Not Council Policy
Initial Desktop Analysis of Local Governance Options for Canterbury
-
This analysis is intended to provide very high-level initial insights into the possible impacts of three models of future local governance for Canterbury.
-
It has been developed using a Christchurch lens so may miss matters of importance to councils and communities in the rest of Canterbury.
- All options are potentially disruptive in terms of transition. These issues and the impact on communities needs to be more fully explored.
-
The colour coding used below is a somewhat blunt attempt to summarise the efficacy of each of the models to deliver benefits on a range of key attributes of local governance. These are complex matters, and it is not
possible to show the degree of complexity and nuance associate with each, and it is not necessarily the case that all criteria have equal weighting. The colour coding is a rough guide only.
Model is likely to deliver positive benefits for this attribute
Model is likely to deliver some positive benefits but also some challenges possible
Model is unlikely to deliver many positive benefits and/ or may present significant challenges
Business as Usual
Combined Network Authority
Unitary Authority
Description
Canterbury Regional Council delivering services largely based
Local authorities remain much as they currently are.
Combine the functions of city/ district and regional councils into one
on environmental regulation – land, air and water.
Regional authority continues largely with current functions plus
entity.
Local Authorities continue delivering services largely in line with takes on strategic leadership functions.
A range of geographic options available:
current provision.
Regional authority members are representatives from each local
-
Christchurch/ Rest of Canterbury
Could include 2 or 3 waters reform with services no longer
authority plus an elected chairperson/ leader.
-
Greater Christchurch/ Rest of Canterbury
directly provided by TLAs.
Similar to metropolitan/ area council models in the UK such as for
-
North Canterbury/ South Canterbury
Could include some reorganisation particularly if water reform
Greater Manchester.
-
All of Canterbury
makes some councils unviable in their current form.
-
Canterbury/ West Coast
The analysis below is based on the Greater Christchurch/ Rest of
Canterbury option. Note that this could be two unitary authorities or
could be a Greater Christchurch unitary authority and a Rest of
Canterbury combined network authority. Both options also provide the
opportunity for some/ all current regional council functions to be
provided by the two entities via shared services.
Impact on key attributes of local governance in Canterbury
Local
Canterbury is NZ’s largest region and some districts are large in District councils remain largely intact with local decision-making
Local representation would be provided via community boards/ local
representation and comparison with other parts of NZ. Does result in some
potentially le as is.
boards.
decision-making
communities feeling remote and/ or underrepresented.
Largely the same as for the BAU option including retention of
May still result in some communities feeling remote and/ or
Some councils have community boards others don’t.
community boards.
underrepresented.
Generally community boards don’t have significant decision-
Reform to increase local decision-making may be desirable – see
Community board/ local board delegations could be reviewed to
making powers. Reform to increase community board
BAU option.
provide greater local decision-making to offset centralisation of
delegations may be desirable to enhance local decision-making Stronger links between local and regional decision-making may
decision-making inherent in this model.
within this model.
eventuate due to regional representatives also being local
representatives.
Democratic/ civic
Has been on a downward trajectory over past 15 years or so.
Could complicate local civic engagement. Need to have well-
Challenge to increase local decision-making and civic engagement at
engagement
Hard to know if the current structure of local government is part
designed engagement opportunities at the local level.
the same time as scaling up the main governance institution.
of the problem or not.
Local representation and decision-making arrangements likely to
Local representation and decision-making arrangements likely to be
Increased local decision-making in this model may attract civic
be critical.
critical.
engagement.
FfLG report also recommends changes to voting to stimulate
FfLG report also recommends changes to voting to stimulate
FfLG report also recommends changes to voting to stimulate
engagement – no evidence this will work though.
engagement – no evidence this will work though.
engagement – although there is no clear evidence the changes
recommended will have any significant effect over time.
Partnerships with Likely to remain problematic with the high number of small
Could be significantly improved if the number of councils engaging Likely to be significantly improved if the number of councils engaging
Central
councils for central government to engage with.
with Central Government is significantly reduced – e.g. Canterbury
with Central Government is significantly reduced – e.g. Canterbury
Government
could move from 11 councils to 1, 2 or 3.
Not Council Policy
Not Council Policy
Could be improved via bespoke regional programmes though
could move from 11 councils engaging directly with the
Provides scale for proof of concept for innovative service delivery
these are likely to be difficult to establish and maintain.
