This essay outlines a suggestion not heard for many years: that the political needs and wants of the New Zealand nation could best be met by devolving political power to provincial governments.
Recent demographic work, such as Dan McGlashan’s Understanding New Zealand 3rd Edition, has revealed the full extent of New Zealand’s demographic diversity. New Zealand is actually a fairly large country, measured by land area: it’s larger than the United Kingdom, twice as large as Bangladesh and close to three times the size of South Korea. This is spacious enough for more diversity than one might predict from a small population.
Already it’s hard enough for the entire nation to agree on anything. The country is almost evenly split when it comes to support of the left-wing bloc vs. the right-wing bloc. No matter who wins the election this October, close to half of the country will be disappointed with the result. For all of the 35 years I have followed politics, whoever was not in power was always whinging about that fact.
On many other issues we are far from unified. The cannabis referendum was also an almost even split, with 48.4% of the population losing the potential freedom to use cannabis. When it was found that wage-earners voted in favour of the measure and pensioners did not, and that people were more likely to vote for change the better educated they were, the result was a bitter pill for many.
The discontent created by such outcomes recalls a 19th Century solution that might once again be of use to us: breaking New Zealand up into provinces. That way, each individual province could pass the laws that best fit the wishes of their respective populations.
New Zealand had a provincial government up until 1875, when it was abolished by Julius Vogel, perhaps out of globalist considerations. Ever since then, New Zealand has suffered under one of the most centralised power structures outside of actual dictatorships. Re-establishing the provincial government, and decentralising power back to the regions, could reduce discontent and resentment by giving Kiwis more say in their everyday affairs.
Auckland could become a city-state province with very few trade restrictions, befitting its position as New Zealand’s major trading centre. They might also like to have a Dubai/Qatar/Singapore-style slave army of cheap labour imported from South Asia, which would not be tolerated in many of the other provinces.
Wellington could become a federal capital like the ACT in Australia, or Washington DC in America, in which representatives of the provinces would meet to pass federal laws. It may or may not also have a government just for Wellington Province. This would ensure there was a minimum of disruption for Wellington and for the remaining central government in the transition to decentralisation.
Tuhoe, who have always claimed independence on the grounds that they did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi, could become a self-governing province. They would only be subject to federal law, and would otherwise have the freedom to set their own cultural agenda.
Nelson and Westland provinces could legalise cannabis and grow it on a wide scale, as well as legalise cannabis cafes that serviced both the local and the tourist markets. There’s no reason why these provinces need to have cannabis prohibition just because Pacific Island and Chinese immigrants in Auckland voted for it.
The South Island provinces could collectively reject the grievance industry around Maori land which has engulfed North Island politics, and national politics by extension. Since all the confiscations were made in the North Island, the South Island provinces could reject the “stolen land” narrative and, like Tuhoe, set their own cultural agenda.
When it came to issues like vaccine mandates, individual provinces might wish to have their own policies. The young and healthy population of Auckland Central (Auckland itself might break down into several provinces) might argue that they don’t need compulsory vaccination, whereas the elderly populations of Canterbury and Hawke’s Bay might decide otherwise.
There would still be a central government whose jurisdiction was defence, diplomacy, trade, immigration etc. This would still be known as ‘The New Zealand Government’. It follows that there would still be an All Blacks, a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra etc. but more focus and funding would be directed to the next level down.
With this model, if a person found the laws of their province intolerable, they would be free to move to another province that suited them better. If the high taxes of Canterbury and Otago didn’t suit, a person would be free to move to Auckland. Likewise, if the low-social investment, high-crime model of Auckland didn’t suit, a person would be free to move to Canterbury and Otago.
All moral issues would be decided by provincial governments: abortion, gambling, prostitution, drugs etc. This would minimise the extent to which New Zealanders had someone else’s morality forced on them (of course, for some people, forcing their morality on others is the whole point. The influence of these control freaks would be minimised under a provincialised system).
This would also mean that any one province that developed a superior political system to another would be rewarded with greater internal migration and investment. Thus, the politicians of the country would be set to competition with each other, unlike today’s arrangement, in which the politicians set New Zealand workers to competition with foreign imports.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.
*
If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!
Yes I agree, the concept sounds good and with the right guidelines would work in each province, with federal oversight only needed when necessary. As you point out this would create a form of competition between provinces to perform well for their constituents and budget well. If the power and control of a few is spread to a larger group there may perhaps be less chance of tyrannical governing tactics. With local referendums happening in provinces and more local community input, it should mean the needs in each province will be met. De-centralising should mean less chance of dictatorial rule and globalist style politics.
Somebody’s been reading my mind. A great concept.
Yes I agree very much. Provincialization sounds cool and the fact it has history in New Zealand is very interesting when looking at the issues of our time. I am convinced that centralization fails to deliver sufficient efficiency gains on the one hand and fosters the seeds of corruption and suppression on the other. Regions and cities have uniquely different needs and demographic dispositions and industry bases that are largely ignored by central governments which is more focused on homogenizing everyone and everything into the one size fits all approach.
The greater Idaho project (and Giga Idaho project) in the USA is a good example of this happening today. Likeminded people, communities, industries and regions bringing things together to govern themselves. Decentralization potentially develops real diversity and competition; it is a win- win situation for the whole country in my opinion. Great article, great idea!
