Bay of Plenty Regional Council should not rush investment portfolio, Tauranga Port decision - Opinion

But as I talk with people, one question keeps surfacing: Why are we doing this now?

And to be clear, this isn’t about slowing decision-making. It’s not about dragging our heels or avoiding tough calls. It’s about making sure decisions aren’t made in the wrong order; decisions that could limit the options available to our communities as we head into a major review of local government.

The Government is proposing to enable communities, through local mayors, to review the future form and function of our councils. This will discuss who does what, how responsibilities are shared, and how regional decisions are made.

If the foundations of our governance system are about to shift, shouldn’t we understand the new model before we redesign the structure of a multibillion-dollar fund that supports it?

It’s not an argument for delay; it’s an argument for logic. Sequencing matters. And when you’re dealing with an asset of this scale, getting the order right isn’t optional.

Once a structure like this is locked in, it’s difficult to unlock. And if we make that decision now, we risk shaping the future of local government by default rather than by choice.

After years of local mayors asking to access Quayside funds, perhaps the regional council doesn’t trust that local councils, if given guardianship of the funds, would put the money to good use.

I think the regional council needs to trust that local communities would want to protect the long-term endowment nature of the funds.

I don’t believe it was a major topic in the elections late last year, and it’s interesting that the council – made up of mostly first-time councillors – are proposing this major governance change when they have barely finished their councillor inductions.

Another issue that deserves more sunlight is the language that’s used. The proposal talks a lot about “regional benefit”. It’s a compelling phrase, but do we have common agreement on what it means?

Ask around and you’ll hear everything from economic growth to environmental restoration to infrastructure resilience. All valid. All important. All different. I don’t believe we have a shared understanding, enabling a very wide investment scope.

The same goes for “critical regional infrastructure”. How do we ensure that definition is agreed across the region? These aren’t technicalities, they’re the foundations of the entire conversation. And, they’re exactly the kind of questions the upcoming local government review is meant to help us answer.

Then there’s the fund itself. Some of the options being considered would split parts of the portfolio into different entities. That might sound clever, but once you break a fund apart, you lose the strength that comes from scale. You introduce complexity, you dilute flexibility, and you weaken the compounding effect that has allowed this fund to grow so successfully over the past three decades.

None of this is about criticising the regional council. They’re trying to plan for the future, and that’s a good thing. But planning for the future also means recognising when a decision risks getting ahead of the wider conversation.

If we make big structural decisions ahead of that review, we risk narrowing our future options.

This isn’t about slowing decisions. It’s about sequencing them sensibly. It’s about making sure we don’t frustrate the very conversation we’re about to have by locking in choices that limit our options.

At this moment, the most responsible thing we can do isn’t to rush, it’s to protect our ability to choose.

Matt Cowley is the chief executive of the Tauranga Business Chamber.