South Island Assembly could lobby Govt for 'a better deal'
The hastily convened talks on Wednesday followed suggestions that regional councils could be abolished as part of the Government's Resource Management Act reform.
Councillors at the workshop discussed four models, including a Canterbury Assembly based on the Greater Manchester Council model.
While there was limited support for a Canterbury Assembly, several councillors suggested forming a Te Waipounamu / South Island Assembly could be an effective way of lobbying Government for ''a better deal''.
''I don't think governance in Canterbury is mature enough in isolation, but I would be interested in a Te Waipounamu General Assembly,'' deputy chairperson Deon Swiggs said.
''We have a Minister for the South Island and he needs somebody to do the work for him.''
South Canterbury councillor Peter Scott said a Te Waipounamu Assembly, representing more than one million people, would have more clout to lobby Government.
South Island mayors and councils have long raised concerns about the lack of support from central Government.
For instance, the Canterbury region has around 13% of New Zealand's population and accounts for around 15% of vehicle kilometres travelled, but received just 5% of national transport funding.
Other options considered included a combined council, a unitary council(s) and a regional environmental leadership body.
A regional environmental leadership body, which would comprise a mix of appointed, elected and Mana Whenua representatives, attracted the most interest.
North Canterbury councillor Grant Edge said it would require the least transition from the existing regional council structure and would support the move district plans to regional plans.
Councillors Scott, John Sunckell and Iaean Cranwell said they had positive experiences with the transitional council from 2016-19, with the mix of appointed and elected councillors.
Cr Genevieve Robinson raised concerns about the accountability of appointed councillors, but suggested having representatives from each of the 10 Papatipu Rūnanga and 10 elected members.
Chairperson Craig Pauling said a combined council would be similar to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, ''but with teeth'', comprising the region's mayors, a regionally elected chairperson and Mana Whenua representation.
There was little support for unitary councils, with councillors expressing the need for more consideration of how these might work.
Crs Swiggs and Scott said unitary councils in the top of the South Island and Auckland had struggled to fulfil their regional council functions.
Turning the 10 existing councils into unitary councils would require some amalgamation, councillors said.
While it was suggested a Greater Christchurch unitary council might be viable, suggestions of moving to North Canterbury, Mid Canterbury and South Canterbury councils could lose ''a wider Canterbury strategic voice.
Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon questioned the timing of the debate.
''I understand why conversations about the structure of local government arise and if there's a genuine need for change, then let's have that discussion properly, with all the right partners around the table, including iwi, local councils, and our communities.
''But I would seriously question the timing of this debate, especially when councils across New Zealand are carrying the load on infrastructure, housing, and essential services all while managing major reforms and ongoing funding pressures.''
By David Hill, Local Democracy Reporter
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
13 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Covid inquiry: Time to cut Dame Jacinda Ardern a break – Fran O'Sullivan
Sowing dissension when this country could more usefully focus on setting an ambition that might persuade more talented New Zealanders to build their futures here instead of heading for the departure lounge. Fact: Ardern has agreed to give evidence to phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government's response to Covid-19. If she cares deeply for her reputation – and I am sure she does, given the global acclaim that has come her way after her memoir A Different Kind of Power – she will agree to do that in public during the commission's hearings. Ardern doesn't have to come back to New Zealand for that. If the commission calls her – and it should – it can take evidence via Zoom as is now commonplace in transnational court hearings. Subjecting the former Prime Minister to running a gauntlet of personal and potentially physical abuse by insisting she gives evidence in New Zealand will just set off another wave of paranoid behaviour. It won't help in getting to the facts and motivations which coloured prime ministerial decision-making in the Covid years in the dispassionate manner that is needed. The economic trade-offs where the money printers went overtime and dollars were flung at business – critics lament that now. The country has a debt bubble to digest. But it is notable that some critics come from companies that took the Government's financial handouts but did not remit them back when their fortunes improved. The shareholders were winners. The taxpayers were 'tail-end Charlie' here. Go figure. Commission chair Grant Illingworth, KC, has said the inquiry will take public evidence from those affected by 'social division and isolation, health and education, and business activity'. This is important so New Zealand can learn the hard lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and craft strategies for when the next pandemic arrives, as it certainly will. It will also provide a bloodletting for those who were most cruelly affected by the former Labour Government's Covid policies. Hearing from the 'victims' is long overdue. And there are personal stories aplenty, as most can attest. The