17 August 2026 • 9 minute read
Local government reform: what's next?
By the Government’s 9 August 2026 deadline 18 proposals for the “Head Start local government reform initiative” were received. The initiative is described as “a voluntary pathway that allows groups of councils to propose the creation of new unitary authorities ahead of wider local government reform following the 2028 local elections”.1 This article discusses the proposals put forward and what might come next.
How did we get here?
On 25 November 2025, the Government announced plans to make local government “simpler and “more cost-effective”.2 Two changes were proposed: replace regional councillors with a new Combined Territories Board, made up of a region’s mayors and have those Boards “lead regional reorganisation plans”. From the announcement, it appears resource management reforms were driving local government reforms.
Fast-forward to 5 May 2026, when the Government announced the “Head Start" pathway. This appeared to be in response to feedback from councils that they "want more flexibility to get on with reform in a way that works for their region”. The Head Start pathway gave councils three months to prepare an “outline proposal” for their own reorganisation ideas for Cabinet to consider. At the same time, eligibility criteria were released for what could be proposed.3 The basic requirements were that proposals must:
- be submitted by two or more territorial authorities that “together represent a majority of either directly affected territorial authorities or a majority of the population across directly affected districts”.
- provide for unitary authorities.
Proposals could be for sub-regional unitary authorities or cross-boundary proposals (although the most “straightforward approach” was stated as all councils in a region combining to form a signal unitary authority) provided:
- existing territorial authorities are combined and regional council functions are transferred.
- proposed arrangements would result in fewer local authorities overall.
- the proposed arrangements would deliver clearer accountability and effective delivery of key functions.
- the region is large and has complex issues warranting a sub-regional unitary authority.
- the proposal clearly meets the criteria and doesn’t lead to the fragmentation of key regional functions where collaboration is required (eg. catchment management).
The proposals would be assessed by the Government against five criteria:
- Deliverability: Proposals are realistic and demonstrate how new arrangements can be implemented in a timely manner.
- Supports the new planning system: Shows clear support for implementing the new planning system and avoids or minimises disruption to that work.
- Simplifies local governance: Proposes more efficient regional governance arrangements, consolidating decision-making and improving alignment between a region’s councils.
- Economies of scale: Supports regional strategic planning and effective delivery of key regional functions (such as transport and catchment management), and demonstrates responsible and affordable asset management, infrastructure investment, and service delivery.
- Maintains local voice: Demonstrates fair and effective representation for communities of interest and how decisions will be made at the local level, balancing urban and rural interests.
Cabinet is to consider these proposals next month, before Parliament rises for the election. Those selected would proceed to a detailed design phase from October 2026 with a detailed design proposal submitted in March 2027. The intention of this Government is that a final Cabinet decision would be made in May 2027, with enabling legislation to follow. Council’s that failed to made a proposal or were part of a proposal that was not progressed would go through the “backstop process”.
The proposals received
Interestingly, there was no unanimous proposal to make an existing region into a unitary authority. However, as outlined above, this is not necessarily fatal, as a proposal can be put forward by a majority.
A number of proposals were put forward by a majority of councils in a region (some including regional councils). Examples include the West Coast and Northland regions, where a proposal was put forward for all councils in that region by two out of the three territorial authorities. Interestingly, Kaipara announced it would submit its own proposal, despite such a proposal failing to meet the eligibility criteria (and is not reflected in the 18 proposals received).
Three separate proposals came out of the Waikato region. The proposal to watch is a unitary authority comprised of Waikato District, Hamilton City, Waipā, South Waikato District and Taupō District. However, this proposal was only put forward by Waikato, Waipā and South Waikato, with Hamilton City and Taupō not endorsing the proposal.
Also of interest are the two proposals for the Wellington region. Hutt City, Porirua City, South Wairarapa District and Wellington City put forward a proposal for a “Wellington-Wairarapa Unitary Authority”. Masterton District and Carterton District made their own proposal for a “Wairarapa Unitary Authority” for only themselves and South Wairarapa to form a Wairarapa unitary authority.
For the Canterbury region, a joint proposal was made by Hurunui District, Waimakariri District, Christchurch City and Selwyn District. The proposal was for Hurunui and Waimakariri to become a unitary authority, with Christchurch and Selwyn each becoming their own unitary authorities. Mackenzie District, Timaru District, Waimate District and Waitaki District submitted a proposal to form a unitary authority with Ashburton, however Ashburton did not support the proposal.
