Background: In response to the Central Government’s Simplifying Local Government reform edict to come up with a Headstart Option, the Thames-Coromandel District Council established a dedicated Working Group to develop up to three structural reform options by 9 August 2026.
Three shortlist options were identified and agreed at the council meeting on the 16 June 2026. It was agreed that these shortlist options undergo further investigation and public feedback to support councillor decision making, the options were:-
• Greater Waikato – OPTION ONE
• North Bay of Plenty – OPTION TWO
• East Waikato (Temporarily called Waihou-Piako-Coromandel) – OPTION THREE.
Public feedback was duly sought but it was hurried.
At a council workshop on 28 July, councillors carried out a further assessment of these three shortlist options and advised the Working Group and staff to focus on a Headstart Proposal for Option Three – Waihou-Piako-Coromandel.
“Staff and the Working Group to submit a Draft Waihou-Piako-Coromandel Headstart Proposal for Council’s consideration.”
Leading up to 28 July, other options were suggested, requested, written in the survey, researched and published by residents and ratepayers – but to no avail. As stated clearly, the “public feedback (was) to support councillor decision making“ which was the prior choice of three options leading to Option Three.
It seems that the point of all the consulting with the public, “Which way should we go?” was to “get public feedback to support councillor decision making”.
There is no evidence for the public that another ‘Option’ other than the published ‘Three Options’ was seriously encountered or risked putting forward by our elected members or the Working Group or staff. The Council meeting, as this newspaper arrives in letterboxes and stands, will largely debate Option Three – that is the extent of the democratic process.
I am writing as if Option Three is already decided. It might not be. After all, 46% is not a majority. Indeed, the total number of submissions/surveys was only a small proportion of our population.
If the Council agrees to submit a Headstart Proposal, the Working Group and staff will continue to work with partner councils (Hauraki District Council and Matamata-Piako District Council) to finalise their Headstart Proposal for submission by 9 August 2026.
No matter what the decision on Options, the people must insist on a voice and a vote commensurate with our value and our significant character and unique potential as a Peninsula.
Memorandum of Understanding
A Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared and is proposed by TCDC for the other two district councils in Option Three. It holds some hope.
The purpose of the MoU is to clearly identify what is important to Thames- Coromandel District Council. The very first point is, “Representation and local voice”. We would all agree that this is vital – equality and power to influence for Thames – Coromandel; but it needs to mean more in the future than it has in the recent processes. The Informer is including all levels of Government.
The Memorandum of Understanding will also be considered at (4 August) Tuesday’s meeting. A full copy, called attachment 2 can be found on the TCDC website. An extract of the key components of this Waihou-Piako-Coromandel MoU is set out here.
SHARED & AGREED PRINCIPLES
The Parties agree that the following principles inform the development and assessment of the Head Start East Waikato proposal:
3.1 Representation and Local Voice: Representation must acknowledge both resident populations and non-resident ratepayers, with a clear line of sight between communities and decision-making at both local and higher levels.
3.2 Affordability, Efficiency and Sustainability: Any proposed model should be capable of demonstrating improved affordability, efficiency, value for money and long-term financial sustainability.
3.3 Iwi and Hapū Partnerships: Existing and future obligations to iwi and hapū will be recognised, valued and honoured, including commitments arising from Treaty of Waitangi Settlements, statutory obligations and established relationships.
3.4 Collaboration: The proposed arrangements must foster greater collaboration, Co-ordination and consistency across key functions where this improves outcomes for communities.
3.5 Evidence and Community Input: The proposal development will be based on robust evidence, analysis, community feedback and stakeholder engagement.
3.6 Strong Local Voice: Local identity, local representation and local influence over local priorities and services must be maintained and/or enhanced.
3.7 No Community is worse off from Legacy Decisions: Where reasonable and practicable, communities should not be disadvantaged by historical funding decisions made elsewhere. Legacy assets, reserves, liabilities and rating arrangements must be managed fairly and transparently throughout any transition.
It was agreed if the Waihou-Piako-Coromandel proposal was adopted by all three councils, this MoU would be signed by the three Mayors following agreement: Mayor of Hauraki District Council, Toby Adams, Mayor of Matamata-Piako District Council – Ash Tanner, Mayor of Thames – Coromandel District Council, Peter Revell.