commission also wants to hear from key decision-makers (and experts) about major decisions and their consequences so lessons can be learned. But the inquiry would be incomplete without hearing from Ardern, former Finance Minister Grant Robertson, former health supremo Sir Ashley Bloomfield and others within the tight Beehive circle that ran the country during the Covid years. It is undeniable that Ardern's performances at the 1pm 'podium of truth', where she and Bloomfield updated daily on the latest Covid situation, were required viewing. Her most impressive attribute was her mastery of that press conference. Her coining of the 'team of five million' (drawn from the late Sir Peter Blake's slogans to build public support for his America's Cup campaigns) to unite New Zealanders in 'fighting the virus' was also masterful. And it worked – at least in the initial phases of the pandemic response. People stayed home. The hospitals were not overrun. Lives were saved – although it is noticeable that the current world Covid death rate statistics show that many other countries did better than New Zealand in the long run. But Ardern's Covid honeymoon was quick to sour. Just one year after she pulled off a historic victory by catapulting Labour to an outright win in the October 2020 election, Ardern's reign hit stumbling blocks. Her Government's tardiness in getting sufficient New Zealanders vaccinated before the mid-August 2021 Delta outbreak helped pave the way for a punishing Auckland lockdown. This was Ardern's toughest year as Prime Minister. Cap that with the politically naive decision not to speak with protesters on Parliament's front lawn – instead of at least speaking with their leaders as commonsense former PM Jim Bolger advocated – and it is not surprising that the tide went out on her prime ministership. It was obvious to anyone coming down from Auckland to Wellington during this period that our political leaders were in a bubble of their own. I went to political journalist Tova O'Brien's farewell from the press gallery on the day we were finally allowed to travel domestically again. It was a different world. No paranoia about drunk citizens hassling or mugging people and acting thuggishly, which had become all too commonplace in the Auckland CBD, where I had spent the past four months. It was all bonhomie and drinks aplenty. The atmosphere also brought into sharp focus the lack of reality that coloured those 1pm press conferences to those watching from Auckland. Bizarre traffic light systems, for instance. The Prime Minister's empathetic response to the March 2019 Christchurch massacre, where 51 Muslims were murdered at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques, had earlier propelled her to international superstardom. The world's tallest building – Dubai's Burj Khalifa – had been lit up with a giant image of Ardern embracing a woman at a Kilbirnie mosque. Her leadership was tested not just by the terrorist attack, but by the Whakaari/White Island disaster and the pandemic. It's ironic that few thank her now for throwing so much money at the crisis. That's the pain of having to pay all that debt back. But there is room to examine all of this dispassionately – not try to (figuratively) hang her again as the more deranged attempted when they wheeled out their noose on Parliament's grounds.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Speech To Quarry NZ 2025 Conference
Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Good afternoon, everyone! It's great to be back at the Quarry NZ conference for another year, standing before an industry that builds New Zealand from the ground up. You are the foundation—quite literally—of our country's infrastructure, growth, and resilience. As this Government continues to lay the groundwork for a stronger, more prosperous New Zealand, your role remains ever important, and I thank Wayne and his team for their continued advocacy and the opportunity for engagement with the sector. Our broken planning system It is no secret we are in a bit of a rut. Yes, some things are turning a corner, but Kiwis are still struggling, and much of the blame lies at the feet of the RMA. Got sky-high power bills? It's hardly surprising when solar farm consents make you invite mana whenua for a karakia every time you want to cut down a native tree, and require compliance reports on cultural impacts years after completion. Got eye-watering grocery bills? It's hardly surprising when councils refuse to zone enough land for supermarkets, and when those like IKEA—still game enough to try to set up shop here—must consult seven different mana whenua groups to do cultural monitoring and provide reckons on technical matters like erosion and sediment control. Can't get on the housing market? It's hardly surprising when the cost of building and consenting the enabling infrastructure means councils don't want to zone for growth, and those same councils also seek to manage everything down to the colour of your front door. We've all heard other stories about lizards, bats, and the rest. I recently heard of a roading project where one of the crews had to do morning inspections to pick up any snails that made it into the construction area during the night—apparently someone forgot to ask what's likely to happen to the snails once the road opens… You cannot make this stuff up. These are all real examples, and I could go on and on, but I won't. Over the last 30 years, the Resource Management Act has become the single biggest barrier to progress in this country. The current system simply makes it too hard, too slow, and too costly to do anything, as if frustrating development to resist growth is somehow going to abate our inevitable need for it. Nowhere is this felt more acutely than in quarrying. Access to high-quality aggregate, in the right places and in the right volumes, is essential. A