Two proposals have also been put forward for the Otago region. Queenstown Lakes and Dunedin City, who do not share a land border, submitted a proposal for two sub-regional unitary authorities: one comprising Queenstown Lakes and the Central Otago District, the other comprising Dunedin City, Clutha District and Waitaki (subject to final boundaries being confirmed). Central Otago and Clutha submitted a separate proposal to bring together Central Otago, Clutha and Queenstown Lakes. Additionally, Waitaki, which straddles the Canterbury and Otago regions, supported a proposal with Mackenzie, Timaru and Waimate.
In Southland, Gore hedged its bets by endorsing two proposals: one alongside Invercargill City for a single unitary authority, the other alongside Southland District for a two unitary authority approach.
These are just some of the proposals that stood out (the full list is at the end of this article). Other proposals were arguably less controversial, such as the Marlborough-Kaikōura proposal.
What does this mean?
Ultimately, what comes of these proposals will be decided by Government. It may be only fully agreed proposals will be carried through or proposals could be conditionally progressed on the basis modifications are made. We will know next month what the current Government is proposing. In any event, legislative reform will be a precursor to any final amalgamation process.
What can be said is there does not appear to be any proposal that fits the Head Start pathway “gold standard” of a unanimous proposal to form a single unitary authority out of an existing region.
Most proposals are from a majority of councils, where there is some dissention from a minority who do not support inclusion. For example, Taupō District and Hamilton City opted not to support the proposal for a unitary authority centred around the Waikato river. These two councils would be fundamental to the formation of such a unitary authority and represent a significant section of electorate.
While the Government had signalled proposals will be decided in September, this is shortly before the General Election in November (and squarely during the official pre-election period). Politically risky decisions may be delayed (eg, pressing ahead with amalgamation, despite objections from the minority councils).
Conversely, the Head Start proposal signalled an intent not to fragment key regional functions, such as catchment management and that local government reform is intended to enable resource management reform. An example of this is found in the Natural Environment Bill currently before Parliament, which provides regional councils the function of allocating natural resources, including the taking, diverting and use of freshwater (clause 222(a)). It would be inefficient to allocate freshwater in one catchment across two separate councils.
It may be that the Government’s decision making reflects practicalities, such as efficient resource management, such that it does not accept minority councils resisting proposals from a majority. Alternatively, or it may simply reject those proposals and move to the backstop process of directing what it wishes to see.
While the timeframe for these proposals to be filed has been tight for most councils, it has meant the discussions around the issues of amalgamation have started in earnest (both in terms of local government and the communities) and useful information has been gathered and shared to inform the discussions and decisions to date. This can only be helpful for whatever the next steps are in this reform process.
For now, we wait with anticipation any further announcement in September.
Full list of proposals (Beehive press release “Government to consider Headstart proposals”, 11 August 2026):
- Northland: Whangarei District Council, Far North District Council
- Bay of Plenty: Tauranga City Council
- Bay of Plenty: Kawerau District Council, Ōpōtiki District Council, Whakatāne District Council
- Waikato: Waitomo District Council, Ōtorohanga District Council,
- Waikato: Matamata-Piako District Council, Hauraki District Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council
- Waikato: Waikato District Council, Waipa District Council, South Waikato District Council
- Hawke’s Bay: Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, Hastings District Council, Napier City Council
- Taranaki: Stratford District Council, South Taranaki District Council
- Wellington: Hutt City Council, Porirua City Council, South Wairarapa District Council, Wellington City Council
- Wellington: Masterton District Council, Carterton District Council
- Canterbury: Hurunui District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council
- Canterbury: Mackenzie District Council, Timaru District Council, Waimate District Council, Waitaki District Council
- Marlborough-Kaikōura: Marlborough District Council, Kaikōura District Council
- West Coast: Grey District Council, Westland District Council
- Otago: Central Otago District Council, Clutha District Council
- Otago: Dunedin City Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council
- Southland: Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council
- Southland: Southland District Council, Gore District Council
1 Beehive press release “Government to consider Headstart proposals”, 11 August 2026.
2 Beehive press release “Simpler, more cost-effective local government”, 25 November 2025.
3 Beehive press release “Head Start pathway: Simplifying Local Government”, May 2026.