Porirua residents to decide on super-council, Pacific leaders urge protection of local representation
As Wellington considers regional amalgamation, Pacific leaders caution against losing local voice in a larger system.
Photo:
Wellington City Council
Porirua voters can express their opinion on the potential creation of a Wellington-wide super-council.
But Pacific leaders have voiced concerns that the model could dilute local representation unless equity and cultural voices are prioritised.
In this year's local elections, Porirua residents will be able to participate in a non-binding referendum that asks whether the city should investigate amalgamating with Wellington, the Hutt Valley, and the Wellington Regional Council into a single entity, while retaining local decision-making.
Porirua Mayor Anita Baker says the timing is right for this issue to be brought to voters, adding that the last formal proposal for amalgamation was in 2013 and that the local government landscape has changed significantly since then.
Pacific leaders are worried that the move could weaken representation, especially if equity is not prioritised and voter turnout remains low.
Councillor Izzy Ford, one of only three Pacific representatives on the Porirua Council, supports the initiative but emphasises the need to respond to community feedback to maintain trust, even though the referendum is non-binding.
According to the council's official report, voter turnout in areas of Wellington City, including Mount Cook East, dropped below 30 percent in 2022. In Porirua, turnout was slightly higher at 37 percent.
Ford hopes the referendum will provide clear guidance, but she stresses the importance of the council committing to listening to the community.
Representation remains a major concern for Ford. She questioned how the council would ensure that all voices in Porirua, particularly those from underrepresented communities, are heard in this process.
Ford hopes the referendum will lead to a definitive direction from the people of Porirua.
"If they give us a total yes and we don't act on it, then that's going to build more mistrust," she says. "There's always that concern, because our people don't always turn out to vote.
"That's a glaring concern, is the underrepresentation of Pasifika around the table."
Engagement with Pasifika communities is important, according to Ford. "Having things translated into Pasifika languages, so that it's a bit easier for people to digest, and going into spaces like the churches, where a lot of our Pacific people are, and then it's non-threatening sort of spaces as well, and using our common faces in those common spaces, so that people can see them as non-threatening."
Gabriel Tupou, Councillor for Hutt City, is concerned that the amalgamation could reduce Pacific representation.
As the only Pasifika councillor in the Hutt Valley, Tupou says the issue must be openly discussed with communities.
"In a super-city model, we risk less representation. Currently, we have 12 city councillors and the mayor. That will be greatly reduced.
"With the large Pasifika demographic we have, they must have input, just like every other community."
Tupou also raised concerns about the referendum regarding Māori ward running alongside the amalgamation question.
Tupou highlighted that Hutt City Mayor Campbell Barry plans to present a similar referendum proposal next month.
"I think it's important to keep the Māori ward question clean and on its own." Tupou says that from a Pasifika perspective, the challenges of running for election are already significant, as candidates need to have broad appeal.
He is also cautious about the financial implications. "We're looking at possibly a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the amalgamation.
"South Auckland enjoys a larger Pasifika community, and they're able to mobilise their voice and voting power to elect Pasifika councillors," Tupou says. "But we don't have those same concentrations here."
Porirua councillors, led by Mayor Anita Baker, back a non-binding referendum asking residents whether to explore forming a super-council.
Photo:
Porirua City Council / supplied
Auimatagai Ken Ah Kuoi, community leader and Kilbirnie-based lawyer, warns that centralising governance could reduce the influence of smaller communities like Porirua, which has a large Pacific population.
He says regional solutions may overlook local contexts, adding that a unified council model could offer benefits, but emphasises the need for safeguards.
"There's a risk Pacific voices could be diluted in a larger, more bureaucratic system," he says. "What works for Wellington might not suit Porirua or Wainuiomata. Pacific communities often have specific cultural needs that may get overlooked.
"A unified council model could benefit Pacific people by improving access to resources and regional influence. But it also carries risks - disconnection, loss of local control, and inequity if not managed carefully.
"To ensure Pacific communities benefit, any move toward amalgamation would need guaranteed local representation, strong community consultation, cultural competency across the new structure, and equity-focused service delivery."
