellington to cities and regions that understand their own environments better than someone elected in Auckland or an unelected official in the capital.
Trust New Zealanders with their own affairs and they will trust government in return.
- Duncan Connors is a former University of Otago academic.