Centralisation has never been efficient. It means armies of bureaucrats, government effectively in the hands of unelected faceless bureaucrats, and decisions about local areas made by distant technocrats who have no knowledge of the unique circumstances of those areas. Tyranny and centralisation always go together.
Therefore among the desperately needed changes to New Zealand’s government system – most especially the need for a constitution that guarantees our human rights – we need effective local government. Provincial government and democracy always go together.
“Tyranny and centralisation always go together” – Hence the reason why the Labour Party abolished the Boroughs and Counties back in 1989. Under their current Local Government reforms they would like to see the country reduced to 14 local councils.
Great idea. When can we do it!
There is no doubt the culture of the West coast is very different to Ponsonby/Herne bay. Even North Auckland is not an extension of Auckland. I would vote for provincial Govt in the interests of Unity rather than the present set up so easily exploited by division.
For a long time now, I have advocated that the GST collected in an area should be spent in that area. Something like 75% of it goes to local Govt the rest goes to the federal Govt.
This way, roads are maintained and there is no need to wait for funding. Hospitals are built where needed , not 4 hours away. The only draw back is, if you have a local council that is highly corrupt now. The system will become even worse, if we are not able to audit it and clean it out of corruption.
Great article, works well in the US and was particularly useful during covid with particular states able to stand up to mandates, and as you’ve suggested, it creates competition for each region to offer a better way of life.
As the saying goes, people move to where they are treated best, so any kind of dictatorial or woke mindset can be instantly voted against like we’ve seen with bud light. This would lead to a much more fluid and responsive governance model.
This is similar to the Swiss model where powers are devolved to the Cantons. The Constitution of Liechtenstein takes decentralisation a step further by allowing the local Communes full self-determination (i.e. declaring independence) should they so wish. Political division within New Zealand is only set to increase, this proposal is a logical solution to defusing the situation. I would support this and am interesting in talking with other like-minded Nelsonians who would be prepared to advocate this at a local level.
Christopher Evatt.
“Provincilisation” …fully support this. Why?
+ The Swiss Canton system of participative democracy works with people in the smallest cantons voting with a show of hands; people proposing legislation to be voted on.
It has succeeded in uniting the interests of three nations that have historically been at war: Italians, French and Germans, with the Romans who go back to the time of Rome.
+ decisions that impact people are best made by those impacted because they are more likely to be appropriate, wanted and wisely implemented.
In times of explosive change, to survive and thrive, such responsiveness is essential.
+ responsibility for ones community is best served by those in that community.
These are a few of the benefits. There are more drawn from the what works for organization, from history and currently in other countries.
“NZers for NZers by NZers”
Absolutely agree to change to a Swiss style system. Where the people vote 3to4 times a year on referenda. So it’s the people that decide and not the politicians/councils. It’s the only way forward now. I’m realising how much money is being squandered by our current government or should I say it just seems to be getting more worst of late, well it just disgusts me and this will continue until enough people say Stop.. The waikato would be a very rich district. Where 60% of the taxes stay local. Imagine how good our roads could be!!! Bring it on.
Well articulated, we need more localisation, Thank you. What happens if and when a digitised banking system is enforced upon us? Will there be enclaves that deal by barter or some other system?
Your experience with public enthusiasm for this is the same as mine. People tend to say: “Yeah, well I agree with it…but will it ever happen?”
I say, if everyone agrees with it – then maybe it can!
You might find my 2-minute video of interest. I think the idea is highly marketable (it’s an example to that end).
One thing. I think to make it happen, the best shot could be to promote it to the (or a) provinces, and later promote the possibility for a referendum to secede. Central government probably will not be in the business of giving up power voluntarily. And I think the best chance for a secession would be in the South Island.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxrIFMzqKTs
It’s difficult to know exactly what you are suggesting. You present only a germ of an idea. But how could it be made to work in practice?
With Nelson for example. The original Nelson province went as far down as Cobden on one side and the Waipara river on the other. But if you are suggesting that Nelson city and Tasman district (presently both are unitary authorities) be joined into a single province? There was a study done about that not too many years back by local government Commission, but they decided against it, and apparently the people in both weren’t too keen.
And the other thing is, how would it be funded? If the new provinces are to own and administer schools, would you be happy to pay attendance dues, maybe 700$/year for primary students, in exchange for a reduction in income tax paid to the central government?
If you can’t answer these questions, then I would have to suppose that your ideas are an idle daydream,
> If you can’t answer these questions, then I would have to suppose that your ideas are an idle daydream
These ideas are just a start, there needs to be input from other people as well. Or did you think that I personally had all the answers to everything?
How would it work out on practice? How many provinces do you suppose that we need? And let’s say Nelson for example. We have two unitary authorities here now, Nelson and Tasman. Local Government Commission made a study into a proposal to amalgamate them not too many years back. The proposal failed, for various reasons, not least because most people in either side just weren’t too keen on the idea. The Golden Bay people, for example, didn’t want to be left out in a situation dominated by Nelson urban concerns. And another consideration: how would the provinces be funded? if the provinces were to be responsible for schools, would you be prepared to pay more for education, if possibly income tax paid to central government could be reduced to compensate?