Government’s case for local amalgamation undercut by its sheer gall
Wednesday, 6 May 2026
Henry Cooke is deputy political editor at The Post, and writes a column every Wednesday.
OPINION: Chris Bishop can sometimes display an incredible brass neck.
As he announced a new three-month ultimatum to councils on Tuesday, forcing them to either come up with a plan to amalgamate or be forced to by the Government, he admitted that National had not campaigned on it - but said he could do it anyway.
“We didn't campaign on local government reform. That doesn't mean the Government can't do it,“ Bishop said.
He said the proposal had “broad support” but admitted he hadn’t discussed the issue with Labour, instead going on an extensive rant about that party’s lack of policy - a worthy argument made last week in this column, but not a particularly relevant one.
Read more:
Government gives councils ultimatum for amalgamation - change or we will do it for you
Marlborough mayor leaves door open to amalgamation talks with Kaikōura
Asked whether he thought there were enough consultants in the country to be able to get all these plans ready, he assured reporters councils had the resources to get the proposals ready on their own, and said they would have no problems consulting their commmunities quickly. Righto.
Audacity is not a sin in government.
Bishop rightly noted that many areas had been talking about some kind of amalgamation for years without actually doing it. It can feel a bit like getting rid of the monarchy: A goal many can vaguely agree with but few see as an urgent priority. Few would design or defend a system where an area like Kaikoura, population 4000, is treated as a similar unit to Auckland, population 1.8 million. The Waikato, population 500,000, is unlikely to really need 11 different councils.
He is also at least honest about the fact that central government needs councils to do some amalgamating if his reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA) are going to work properly, and deliver all the new housing, development, and economic growth that many in this country clearly desire.
Bishop can also point out that the Government is about to carry out the ultimate referendum on its plan with an election in November. None of these forced amalgamations by government would be ready by then. If the country as a whole really is against amalgamation, it can let the Government know at the election - although it’s worth noting that the third of the electorate that lives in Auckland won’t care much either way.
Yet his three-month deadline - which councils are very incentivised to meet - means many wheels could be turning long before the election. Perhaps that is just political ingenuity to get action where action has long been delayed, but it could rub more than just overworked councillors up the wrong way.
It certainly is hard to marry the Government’s push here with the comments of its Local Government spokesman in 2021 - one Christopher Luxon - who said the previous government’s review into councils was a push towards “centralisation”.
“This review cannot become a byword for centralisation or an opportunity for power to be taken away from ratepayers. It’s crucial that outcomes are led by communities, not by central government.”
This was not a one-off comment. Luxon campaigned explicitly on “localism” at the last election and has talked it up in government too. National attacked Labour’s centralising impulse in health and tertiary education and water services and promised voters repeatedly it would put them back in control of local matters.
It is of course easy to make these arguments in opposition, and find many willing allies when you make them. It is then easy in government to realise that dealing with this many different actors is inherently complex and promotes massive inertia.
Voters themselves are likely to have complex feelings about amalgamation, feelings that may not slot cleanly into a for or against camp. You may like the idea of the far greater simplicity and professionalism amalgamation could bring, with potentially lower rates on offer if duplication really can be eliminated. You may also be a bit worried about the idea that someone who lives an hour’s drive away should have a say on some bit of funding or infrastructure that you and most of your neighbours want or don’t want.
Given how few people care enough about local politics to vote in local body elections, it doesn’t seem likely that amalgamation will be the defining issue for many at the election in November.
As a country of 5 million with most of the taxation and spending power concentrated in central government, our politics are unsurprisingly fairly national. Your council may pick up your rubbish and decide if you can build a new fence, but it is your local MP who has a hand in deciding your superannuation or Working For Families payment, what kind of curriculum your kid’s school teaches, the funding for every police officer in the country, and how much resourcing your hospital gets.
But that does not mean there will not be a backlash to such a bold push from central government to change the way another bit of government operates, made so soon after it campaigned on putting the local voice first. It is easy to argue that this is the right thing to do, but far harder to say that this is the only way to do it.