Government to 1 or 2.
options.
However, the Combined Authority wouldn’t deliver all services
with potential for partnership.
May be difficult to get consensus among councils re what to
partner with central government on.
Te Tiriti
District councils have relationships with Papatipu Runanga
Largely as for the BAU option.
Depending on the level(s) unitary authority operates at the focus
relationships
while Ecan have relationships with Papatipu Runanga and Ngāi With the combined authority taking the lead on strategic issues
could shi to a more regional Ngai Tahu relationship rather than with
Tahu.
there could be a shi in the nature of the regional/ Ngai Tahu
multiple Papatipu Runanga.
Relationships likely to be at varying levels of complexity and
relationship.
Community boards/ local boards would need to be resourced to
effectiveness.
Ngai Tahu favour a whole of takiwā council model though it is not
maintain effective relationships with local Papatipu Runanga.
Ecan o en picks up a regional coordination role with Ngāi Tahu.
clear how Papatipu Runanga might engage efficiently if this was
Ngai Tahu favour a whole of takiwā council model though it is not
Ngai Tahu favour a whole of takiwā council model though it is
implemented. This option provides a degree of scale that may be
clear how Papatipu Runanga might engage efficiently if this was
not clear how Papatipu Runanga might engage efficiently if this
favoured.
implemented. This option provides a degree of scale that may be
was implemented.
favoured.
Economic
Some minor efficiencies and cost savings may be possible
Largely as for the BAU option.
Some efficiencies are possible due to increased economies of scale
efficiency
through use of shared services/ shared procurement.
Some efficiencies may be possible due to increased economies of
and of scope.
Central government transfers and councils having wider ability
scale and of scope in activities that shi from local to regional
May result in new services being provided to some parts of the region.
to set new rates would increase revenue.
delivery.
No clear evidence that bigger councils are significantly more efficient
Some small councils may not be viable if water reform results in May result in new services being provided to some parts of the
than smaller ones.
services and assets shi ing to new entities.
region.
Best for
Doesn’t provide any new benefits for Christchurch.
Largely as for the BAU option.
A Greater Christchurch unitary authority provides the best possible
Christchurch
Efficiencies from any shared service/ shared procurement
Could include reconfiguration of current representation
approach for sustainable, efficient and effective integrated planning
initiatives are likely to be extremely modest and may have a net
arrangements to include some sort of Greater Christchurch council. and service delivery.
cost due to establishment complexity.
Still able to explore shared service options with the Rest of Canterbury
Still don’t have optimal influence over the integrated growth
entity if desirable.
and functioning of Greater Christchurch.
Single point of contact for Greater Christchurch residents and
businesses for council services.
Pros
Little change/ disruption to established organisations,
Regional council responsible for regional strategic leadership is Single point of contact for residents for council services.
processes and service delivery.
more likely to attract central government partnership/
Provides economies of scale and scope post water and resource
Local representation continues as now.
collaboration opportunities than local councils/ current
management reform – if these eventuate.
Some opportunities for improving alignment and efficiency
regional council model.
Councils of scale more likely to attract central government
of service delivery.
Opportunity for Regional Deals – similar to UK City Deals
partnership/ collaboration opportunities – similar to UK City Deals.
Opportunity for incremental improvement in Te Tiriti and
Largely maintain current council responsibilities – little
Better influence over sustainable growth of Greater Christchurch –
Central Government partnerships.
disruption.
assuming RPC is at unitary council level rather than remaining at
Scope to share service delivery/ procurement with Rest of
whole of (current) region.
Canterbury.
Better for planning and delivery of public transport in Greater
Christchurch.
Ability to share service delivery/ procurement with Rest of
Canterbury.
Cons
Current issues regarding funding, community trust, efficiency Won’t provide economies of scale or scope for local councils –
Quite significant reorganisation requirements, particularly for the
are unlikely to be meaningfully addressed.
some available for services where delivery shi s to the regional
councils and communities making up the Rest of Canterbury
No improvement in our ability to influence the future
council.
unitary authority.
direction of Greater Christchurch.
Local communities may feel as though they are losing local
Continued fragmentation of service delivery between
representation.
regional and local councils.
Rest of Canterbury unitary authority has very large area and
May lead to a slow and painful end for smaller councils.
modest population – may be some tyranny of distance.
Not Council Policy