truckload of aggregate roughly doubles in price after 30 kilometres, yet despite councils being big aggregate customers, their planners won't consent enough quarries where they are needed. When you add to this the chilling effect these delays, costs, and uncertainties have on people's willingness to invest time, money, and effort into New Zealand, it's little wonder we get far too little infrastructure, and any development is delivered far too late. We are bent out of all proportion, and our pursuit of investment, growth, and jobs for New Zealanders will continue to be kneecapped unless we rationalise this system, so rationalise we will. What are we doing about it? The Government is driving a lot of work to turn this around, in the RMA space and beyond. In January, Minister Jones released a refreshed Minerals Strategy and Critical Minerals List—both of which are designed to signal a clear, enduring path for growth. Importantly, aggregate and sands are officially on the Critical Minerals List. That's no small thing—it's a recognition of the critical importance of your work. You heard yesterday about the National Infrastructure Plan—a critical piece of work to ensure we have clear priorities and a pipeline of high-quality, vetted projects that will reduce the likelihood of wasteful vanity projects that end up needing the chop. We simply cannot afford such waste and disruption. As Infrastructure Under-Secretary, I've developed and enhanced a range of procurement pathways and funding and financing tools—including PPPs and strategic leasing—to give us the right tools to deliver infrastructure more effectively. You've heard from WorkSafe—my colleague Minister Brooke van Velden is working hard to rationalise health and safety requirements, consistent with the thrust of the broader work Regulation Minister David Seymour is doing on slashing unnecessary red tape. In the RMA space, in our first year, Ministers Bishop and Jones introduced fast-track legislation to expedite approvals for nationally and regionally significant projects. We're also currently consulting on a raft of changes to RMA National Direction to provide earlier relief that will fold into our RMA replacement, something I know is particularly pertinent for the quarry sector. RMA National Direction changes There are over 20 pieces of National Direction that sit beneath the RMA. While they attempt to provide clarity, they have instead evolved into an amorphous, incoherent mess, and I know the quarrying sector has felt the brunt of this. That is why specific changes for quarrying form a key part of the package currently out for public consultation. The proposals seek to clarify that quarrying is much more than 'aggregate extraction'—something currently unclear in the National Policy Statements for Indigenous Biodiversity and Highly Productive Land. They seek to address inconsistent and prohibitive thresholds for quarries around "significant natural areas' and 'highly productive land' to lift the unnecessary burden of proving a particular quarry's benefits could not be achieved using other resources in New Zealand. They also recognise that there are technical, logistical, and operational factors that need to be considered around wetlands, not just whether there is a functional need for a quarry in a particular location—if you took that approach to its limit, we'd soon be importing aggregate from the East Coast of Australia! Also among the package of proposals is a new instrument that fills a long-lived void in our resource management system. Until now, there has been nowhere in the RMA nor its National Direction that has recognised the national importance of infrastructure. This has left infrastructure suffocated beneath environmental protection and excessive precaution, stifling development out of all proportion to the risk needing to be managed. That is why I have led the development of a new National Policy Statement for Infrastructure. This new NPS will fix patchy, inconsistent rules and put infrastructure where it belongs: front and centre. Given the critical importance of quarrying activities, I have made sure these have been explicitly recognised. The same goes for waste infrastructure, because we also need a simpler pathway to consent the disposal of unsuitable and contaminated materials. All these changes will take effect in consenting decisions under the current RMA while we get on with replacing the RMA for good, which is the next thing I want to cover off. RMA replacement I believe the single most important commitment in the ACT-National coalition agreement is full replacement of the RMA with a system based on property rights. The national direction changes are important, and their policy intent will be carried over insofar as it remains relevant, but panel-beating a lemon will only take us so far. The concept of 'integrated management' in the RMA has created a behemoth that seeks to manage everything out of all proportion to the risks, and it has failed both the environment and human development in the process. That is why we are dis-integrating the system into a Planning Act and a Natural Environment Act. This will direct a sharper focus on identifying the real problems the system must solve—like achieving environmental limits—and will reduce unnecessary imposition on people's property rights in the process. Increased standardisation will further streamline this narrowed system—there's no reason not to codify what we already know how to do well, and this will lead to consenting by exception rather than default. We cannot have 38,000 resource consents per year, packed with pages of absurd conditions. It is completely unnecessary. Focusing on front-loading people's involvement into national direction and the planning process will also stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry from all corners of the country inserting their opinions