Petone Community Board member Semi Kuresa says fair representation must be a non-negotiable starting point.
Kuresa says while Pasifika make up more than nine percent of Wellington's population, their enrolment and eligibility rates are much lower.
He highlighted three key concerns: representation, cost, and the geographic boundaries of a new council.
"While amalgamation might seem practical to some, it raises serious questions about representation, particularly for Pacific communities," he says.
"The contribution of our Pacific community isn't something that should be reduced to slogans or soundbites. A strong Pacific voice at the table matters.
"As someone intending to stand for Hutt City Council, I'm focused on ensuring communities too often overlooked are part of every stage of decision-making. We can't afford to dilute the voices we need to hear more of."
Voting for the 2025 local elections in Porirua, Wellington, and the Hutt Valley will take place from 9 September to 11 October. Each council will have its own ballot papers. Porirua will include a non-binding referendum on amalgamation and a binding vote on whether to retain the city's Māori ward.
Hutt City is expected to consider a similar referendum proposal in the coming weeks.
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
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
Wellington council to spend $460,000 on coordination service to support rough sleepers
Wellington councillors have voted to spend $460,000 setting up a homelessness coordination service. Photo: Wellington City Council has agreed to spend nearly half a million dollars on a "homelessness coordination service" to support people who are sleeping rough. As councillors considered officers' proposal for the $460,000 service at Thursday's social, cultural and economic committee meeting, City Missioner Murray Edridge noted the rain pelting the windows. "For most of us that makes very little difference in our lives, but if you're doing it tough in the city it changes everything." His organisation alongside Downtown Community Ministry, He Herenga Kura and others, put great effort into supporting those people, he said. "Despite that, we know that we're not getting it right all the time, and we're not picking up everybody who needs to be picked up." The new service aimed to change that, he said. Council officers said the capital's support system for chronically homeless people was "fragmented and under considerable strain". "Agencies and frontline workers are often left to operate in siloes, with limited capacity to align their work, share insights, or escalate challenges effectively," the meeting's agenda document said. "This results in individuals and whānau falling through the cracks, prolonged street homelessness, and growing concern across the community." The new service would bring together - and fund - three key organisations currently supporting homeless people in the capital: Downtown Community Ministry (DCM), Wellington City Mission, and He Herenga Kura. It was not a new outreach service, the papers said. "Rather, it is a dedicated coordination function that strengthens what already works - enhancing collaboration, supporting shared case planning, enabling responsive escalation (including after-hours), and ensuring that lived experience and frontline realities inform how we respond as a city." The service "attempts to address systemic barriers, and connects existing services around the needs of our city's most vulnerable whānau who are experiencing chronic homelessness and that are rough sleeping in our CBD." The funding would be split between DCM ($286,666) Wellington City Mission ($146,666) and He Herenga Kura ($26,668). It would be drawn from the $500,000 annual community safety grant funding provided through the city council's 2024-34 Long-term Plan, and be spent on: Councillor Nureddin Abdurahman asked how success would be measured, and councillor Ray Chung queried whether the service would be able to provide data to prove its success. Officers and the agencies' representatives said change would not happen overnight, and the establishment of the service would not mean people vanished from sleeping on the street. But it would provide a much better picture - including data - of why people were homeless, what help they needed, and what gaps existed, said DCM's Natalia Cleland. That would also help with things like advocating for more support with central government, she said. Mayor Tory Whanau urged councillors to have compassion and support the proposal. "These are our people, these people are part of our whānau, and they suffer from very complex issues that require more than just a roof over their head," she said. "They need our help." Councillors voted unanimously for the creation of the new service, which would happen in the coming months. The funding would continue past the first year if it was deemed successful after "robust evaluation" - subject to funding availability. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
18 hours ago
- RNZ News
Historians call for Ministry for Culture and Heritage job cuts to be reversed
The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is proposing to cut up to six historian roles. Photo: RNZ / Quin Tauetau Historians are calling on the government to reverse proposed job cuts at the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. It is proposing to cut up to six historian positions, leaving about four in place, among a total of 24 positions slated to go. In a statement, eight historian organisations said this was profoundly alarming and threatened to "dismantle decades of world-class historical scholarship, shutter vital resources for history research, and harm public education." "Our history deserves better," said the joint statement from The Professional Historians' Association, New Zealand Historical Association, History Teachers' Association, National Oral History Association, Archives and Records Association, Archaeological Association, Historic Places Aotearoa and the Society of Genealogists. