The 2013 local body elections saw the induction of new mayors in the Far North and Whangarei, and the appointment of a new regional council chairman. Those three individuals have from the start indicated that they are willing, even keen, to explore ways and means by which their authorities might co-operate, not only to improve the delivery of services but to reduce their costs. That too might well have been a factor in the Commission's decision not to persist with its unitary authority plan.
There would certainly seem to be room for co-operation between councils, without impinging upon their individual autonomy, and the Commission has said it is keen to work with them to achieve that.
It was hardly surprising that the meetings the Commission convened around the region identified a mood for change, in the Far North at least, but two questions remain - to what extent will the Commission enable the councils to make changes, as opposed to leading or imposing them? And will the spirit of co-operation that now exists between the councils survive future elections?
Many years ago a wise man told the writer that a good system will work no matter who is running it; a system that needed the right person to make it work was not a good one. It is distinctly possible that any new system of local government in Northland that is born of the enthusiasm and vision of two mayors and one regional council chairman will not last in the event of their being succeeded by others who do not share their philosophy.
That, no doubt, has occurred to the Commission, which suggests that any changes that might be introduced will, in its view, need to be cemented in place by legislation. If those changes are supported by the people of Northland there should not be a problem.
The issue now, really, is the extent to which the LGC will be the architect of change, and the extent to which, to use the horrible expression that is currently favoured by politicians, it will be the enabler.And there might well be some angst yet to come, principally regarding the manner by which the councils specifically involve Maori in their decision-making and planning processes.
Earlier this year the Far North decisively rejected the prospect of Maori wards being established to ensure a Maori presence at the table. That wasn't surprising either. Indeed, some who strongly supported a system of guaranteeing a Maori voice said they could have predicted the outcome even before the votes were counted.
Whether the outcome of the referendum was a good or bad thing is a moot point. While some saw it as consigning Maori to irrelevance, it might also have been seen as an expression of electoral maturity. It is difficult to argue against the view that Maori have every ability to elect representatives of their choosing, given the Far North's ethnic mix, while voters in general have not in the past shied away from electing Maori candidates without the need for separate wards.
Be that as it may, the Far North District Council will continue to investigate ways in which it can facilitate the expression of the Maori viewpoint to the benefit of the district and everyone who lives there.
Hopefully there will be no significant public resistance to that. The issue is more likely to be how that is to be achieved rather than whether or not it is a good idea.
If the Local Government Commission can assist in achieving that then its input should be welcomed. And prima facie the Commission sees its role now as supportive as opposed to dictatorial.
Chief executive Sandra Preston said last week that there needed to be greater emphasis on the role communities play in identifying the challenges they face, the options available for addressing those challenges and the development of consensus on the communities' preferred approach to change.
The Commission's goal would be to assist Northland in reaching "sufficient consensus" on the changes required and the best form of local government.
If that process resulted in new options for reform, with community support the Commission would then prepare new draft proposals for wider consultation.
The key is that the people of Northland remain in the driver's seat, and that, hopefully, will be the case. The Commission made it very clear in 2012, when the Far North District Council kicked this whole thing off, that at the end of the day the decision would be made by Northland.
That does not appear to have changed, although there are some who suspect that the Commission is a wolf in sheep's clothing, in that it is doing the bidding of a government that wants to see local authorities amalgamating.
That theory would have it that Hawke's Bay, whose unitary authority plan has not been abandoned, drew the short straw. Hard not to see that as a little paranoid, given that Hawke's Bay will vote on what is proposed there, and if the people who currently lead those communities are right will reject it.
If the government really does have an amalgamation agenda it is boxing very clever. Much more so than in the 1980s, when the process that culminated in mass amalgamations, including in the Far North, where two boroughs and four counties became the Far North District Council, was very much imposed from on high.
A betting man would have a dollar on the Commission now focusing on establishing some process for giving Maori a statutory role in Northland's local government, but hopefully the stated intention of allowing the people who will live with whatever is decided to make that decision will prevail.
There is no doubt that local government in Northland could function more effectively than it has in the past, but the last thing we need is for someone outside this region telling us what to do and how to do it.
With goodwill (and there is no shortage of that in Northland) and empathetic leadership (ditto) we can resolve own own issues, and should be allowed to do so.
If the Local Government Commission can help facilitate that, so much the better. But any decisions must be ours.
If they are made for us they will be resented, and that would serve no one's best interests.
