"I think the Government thinks it trying to fix something, but I cannot figure out if they know what the actual problem is.

So if you missed the news, the Government wants to change how regional councils work. Right now most places have two councils. One looks after things like rivers, air quality, buses and big emergencies. The other looks after things like rubbish, roads, parks and planning. They both have their own elected councillors, their own rules.

The Government wants to get rid of elected regional councillors and replace them with a group called a Combined Territories Board. This would basically be all the mayors in your region sitting together to run the regional council. In some versions the Government could even put its own people on the board, with anything from no vote to total control. This board would then have two years to write a big plan for how councils in the region should work. That plan could suggest sharing services (maybe by private operators, maybe not, its hard to see here), amalgamating with the local councils, or changing how things are run. It must get community input and then be approved by the Minister.

Right now we only have the Minister’s press release and the DIA website to go on. I have a lot of pātai for officials, but until we get answers, I remain skeptical. Here's why.

The first big claim on the documents says this: "Local democracy is important, but many people don’t vote in local elections or understand the difference between regional councils and city or district councils. CTBs simplify governance by consolidating decision making with mayors." Here is the problem. No mayor was voted less than three months ago in to run a whole separate council. They were chosen to run their own patch. Most have never worked across an entire region, and some barely know the communities outside their own. Also, mayoral elections are not any better than councillor elections: same turnout, same low participation, same flawed rules. The government could have talked about changes to improve voter turnout, but there is nothing in here about that, so I do not see how this suddenly boosts democracy. If anything, this is how you get fewer locals involved, not more.

Then we get this line: "While you might know your mayor, could you name the chairperson of your regional council?" So because people fail a quiz, we get rid of regional councils. If I cannot remember the name of my high school principal, do we shut down secondary schools? You get a F for that statement.

Next claim: "Some regions may have Department of Conservation park rangers, regional council park rangers, and city or district council park rangers." Sure. But the work still needs doing. You might shuffle a few uniforms around, but it will not magically shrink the rates people pay. A different hat does not mean a smaller bill, just ask an Aucklander when they became a Super City.

Then: "Councils do not always work together well. There are examples of them contesting each other’s rules and decisions in court." Honestly, show us the examples. Any time one council is the regulator and another applies for a consent, there will be disagreements. That is true for al councils. It is also true for all companies, trusts and private landowners. Saying this is a reason to restructure everything is just sloppy logic.

The only halfway decent point is this one: "Some projects need consent from two or more councils which can be complicated and confusing." Fair enough. But there were already ways to fix that. We had plans for regional spatial coordination under the previous government. We had previous work to harmonise planning rules. We still have national policy statements that have been around since the John Key days. You do not need a giant restructure to sort that out.

To be honest, I think the Government thinks it trying to fix something, but I cannot figure out if they know what the actual problem is. I wouldn't be surprised if this was amalgamation by stealth. 

And look, I want to work in good faith with central government on anything that affects our communities. That is my job. But working in good faith does not mean pretending a bad idea is a good one. It does not mean staying quiet when something feels off. At the end of the day, central government can do what it likes with councils. That is how it works in Aotearoa. My job is to keep you updated and keep the light on. I will do that as this unfolds.