into your consent application. And why not front-load any required Māori engagement? I've heard from iwi leaders who themselves are frustrated with the burden of reviewing other people's consents rather than progressing their own projects. Where there are obligations to consult Māori groups, their input would be much more useful at the national direction or planning stages than down in consenting. Shifting to spatial planning will help identify regionally significant matters and areas in advance, reducing uncertainty, cost, and conflict. Combined with the Infrastructure Commission's great work on identifying New Zealand's aggregate resources, this provides a great opportunity for future growth. And what if planners don't get on board with the new system? We have a low-cost disputes process coming in the form of a Planning Tribunal, so when councils ask for information that is not necessary to manage risks, or seek to impose arbitrary conditions, they will be held to account quickly and publicly. There's a lot more to it, but what is clear is that under this new system things will be much faster, cheaper, more rational, and more certain. It will mean better utilisation of the natural resources we are blessed with in New Zealand, so we can extract, process, and build, baby, build. Timing You're probably wondering—is this not going to take years? We recognise both the need for wholesale reform as well as the very real pain people continue to experience here and now, and we have sought to balance that. Fast-track is already law, as are some initial targeted RMA amendments. RMA Amendment Bill 2 has gone through Select Committee. We have this suite of national direction out for consultation, set to take effect late 2025 to early 2026, which I encourage you to engage on. Meanwhile, we have been working tirelessly to shape up the new system for introduction by the end of the year, passing by mid-2026, and the bulk of implementation through 2027. Conclusion All of this recognises that if we want to build a better New Zealand, we first need to make it easier to build. And if we want to make it easier to build, we need better access to our key resources. We need to recognise quarrying for the cornerstone it is. So thank you for what you do every day. Thank you for supplying the materials that make New Zealand possible. Let's keep working together to unlock our country's full potential—one truckload of rock at a time.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
NZ Jewish Council And Holocaust Centre Of NZ Urge Govt Action Following Australia's Landmark Antisemitism Strategy
The New Zealand Jewish Council and the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand are calling on the New Zealand Government to urgently develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy to combat antisemitism, following the bold and principled leadership demonstrated by the Australian Government yesterday. Australia's plan, announced by Prime Minister Albanese, Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke, and Special Envoy on Antisemitism Jillian Segal, introduces strong, decisive measures aimed at tackling anti-Jewish hate across multiple sectors of society. Notably, institutions such as universities and arts organisations will face the loss of government funding if they fail to address antisemitism within their ranks. Standards are being introduced across education, public service, cultural sectors and media, reinforcing a zero-tolerance approach to hate and discrimination. In contrast, New Zealand has remained largely silent in the face of a marked and disturbing rise in antisemitic incidents, particularly in our universities. Over recent months, Jewish students and academics in Aotearoa have reported a growing climate of hostility and fear, from intimidation and exclusion to open displays of antisemitic rhetoric. We have reached a point where many no longer feel safe expressing their identity on campus. Much of this rhetoric is disguised as concern for the human rights of Palestinians or concern about Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza, both positions which the Jewish Council and Holocaust Centre have repeatedly said do not constitute antisemitism. However, explicitly or tacitly endorsing violence or discrimination against Jews, including the vast majority of Jews who believe that Jewish people have the right of self-determination, is antisemitic. Jews who believe in Israel's right to exist, regardless of their position on the current war or actions of the Israeli Government, face discrimination. 'This is not theoretical,' said Ben Kepes, spokesperson for the NZ Jewish Council. "It is Jew-hate. We are hearing from young Jewish New Zealanders who avoid wearing visible symbols of their faith, who choose to remain silent in classroom discussions, and who fear for their safety. We have Holocaust survivors being retraumatised by vile slurs reappearing in public spaces. This is a crisis.' 'Antisemitism in schools is reaching epidemic proportions,' said Deborah Hart, Chair of the Holocaust Centre of NZ. 'Our children are fearful and feeling victimised with troubling frequency.' The Council and Centre support the adoption of a clear and consistent policy against antisemitism across all public institutions and call for funding mechanisms to be reviewed in line with a zero-tolerance policy toward hate. Institutions that enable or ignore antisemitic conduct should not continue to receive public support. Antisemitism has moved from the fringes to the mainstream in many Western democracies. New Zealand is not immune. What happens next will determine whether Jewish Kiwis, students, teachers, professionals, artists, and community members continue to feel they have a place in the Aotearoa we all call home. The Australian Government has recognised the danger and acted. We urge our leaders to do the same.
