Our leaders are perplexed about this. And so they have commissioned a ‘regional architecture review’.

Who is ‘they’ in this instance? The Matariki Governance Group (MGG).

And who/what is the MGG? And does it – should it – matter to you?

If you are not one of Hawke’s Bay’s couple hundred or so ‘movers and shakers’ – defined as those who control or influence HB’s local government agenda – you’ve probably never heard of the MGG. It doesn’t stand for Mighty Good Governance!

Despite its august membership, it has no public identity (its website was recently shut down after several years of not being updated), no transparency, no detectable accountability back to the organisations represented by its members, no ‘paper trail’ of decisions, programmes or accomplishments.

And yet it purports to represent a regional voice for Hawke’s Bay.

MGG was born several years ago as the multi-stakeholder instrument for driving forward a multi-faceted social and economic development strategy for the region – the Matariki Strategy. A noble and needed undertaking.

But pretty quickly it went dark, largely it appears, because although it had a dozen or more ‘stakeholders’, no one really owned it. It had no champion.

Or perhaps more accurately, it became more simply an occasional assembly point for the region’s top elected officials and iwi leaders – the four mayors, HBRC chair and chairs of six post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs, established as Treaty settlements with iwi were concluded around the region) and NKII. Presently MGG is co-chaired by CHB Mayor Alex Walker and Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Chairperson Leon Simes.

Then two things occurred – 1) about two years ago, creation of a new Regional Economic Development Agency (REDA), aimed at surmounting a number of previously failed attempts to advance that long-term economic mission, and 2) Cyclone Gabrielle, which triggered the emergency need for a mechanism – the HB Regional Recovery Agency (HBRRA) – to coordinate HB’s regional response to the disaster, including advocating our financial and programme needs to central government with a unified voice.

As public agencies, these two needed someone to report to. And so MGG – with no ‘secretariat’ of its own – became their overseer.

REDA is funded jointly by HB’s five councils, currently $1.7m per year. Until 30 June next year, HBRRA is funded by the Crown, at $3m for 2024/25. Both agencies are chaired by seasoned top notch executives – Alasdair MacLeod for REDA and Blair O’Keeffe for RRA. Both organisations have boards of their own, leading one to infer, incorrectly it seems, that that’s where their respective accountabilities lie.

One might think REDA, with its long-term mission, would carry on indefinitely, so long as it was meeting approved milestones set by the MGG. The ‘normal’ process would be for REDA to set out its plans on a Statement of Intent that would be approved by MGG. That process is/was underway. But it’s not an arrangement that gives its paymasters (‘rank & file’ councillors at the five councils), already pre-occupied with their own parochial matters, much insight into its strategy or projects.

For its part, HBRRA needs a mission – and cash – for after 30 June next year. From materials received via a LGOIMA request, I’ve gotten a modicum of insight into the workings of this agency. So I’ve read, for example, its reports to MGG. From asking around, these reports don’t seem to be circulated downstream to other elected officials, nor does there seem to be any documented response to them (each of which ends: “MGG input into this work is sought.”)

As for broader performance accountability for HBRRA, as long as media releases with required quotes from all mayors celebrating Crown recovery funding are issued periodically, all seems ‘job well done’.

Cash from the Government on the barrelhead is an easier gauge of performance for HBRRA than assessing how well REDA is nurturing long-term economic development.

Meantime, trapped in the side eddies, is HB Tourism, another regional entity unfunded after 30 June next year (other than token industry support). Apparently totally dependent on further handouts from either central or local government.

What to do about these vexing regional structure matters?

MGG has launched a ‘regional architecture review’ to sort out what regional accountability structure might make sense – providing some accountability and transparency, and perhaps even having some operational duties (think: water services). Of course this must be done in the status quo context of having five councils determined not to cede any of their authority.

Who is MGG talking to about all this? Itself! … according to the review’s Terms of Reference. Even the consultants doing the grunt work have all worked for the entities under scrutiny. What’s the grist for this review? From the TOR:

“Interviews, documentation review, and initial write-up of ‘problem definition’/opportunities. Structured interviews/discussions with:

• Te Kahui Ohanga (TKO) 
• Select Council MGG members and/or CEs 
• REDA 
• RRA 
• HB Tourism 
• HB Chamber of Commerce” 

It’s not clear where in this process the MGG itself gets a performance review? It sorely needs one. And it should be independently conducted. 

And what ‘grade’ would the HBRRA receive from the Crown? Will this review talk to the relevant Ministers, agencies or senior central government decision-makers? 

This is all totally incestuous. Where will the candor come from? Fresh thinking? Versus a heap of turf, agenda and reputation protection … and pre-determined conclusions. What about the views of other key stakeholders in the region’s future?

If the system is not fit for purpose, can the inmates fix it?

Hawke’s Bay needs a long-term regional voice, with appropriate visibility and accountability.

Hawke’s Bay has benefitted enormously from some outstanding independent reviews lately – its handing of civil defence, of flood protection and response, of how to assign responsibility for and fund ‘managed retreat’ from our threatened coast.

How best to organise to pursue critical future regional economic, social and other resilience and aspirational goals is no less deserving of a serious independent review at this opportune time.