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) said in its proposal document it no longer had the focus, or the resources, to create history content or keep what it had up to date. It proposes to axe most positions working on digital content. The job of carillonist, who plays the bells in the tower of the Pukeahu war memorial in Wellington, would also go. The historian organisations said the characterisation of this work as somehow separate from the MCH's legislative mandate demonstrated a troubling narrowing of vision about what constitutes essential cultural heritage work. "Far from being peripheral activities, the creation and maintenance of historical content is essential cultural infrastructure that allows New Zealanders to better understand who we are." The ministry has been asked for comment. Its restructure last year set it up as "cultural system steward and policy adviser to government", its proposal said. With Budget 2025 cutting $8m from the ministry over four years, it would have to do less, "focused on activities that are required due to legislation, regulation or other mandate", and fewer activities in the community. Read more: How many public sector jobs have really been axed? The historian organisations said "irreplaceable" expertise would be lost in order to make only modest savings. "We call upon the government to ... ensure continuity of the oral history and research funding programmes that have supported New Zealand scholarship for over 30 years", they said, as well as preserve education outreach programmes to schools. Matt Woodbury, co-president of the Professional Historians' Association, one of eight groups, said the ministry was putting irreplaceable roles and online history resources in jeopardy. "I just wonder if they're not fully aware of the high standard and rates of use that these resources have." They were not niche, specialist online resources, but ones the likes of schools used. Getting rid of MCH historians who created and updated the content seemed to run against the work being done to introduce a new Aoteraoa histories curriculum, Woodbury said. Co-president Rebecca Lenihan said: "The impact on teachers if these resources are lost is going to be absolutely horrendous, for secondary history and social studies teachers, but for primary teachers too - how teachers are supposed to implement the new history curriculum efficiently and effectively without such resources at their fingertips is beyond me." [ Finance Minister Nicola Willis has directed public service departments to identify savings] options of either 6.5 or 7.5 percent to help reduce annual public service spending by $1.5 billion. National had campaigned on cutting back-office expenditure across 24 public agencies, as part of its "Back Pocket Boost" tax plan.
RNZ News
19 hours ago
- RNZ News
Government, Opposition scrap over common infrastructure ground
Chris Bishop sparred with Labour's Kieran McAnulty over which infrastructure projects they could agree on. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature - and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to "start on a positive note" on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. "I agree," Bishop said. "That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in Government." The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the Government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. "At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough," he said, garnering an emphatic "yeah" from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. "You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place," he said. McAnulty agreed with, an agreement to disagree. "We think some of the things you've done are stupid... what I would like to see is a commitment," he said. "There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response." More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop : "I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point ... we may not always agree. "For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions . McAnulty: "We know where we're at with that." Bishop: "You sure?" McAnulty: "Yes, I am actually... this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. "This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other." Bishop: "Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid." McAnulty: "Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves." Labour's Kieran McAnulty Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and "sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate". McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. "The point is to have... almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline," Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster - a former Wellington mayor - said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. "Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it - but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money," he said. "I'd rather they just do it." "Enough of those mandates for councils," interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. "We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing," Bishop responded. Andy Foster Photo: VNP / Phil Smith While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. "Depends exactly what you're talking about," Bishop said. "I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact." "So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?" McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. "Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. "Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. "It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'." Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest - which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? "You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening," Bishop concluded - or seemed to. "The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land." "Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords," Genter fired back. The Greens Julie Anne Genter Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers - a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December . The minister did not have the latest numbers, "because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates", but the agency was making "good progress" and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250,000 allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract - whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities - with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: "And the minister doesn't even know ... that's very disappointing." Bishop: "Yes. So's your behaviour." Utikere : "No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive - that is our responsibility. "It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget." Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too - after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would - in turn - have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
